The courtesy tuck conundrum

State racing commissions have been thorns in the sides of horsemen, horseplayers, and racetracks for as long as I have been following harness racing. Those with the authority to make critical racing judgments are frequently political appointees with no knowledge of the game over which they rule. I have had a few run ins with these commissions, and my last contact with them ensures that it will be my last attempt to seek justice.

There was a race at The Meadowlands in which I questioned the effort of the driver on the prohibitive favorite. His horse was second when they hit the stretch, and the horse in third was far behind. The driver of the favorite never got his horse in position to pass the horse in front of him the entire stretch, even though there was no other horse around. I emailed the NJ racing commission, and after a few pleasant back-and-forth contacts, the final conclusion was, “he wouldn’t have won anyway.”

Since there is no higher office than the “handicappers” in the office of the NJ Racing Commission, following up seemed pointless. It became clear that contact with the racing commission from a bettor’s perspective was a waste of time. It also helps us to understand the issues that horsemen and racetracks have with this important state government office. Note: The horse in question who ‘would not have won anyway’ won his next two races.

So-called ‘courtesy tucks’ is an ongoing issue that refuses to go away. The Meadowlands addressed the issue, and it appears that the NJ Racing Commission agreed, based upon their own rules. The problem remains, as it requires the commission to interpret their own rules.

The following is written from the bettor, i.e., customer perspective.

As rational bettors, we consider passing lanes, wagering on amateur races, and courtesy tucks to be essential parts of 21^st century harness racing.  Or are they diseases that should be immediately eradicated? Opinions might go both ways based on whether or not we cash or shred a ticket. Perfectly rational, indeed.

This discussion is about courtesy tucks. While passing lane conversations are for another day, the amateur races do factor into this analysis.

First, let us quantify a courtesy tuck. There is one type of courtesy tuck with which few players have a problem. That is when a driver has issues with his horse during the first quarter and tries to get to his “rightful” position in front of the higher numbered horse. For example, the driver of the 3-horse checked when an outside horse cut in front of him, and the driver of the 4-horse could easily keep him parked, but takes back to let him in.

Another example is when a horse is a bit uncontrollable (sometimes blame the driver, sometimes blame the horse) after the start and is wide on the first turn. The driver of the higher number horse could easily take his spot but grabs his horse to allow the lower numbered horse to take his rightful place. Some bettors might take issue with this.  I am comfortable with it, and believe most bettors are. I have seen instances where the driver of the higher number horse does close up the hole. This is uncommon, and I applaud the aggressive driver, but accept the unwritten policy of allowing the lower-numbered horse into his spot along the cones.

Now let’s address tucks which are perfectly acceptable.

• The driver has elected to set a slower pace for his horse in the early part of the race. Drivers from outside posts see this and take advantage.
• The horse naturally starts slowly.
• Horses take some extra steps in the early part of the race. Drivers from outside posts see this and take advantage.
• The driver of the horse would need to get after his horse in order to keep the hole closed. This may or may not be a good idea. But it is a valid driver’s choice to do either one. The most common occurrence is when a front runner accelerates to park a challenger in the early part of the race. The change of speeds may cause gaps and the drivers of the horses in the two and three holes need to decide.

The bottom line is, if a driver needs to change the speed of his horse to keep a hole closed, it is a valid decision to choose whether or not to do so.

Now let’s address the courtesy tuck, which some bettors consider criminal behavior.

• A horse is keeping up with the horse in front of him until another horse pulls alongside a hole that is not there, and you visibly see the driver of the keeping-up horse pull back to let the outside horse tuck in. Sometimes the pull-back is not obvious (although it usually is), but you see the horse changing speeds for no apparent reason.
• You see a driver from an outside post aiming for a hole for which there is no reason to believe that the driver should know about, but there it is. Zippity do, a nice cozy hole that no handicapper had any reason to believe would have magically appeared.

Now for the “good” strategy arguments. Oh re-he-heally. The idea behind so-called good strategy is because the driver of the tuck-giver will be provided with live cover for his horse later in the race. If that was the alleged reason, how should the drivers be penalized who gave the tucks and then did not follow the live cover?

Then there is the reality that the driver who accepted the tuck will be looking for cover for his horse, and the driver of that cover is waiting for the cover for his horse. The end result is a strung out “no right lines” race which never would have happened if the tuck-givers would have kept holes closed. This would have forced a faster pace and would have given said tuck-giver a better chance of winning because of the slower last quarter that would have ensued.

Then there is the appearance of fixed races. Was the tuck pre-arranged by the drivers of the race? It also explains the popularity of wagering on amateur races. Why are amateur races so popular? It is the lack of courtesy tucks and the appearance that all of the races are honest. The fact that there are so many glaring driving errors in amateur races, and the results are frequently “un-handicappable,” pales against the appearance that the bettors are getting a fair shake.

Let’s say you believe that strategy is more important than following rules. Is strategy an excuse for breaking the rules? It would be good strategy to cut inside pylons on the turns to find a shorter trip to the winner’s circle. Hitting the driver or the horse next to you during the race would certainly improve your chances. Every sport has rules to ensure as even a playing field as possible and improve their product. Kudos to commissions that enforce rules to eliminate courtesy tucks. Inculpate those who do not.

Twelve “Racing & Track Rules; Driving | Procedures” are provided in the official Meadowlands program. I get a kick out of the words of the next sentence. “COURTESY” of the New Jersey Racing Commission. Courtesy, how appropriate.

The twelve rules are preceded by the proviso: “…neither the driver or the first horse nor any other driver in the race shall:”

Important note,” driver OR the first horse” is clearly a typo on the program, unless you want to blame the horse for the criminal activity. Or maybe the front-running horse is the criminal. Never trust anyone who is incapable of cooking his own meals. I’m assuming it should read ‘driver OF the first horse.’ You can blame the lack of adherence to detail on auto-correct, a symbol of how enhanced technology is weakening civilization. An important topic for another day.

Only one of the twelve rules is in bold. It is number 11 which clearly states: “Laying off a normal pace and leaving a hole when it is well within the horse’s capacity to keep the hold closed” Apparently, they left out the part about ‘don’t believe your lying eyes’ because despite being the only rule in bold, it is clearly not enforced.

It is my unsubstantiated opinion, based on nothing more than observation, that the rules were being adhered to when they first became “mandatory” at The Meadowlands, but a certain Hall Of Fame driver who was not around for the initial indoctrination was given tucks right-of-way when he returned to the Meadowlands, and the other drivers immediately followed suit. Of course, that is only an opinion. I may be wrong.

Power to the punter.

by Gil Winston, for Harnesslink