Life at Ten, the 7-2 second choice in the wagering, ran poorly and was never
A complete copy of the investigation’s final report to the Kentucky Horse
The intent of the lengthy and detailed investigation was to determine if
The report, reviewed and adopted by the Commission, indicates no evidence of
|
The report also reveals a systematic breakdown in communications among the
various people either working directly for Life at Ten and her connections or
working for the KHRC and the Breeders’ Cup.
The Commission, in reviewing and adopting the report, found probable cause
that Life at Ten’s jockey Velazquez violated:
” 810 KAR 1:009 Section 10 (Duty to Fulfill Engagements)
” 810 KAR 1:016 Section 14 (Horses to be Ridden Out)
” 810 KAR 1:025 Section 14 (1) (Q) (Conduct against the best interest of horse
racing, under ‘License Denial, Revocation, or Suspension’)
And that Chief Steward John Veitch violated:
” 810 KAR 1:004 Section 4 (1) (Duties and Responsibilities of Stewards to
take appropriate action regarding possible infractions)
” 810 KAR 1:004 Section 4 (8) (Duties and Responsibilities of Stewards involving
scratches)
” 810 KAR 1:012 Section 9 (1) (Regarding determinations of whether a horse is
serviceable for racing)
” 810 KAR 1:016 Section 14 (Stewards’ responsibilities under ‘Horses to be
Ridden Out’)
” 810 KAR 1:018 Section 11 (Sample Collection, Testing, and Reporting)
Those Kentucky statutes and regulations are accessible as
Appendix A of the Ladies’ Classic Investigation Report.
Both Velazquez and Veitch are entitled to a hearing before a hearing officer
who will make recommendations to the full Commission on findings of facts,
whether there was, indeed, a violation, and recommended penalties. That
recommendation will go to the full Commission which could accept, reject or
modify the hearing officer’s recommendation.
The Commission did note that a number of recommendations regarding policy,
procedure and protocol will receive careful attention in order to prevent such
an incident from occurring in the future.
The report further points out that one regulation that may have had a
positive influence on this incident was in the review process prior to the
Breeders’ Cup, but did not take effect until February 2011 — namely, the
post-race sampling procedure.
Life at Ten was not sent for sampling, a decision that the stewards
subsequently regretted. Under the new regulation, in graded stakes races, one or
more additional horses — beyond the top three finishers — will be selected for
sampling based on the guidelines set forth in the regulation. Under the sampling
criteria, Life at Ten’s poor performance would have resulted in her being
selected for testing.
KHRC Director of Enforcement Patrick Adams led the investigation.
Additionally, the Commission requested that the Kentucky Transportation
Cabinet’s Office of Inspector General analyze the racing stewards’ activities as
an outside, independent party in order to avoid a potential conflict of
interest.
In all, 90 people were interviewed either by the KHRC enforcement staff or
the Office of Inspector General.
Breeders’ Cup Ltd. responded to the report with a collective statement.
“We appreciate the work that the KHRC has undertaken in this matter,” the
release said. “We will review the report findings in detail to address
communications issues and on-track protocols moving forward.
“As always, the safety and welfare of the participants in our races and the
protection of the betting public are foremost in the concerns of the Breeders’
Cup. We will work with racing regulators and future host facilities to ensure
that the Breeders’ Cup World Championships meet the highest standards in these
areas.”
Prior to the report’s release late Thursday afternoon, Pletcher had released
a statement summing up his view of the matter, reiterating “we were all
disappointed by her performance in the Breeders’ Cup Ladies’ Classic.
“As I’ve stated publicly, while she was quieter than usual before the race in
the paddock, there was nothing else that I observed that concerned me
whatsoever.
“We know that she trained brilliantly up to the race. We know she was
examined on a regular basis by her primary care veterinarian. We know she was
scrutinized by numerous state and Breeders’ Cup veterinarians the week leading
up to her race, and again on race day.
“We also know that there were 12 attending veterinarians actually present for
her race,” Pletcher continued. “We know that her pre-race medical history is unremarkable as she was
completely healthy, sound and prepared to compete in the Ladies’ Classic.
“We now know from State officials that her pre-race blood sample was
subjected to comprehensive instrumental screening analysis — consistent with
analysis performed on post-race samples and that no prohibited substances were
found.
“Finally, we know that the racing Stewards of the State of Kentucky conducted
their own investigation in November 2010 and concluded that neither I nor the
mare’s rider, John Velazquez, did anything wrong.
“What we don’t know are the contents of the ‘Report’ which is scheduled to be
presented to the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission today because our request for
a copy was declined. What we also don’t know is why this presentation is being
made to the Commission behind ‘closed’ doors where the public is excluded. This
is a troubling approach and may be ignoring fundamental due process principles.
“We can only hope that the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission has seized upon
this opportunity to make lasting improvements for the benefit of the betting
public and fans alike,” Pletcher concluded. “We have fully cooperated throughout this entire
four-month process in the hopes that our participation will result in changes
that are both positive and meaningful for all of racing.”