Use of a paper logbook figures prominently in an official summary of events outlining the reasons Keeneland posted—and initially paid—an incorrect order of finish on its opening-day April 8 card. It does not read like a number of rare circumstances coming together to cause a mistake.
The report outlines a less-than-automated protocol that allowed a tote employee, without any review, to key in the incorrect results. Keep in mind that this report concerns itself with events that occurred on opening day of the spring meet in 2022—not 2002 or 1922.
The report filed April 26 by Kentucky Horse Racing Commission director of pari-mutuel wagering and compliance Waqas Ahmed to chief state steward Barbara Borden blamed the mistake on human error. While that technically was the cause, the report outlines a not-so-foolproof process that relies on phone calls, note taking, and watching video feeds that may or may not be working.
The report's matter-of-fact language is appropriate, but it also causes me to wonder how anyone could read this and think, "Yeah, this is the way racing should be doing things." In short, there are plenty of opportunities for human error.
Some report highlights:
"Upon the conclusion of Race 5, the stewards and placing judges followed standard protocol," the report reads. "The placing judges entered a "3-9-8-10" order of finish into the United Tote Phoenix System. This displayed an unofficial order of finish on the field board for the betting public.
"Consequently, the chief state steward communicated a "3-9-8-10" order of finish to the Keeneland mutuels department via phone and gave the order to consider the race official."
One would think this would result in the order then automatically being registered with the tote—having the information sent in an electronic manner that would eliminate the potential for communication mistakes. This is not what occurs.
"The United Tote personnel (operator) logged this order of finish in a paper logbook. Under normal operating conditions, the operator compares the order of finish communicated by the stewards to the order of finish shown on the field board, which originated from the placing judges. However, the camera feed that is utilized to perform this check was not operational.
"Therefore, the operator overrode the placing judges' order of finish with a "3-8-9-10" order of finish. Therefore, due to human error, the operator made the results official with the incorrect order of finish."
The mistake resulted in the race going official with the wrong order of finish for a period of minutes. Though Keeneland posted the winner (No. 3) correctly on its tote board and television feeds, the second- and third-place runners—Red Hornet (No. 9) and Rochambeau (No. 8)—were posted in the opposite, incorrect order. The mistake affected place wagers, as well as multiple exotic payoffs, such as the exacta, trifecta, and superfecta.
The April 26 report notes that the mistake was noticed by "officials and members of the public." That's another way of saying the horseplayer community on Twitter erupted.
Keeneland eventually posted a message on its track simulcast feed, noting its plans to correct the mistake. Patrons who quickly cashed incorrect tickets were paid before those payouts were halted—early birds get the errant worm! After a delay and the order was corrected, players with winning tickets—based on the actual order of finish—were paid.
The track said advance-deposit wagering platform accounts "will be adjusted to reflect the correct pricing." The unluckiest people that day would be anyone with a traditional mutuel ticket purchased at racetracks or simulcast centers who thought they'd lost based on the initial result and tossed their ticket.
"While safeguards to prevent this from happening are in place, additional measures are being taken to create further checks and balances," said an April 8 Keeneland release. I would suggest more automation and ensuring that tote employees can never override the decisions of racing officials.
As outlined in the April 26 report, the entire process sounds rather outdated. One would think that the placing judges' order of finish would automatically go to the stewards and they would examine the order and give it final approval before it's electronically transferred to the tote company. If the system wants to allow a tote employee the ability to triple-check results, it seems that they should be checking information automatically sent to the tote system—not data transferred in and out of logbooks.
To me, the most eye-opening detail in this incident is that a tote company employee changed the order of finish without any input from the stewards or the placing judges. That should not be happening. The tote company should not have the ability to change the result, whether purposefully or accidentally.
If the system wants to continue to have a review of the order of finish at the tote level, that can work; but any needed changes observed at the tote company level should be suggested to the placing judges and stewards. Those officials at the track should have final say on any changes. That is to say that if a tote official notices a potential error, he or she would contact the placing judges and stewards and have them key the information back in—if a mistake actually did occur.
Tote employees should not have the ability to essentially key in results, a process outlined in the April 26 report. I thought that lesson was learned in 2002 at the Breeders' Cup following the "Fix Six" scam in which a criminal trio nearly walked with more than $3 million when it hit the Breeders' Cup Pick Six. A key part of carrying out that theft was the team's inside man at the tote company who was able to update information on tickets.
While the Fix Six involves a slightly different issue than what occurred at Keeneland, this bottom line holds true: Tote company employees should not be able to act alone to change racing information. A protocol that would allow for the tote company to suggest placing judges and stewards review an order of finish is a nice added check, but those racing officials should have the final say on any change.
Once a decision is made by placing judges and stewards, the information should be automatically relayed to the tote company. This would allow for review of the information but would eliminate communication mistakes.
Let's retire the paper logbook.
