by Frank Angst, Jeff Lowe, and John Scheinman

With few clues coming from dual classic winner Big Brown, his connections resigned themselves to moving on without a clear explanation for his dismal performance in the Belmont Stakes (G1) on June 7.

Big Brown resumed training at Aqueduct on June 11, four days after being eased and failing to finish in the Belmont, the worst finish ever by a horse bidding to sweep the Triple Crown.

The Kentucky Derby Presented by Yum! Brands (G1) and Preakness Stakes (G1) winner checked out fine in a series of examinations by trainer Richard Dutrow Jr. and his staff, and in a full blood analysis taken on June 11.

“It didn’t seem to be any soundness issues with the horse,” said Greg Bennett, D.V.M., Dutrow’s veterinarian. “He did loosen [the right] hind shoe, but I don’t know how much of a factor that was.”

Michael Iavarone, the co-president of Big Brown’s co-owner, IEAH Stables, said he had a million questions in his mind about the colt’s performance in the Belmont. Without many initial answers, Iavarone said Big Brown would proceed toward the Haskell Invitational Handicap (G1) on August 3 at Monmouth Park.

“As long as he continues to train forwardly, I think that’s our first target,” Iavarone said on June 13. “We’re trying to figure out why he ran so poorly. We don’t know. We don’t know if the heat at Belmont got to him. It’s two months to the Haskell, which is good timing, and it might be a little cooler there than it would be at Saratoga [Race Course] for the Travers [Stakes (G1) on August 23]. If we can take advantage and knock a few of those [possible reasons] out of our mind, we’ll do that. We like the spacing, and if he’s ready, we’re ready.

“Unless we find something physically wrong that we’ve missed, we have to write it off and move ahead and see what happens in his next race.”

According to Dutrow, Big Brown had not been administered the anabolic steroid Winstrol since before his Kentucky Derby victory on May 3, which caused widespread media speculation that missing his monthly injection in May might have contributed to the poor performance in the Belmont. Bennett dismissed the idea.

“I don’t think the steroid issue is of any consequence,” Bennett said.

A quarter crack forced Big Brown to miss three days of training between his Preakness victory and the Belmont. Bennett  said that was more likely a factor than the steroid issue. Dutrow said after the Belmont he could not imagine the training interruption could have been the reason for such a dramatic form reversal. 

Dutrow criticized jockey Kent Desormeaux’s ride in published reports a few days after the Belmont and said he would prefer another jockey for Big Brown’s next start. Dutrow backed away from those comments after meeting with Desormeaux on June 11 at Aqueduct.

Desormeaux also met with stewards at their request on June 11 at Belmont Park to review his decision to ease Big Brown at the top of the lane.

Braulio Baeza Jr., Carmine Donofrio, and Theodore Hill, V.M.D., the stewards at the New York Racing Association’s three racetracks, took no action against Desormeaux.

“What it came down to really, is that when he asked his horse to run, there was nothing there,” said Donofrio, the steward representing the New York State Racing and Wagering Board. “[Big Brown] was empty. You could see Kent scrubbing, clucking, and tapping him on the shoulder and he was just going backward. At that point, Kent didn’t know if anything was wrong and he wanted to protect the horse. He wasn’t going anywhere.” 

The stewards will routinely review a race with the jockey of a favorite who underperforms, particularly in a stakes race.

“We would have gotten him on the phone right after the race, but we couldn’t get to him,” Donofrio said.

Belmont did not have live racing June 8-10, which pushed the meeting back until the 11th.

Desormeaux, a Racing Hall of Fame member, has been cited previously for not persevering with beaten horses who may have finished second, third, or fourth.

After Desormeaux received a five-day suspension for not riding a mount past the finish line at Hollywood Park in May 1993, Southern California steward Pete Pedersen questioned whether Desormeaux was aware of public perception.

“I think he thinks what’s he’s doing is right for the horse, but it doesn’t look that way to the public,” Pedersen told Daily Racing Form at the time.

Pedersen, now retired, had no such concerns after watching Desormeaux pull up Big Brown.

“I think he did absolutely the right thing, when he put the pressure on the horse and the horse didn’t respond,” said Pedersen, who received the Eclipse Award of Merit in 2001. “Kent’s been around thousands of horses, and it’s so much better to not pound on a horse that is going to be hopelessly beaten. I could not disagree with him in this instance.”

With the odds-on favorite being eased in the far turn, the Thoroughbred Racing Protective Bureau investigated the betting pools and payouts for the Belmont. TRPB wagering analyst J. Curtis Linnell found no anomalies in an initial review. He noted some outlets did enjoy big days, but not an abnormal amount.

“The betting and winning was pretty well spread out, as you would expect it,” Linnell said.

The total win-place-show pool for the Belmont was $18,103,512. Big Brown accounted for $9,971,627, including $6,568,150 to win, said Pat Mahony, the New York Racing Association’s vice president of pari-mutuel operations.

In the exacta pool, $6,916,494 was wagered on Big Brown to finish first and $2,126,474 to finish second. He was the top choice for $8,525,629 in trifecta wagering and $215,521 in the superfecta pool.

The upset winner, Da’ Tara, was the longest shot in the field of nine at 38.50-to-1 odds, which paid $79 for a $2 win ticket.

Linnell speculated the dead-heat third-place finish by Ready’s Echo and Anak Nakal could have caused some confusion over the payouts. Dead heats require payouts to players who wagered on either horse involved in the dead heat. Because the dead heat produces two different winning combinations, winning payouts are cut.

With the Belmont’s dead heat occurring with the third-place finishers, affected payouts included show wagers, trifecta wagers, and superfecta wagers.

The trifecta pool totaled $15,176,254 while the superfecta pool totaled $7,281,649. After the 25% takeout, the remaining trifecta pool of $11,382,191 and superfecta pool of $5,461,237 were paid to the winners. Had there not been a dead heat in third, the payouts would have been about $3,828 for each correct $1 trifecta wager and $47,973 for each correct $1 superfecta wager.

With the dead heat, correct $1 trifectas with Ready’s Echo in third paid $1,851.50 and with Anak Nakal in third paid $1,977. Correct superfectas with Ready’s Echo in third paid $24,318.50 and with Anak Nakal in third paid $23,654.50.

In April, the New York State Racing and Wagering Board approved the implementation of independent, real-time monitoring of pools by the tote companies. The rule will give the state regulator the ability to conduct its own review of pools, but it will not go into effect until January 1.

Dan Toomey, spokesman for the board, said the organization did not plan to review the betting pools and payouts from the Belmont.

Jeff Lowe is a Thoroughbred Times staff writer. Frank Angst is senior writer for Thoroughbred Times.
John Scheinman is a Maryland-based Thoroughbred Times correspondent