To Disclose or Not to Disclose

I'm repeating myself, reposting this Bill Finley ESPN column, but I wanted to say a little more about the issue of disclosure. What Finley writes, in the wake of the Sweet Catomine affair and owner Marty Wygod's CHRB hearing, is that when it comes to the public getting information on a horse's condition,

there has to be a better system in place than the one we have now, which is, basically, the public can be damned. At the very least, when a horse undergoes any kind of surgical procedure or is shipped to a veterinary clinic for treatment, which is where Sweet Catomine spent about 40 hours the week of the Santa Anita Derby, that information should be disclosed. Has a horse missed any serious training time of late? Have there been any serious infirmities since its last race? The betting public has a right to know.

This seems like a very reasonable position to me. If a horse has a myectomy or is treated for a bleeding episode between starts, that should be made known. Really, how different is disclosing this information from the disclosure bettors get now that a horse is on Lasix for the first time? Or that it's wearing different shoes than previously reported? Or carrying x number of excess pounds?

Hank Wesch take a contrary stance in the Union-Tribune:

A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing, with much potential to mislead. And disclosure can be a double-edged sword with the capability of cutting anyone....
Two days before the 1990 Preakness, Kentucky Derby runner-up Summer Squall was observed bleeding from the nostrils while being grazed in the grassy area adjacent to the Pimlico stakes barn. Come race day, the little colt performed superbly and turned the tables on Kentucky Derby winner Unbridled.
In such instances, disclosure would have meant many bettors going to other horses and coming away with the feeling they'd fallen prey to a disinformation campaign designed to boost the odds on the winner they failed to have.

I don't buy this argument -- it ignores the fact that bettors already feel cheated by nondisclosure, and it's patronizing. If anything, I'd expect bettors to feel less cheated if they were given such information and could incorporate it (or not, depending on their preference) into their handicapping, so long as clear guidelines for what should be disclosed were established and the information was reported consistently.

Posted by JC, Apr 27, 2005 10:30 PM

Archives » The Sport / /

« PREV POST

NEXT POST »