Three years to make a race official?

About three years ago—July 17, 2021—around quarter to 10 or so, yet another spectacular field of harness racing pacers went behind the gate at The Meadowlands for the famed Meadowlands Pace.

$700,000 was on the line—no small change—featuring the finest horseflesh in our sport over a racetrack labeled “good” with a one second allowance attached to the chart as the track was not quite as sharp due to rain in the area.

Nevertheless, the dampness from the sky couldn’t dampen the enthusiasm or anticipation for one of the greatest spectacles in our sport.

…A season of preparation for an event that would probably be official in one minute and forty-eight seconds or so.

It was a humdinger, all right.

There was action from the get-go with drivers “jockeying” to make the right decision every step of the mile—it was classic Meadowlands style racing.

What a scramble when the bell rang.

Some called it a “cavalry charge” one of those “12 second” open eighth mile sprints scorching the track.

Those with outside posts—six out—looked to be in trouble with only One Eight Hundred (7) and Timmy forging forward and Charlie May’s handler, Brett Miller, avoiding a possible problem with his alertness while being shoved “eighteen” wide…well, not 18, but way, way out before catching the flow forward.

A hot :25.3 opener had One Eight Hundred in front but not for long as an unfortunate equipment failure doomed his chances with Tim keeping the others safe.

From there, Lawless Shadow assumed control for Mark McDonald…again, not for long as Perfect Sting, teamed with David Miller, forged his way to the front halfway through in :53.2 with Southwind Gentry and Yannick on a double bubble binge moving into second, Lawless Shadow forced to be patient with Charlie May ready to make a double-bubble move of his own turning for home after three-quarters in 1:21.3

Yes, there was some confusion around the final bend—no doubt about that.

A “nano-second” bobble…by Charlie May…but he caught quickly…but a bobble that will live in infamy in our sport.

But harness racing—all pari-mutuel racing and, now that I think of it, ALL SPORTS have contact here and there.

That’s what umpires are for…NFL officials…referees…judges on the tennis courts…you name it!

Right or wrong, that’s why we have judges officiating sports.

Most of the time, the confusion or contact is unintentional and, in our sport, the expertise of the drivers competing keeps 99.99% of potential tragedies from becoming tragedies.

Heck, something happened in that first turn during that opening scramble that could have been tragic…but it wasn’t.

Shortly after, Tim kept his fellow horsemen out of harm’s way with One Eight Hundred…in what could have been a “9-1-1” situation.

It could have been much worse around the final bend…much worse than worrying about the $2 or $200 wagers on any of the horses.

How do you think those that bet on Timmy’s One Eight Hundred at 5 to 1…

But that’s racing!

It happens!!

But what a scramble to the wire it was.

Perfect Sting fighting tooth and nail…Lawless Shadow…finding some room to roam in deep stretch with Charlie May surging.

MEADOWLANDS PACE 2021 REPLAY

The photo sign went up…so did the inquiry sign…and the beginning of a three-year-discussion was about to begin.

The photo, indeed, showed, Charlie May the winner with Lawless Shadow and Perfect Sting next.

But the inquiry, of course, had to go further down the line…all the way down to the horse that crossed the wire last, as this was the basis for the inquiry.

I certainly wouldn’t have wanted to be in the judges’ position…an impossible call.

Either way—whatever the decision—there would be naysayers…and say-nayers! (My new word!)

The folk that had a $2 wager on Lawless Shadow’s nose were happy…those that had $20 on him were even happier.

Those who had bet Charlie at 14 to 1, well, they were crying in their beer…some even keeping their losing tickets…just in case a miracle—that never happens after a race is official—happens this one single time,

And that disqualification had implications all the way down the line with Charlie May placed last of those horses that finished the race.

There has been a lot of wrangling going on over the past three years…back and forth…back and forth.

There were those that showed criticism that the judges did not speak with any of the drivers in the race.

There are arguments on both sides of the coin on that.

These gentleman—these drivers—the best in the business—have to work together day after day, night-after-night…not just a The Meadowlands but at all of our harness racing tracks throughout the world.

These judges are the best in the business, too.

They are no different than the judges that have the burden of all of these Trump cases and every other legal case throughout our world—millions and millions of them.

Whatever their decisions, some will laud their decisions, and some will shame them.

It’s LIFE!

In harness racing, it’s very difficult to point the finger at those that work with you as closely as they do—inches apart—and revenge on a racetrack, well, there is nothing more dangerous than that.

It’s a very rare occurrence these days that one driver makes an objection against another…that’s what judges are hired to do.

So, why this Mane Attraction rehashing this event from three years past?

Well, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New Jersey issued their ruling, which was submitted May 28, 2024, on July 2, 2024, and, in a 21-page ruling, regarding Mr. Tiger’s appeal from April 2023, upheld the order of finish from that event, rejecting the Administrative Law Judge’s recommendation.

Mr. Tiger filed the appeal and hearings were held in December 2021 and January. 2022 with Mr. Tiger testifying in his own defense as his horse was initially declared the winner.

After testifying that the decision was made after “only 6 1/2 minutes,” Mr. Tiger summoned an expert to testify.

The expert was a licensed trainer that has served a judge in three States—not in New Jersey— with an opinion that he felt the judges did not fulfill their responsibilities by not exhausting all means possible to safeguard the outcome of the race for “its contestants” and “public at large.”

An interesting “twist” in the hearings developed a few months later when there was a regional meeting of racing officials and a new rule was proposed, agreed upon and adopted known as the “Charlie May Rule,” providing that race officials to interview as many drivers as possible and other involved before a decision is made final; on any outcome.

Yet another Judge was summoned for testimony, and he affirmed without doubt that Charlie May was off stride with others making breaks.

He also testified that speaking with drivers could get biased opinions and that the fairest way to make decisions is to make decisions on the many camera angles available during a race.

Other factors did come into play during the proceedings, including potential conflicts of interest.

No stone was left unturned in this investigation.

There are no sides to the scales of justice.

Justice for one is deemed unfair to the rest.

Justice for the rest is deemed unfair to one.

The complexities are, seemingly, endless.

Credibility issues always come into play…body language is observed…comfortability, too.

Eye contact…again, body language during testimony…

Should there have been any recusals by the officials…

There are so many “fine lines” in an investigation of this magnitude…split second decisions on whether the safety of any particular horse, horses, driver or drivers are at issue during this time, which may be, as we now have heard in recent times, a NANO-SECOND!

Were the actions of the driver necessary to avoid a collision and preserve the safety of participants.

What about the horse in front of Charlie May?

Was “time” a factor…being the race was televised? And what about the “next race” post time…did that have anything to do with the timing of the “DQ?”

Could more “due diligence” have been exercised?

What about the wagering public?

Harness racing is a spectator sport…how were the fans represented?

Where’s the evidence—undisputed evidence—to back up any decisions?

There are two sides to every coin…either you believe testimony or don’t believe it.

It’s a tough call…50-50.

One party says the person testifying was not clear…not truthful…not accurate…

The other side said just the opposite.

Would there have been any difference if a driver’s objection had been lodged?

(None was lodged after the race.)

Was all relevant information available from the video negating the necessity to interview any drivers?

When the State has discussions on something of this magnitude, to their credit, there are reviews of the principles governing the analysis.

It’s a meticulous undertaking searching for fact and conclusions of law based on sufficient, competent and credible evidence.

From there, each side involved may file “exceptions, objections and replies” and present their arguments.

This is reviewed and either adopted, rejected or modified the report and decision.

If anything is rejected or modified, reasons for doing so must be stated clearly and determined and supported by facts not supported by sufficient, competent and credible evidence.

Since the racing industry is one that is highly regulated, its expertise is acknowledged with “deference” to the Racing Commission’s expertise and that the overriding goal in its regulations issued to insure the public’s confidence in the integrity our industry.

In other words, they explain, “We do not substitute (our) own judgement for the agencies.”

While they are “in no way bound by (an) agency’s interpretation of a statute or its determination of a strictly legal issue,” the party challenging has the burden to demonstrate grounds for reversal.

That’s the crux of this whole, on-going situation for the past three years and a few days.

Nearing the conclusion of the report, the following words were written…“Considering the video evidence, we are satisfied driver interviews were not necessary.”

This investigation was “exhaustive” and the fact that no drivers were interviewed was based on the clarity of the video and the concern that drivers in the race would provide “biased” or “skewed” opinions.

So, when all was said and done, three years and a few days of all of this legality stuff, it all came down to the video—the NANO-SECOND—when Charlie May took the most important misstep in an otherwise great racing career.

Amazing what one stride in a million can do to upend racing.

May the horse be with you!

by John Berry, for Harnesslink