Tom Jicha

Tom Jicha grew up in New York City and worked with John Pricci at the short-lived revival of the New York Daily Mirror. Tom moved to Miami in 1972 for a position in the sports department at the now defunct Miami News.

Tom became the TV critic in 1980 and moved to the South Florida Sun Sentinel in 1988. All the while he has kept his hand in sports, including horse racing. He has covered two Super Bowls, a World Series and the Breeders Cup at Gulfstream Park.

He's been the Sun Sentinels horse racing writer since 2007 as a staff member, and continues to this day as a free-lancer.

Most recent entries

Monthly Archives


Friday, July 12, 2013

Ill will builds in the Gulfstream-Calder conflict

The Calder-Gulfstream conflict has moved from the racetrack to extraneous administrative hearings and courtrooms, which can only exacerbate the ill will that is building and make the eventual healing more difficult. Meanwhile, the Racing Form is planning to build a pay wall that will take much of its editorial content off its currently free site.

MIAMI, July 12, 2013--A circular firing squad has been formed among South Florida racing entities.

As if the head-to-head conflict between Gulfstream and Calder isn’t potentially devastating enough to the future of the game in the Miami area, the various interests have begun to take superfluous potshots at each other.

The week after the first head-to-head showdown between the two tracks on July 6-7 degenerated into a series of charges and counter-charges extraneous to the main event. The only beneficiaries were the lawyers. Isn’t this always the way?

It started when Florida’s Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering filed a complaint against Gulfstream for staging a 150-yard match race with betting on the morning of July 1. The odd event was intended to maintain a permit for Gulfstream-affiliated company, Gulfstream Park Thoroughbred After Racing Program. The ultimate goal is to qualify GPTARP to obtain a slots license.

The Division said GPTARP was outside the rules because one race does not constitute a racing card. Furthermore, the state is supposed to get 10 days notice of such an event. It says it got one day.

Sanctions range from a $1,000 fine to loss of license. The expectation is the decision will come down closer to the former. The latter is unthinkable punishment far beyond fitting the crime.

The bigger question is who got the Division, which rarely acts outside a complaint being filed, involved. Common sense suggests two likely suspects. Calder, its parent company or someone championing its interests and the Florida HBPA. The Calder connection is obvious. The FHBPA has been trying to get Gulfstream to assure it that if more slot machines come into operation, it will continue to get its share.

It could be neither was responsible for the Division becoming involved. But if you were Gulfstream, who would you suspect? This is important because at some point all these parties are going to have to work together again. Hopefully.

On the other side of town, the FHBPA undertook another quixotic mission. It asked the state not to renew the license for Calder’s slots casino because there is no purse agreement in place and there hasn’t been one since the start of the season on April 6.

This is the second action taken by horsemen against Calder. They denied the track permission to simulcast out of state May 2-5, cutting off their noses to spite themselves. Calder responded by cutting purses 20 percent. This was called off in time to resume simulcasting on May 9 and Calder reinstated the 20 percent cut.

The horsemen are understandably concerned that with Calder and Gulfstream racing head-to-head, handle will decline and purses will take another hit. So they tried to strike out against Calder and its parent, Churchill Downs Inc., where it hurts, at the casino.

You have to wonder if anyone considered what the impact on purses would be if the casino were shut down and the millions dedicated to purse enhancements went away.

Only problem is, Calder’s slots license had already been renewed because of a 10-year contract signed in 2010 between it and horsemen to designate a set percentage of slot revenues to purses. You have to wonder about the people advising the horsemen.

Meanwhile, there is no resolution in sight to the Calder-Gulfstream conflict. By all indications, there aren’t even talks taking place.

It’s hard not to get the feeling that a lot of the extra-curricular legal nonsense would cease if the tracks could come to an agreement beneficial to them and the horsemen. Someone has to break the ice and make the first call so the gamesmanship can end and the healing can begin.

The Racing Form has earned its sobriquet as thoroughbred racing’s Bible. I and many, if not most, horseplayers would no longer think of a day at the races without the Form than a missionary would knock on a door sans the Good Book.

Such praise often is preamble to something less positive, just as surely as one partner in a relationship beginning a conversation with “We have to talk” rarely progresses pleasantly. The Racing Form and I need to talk.

A survey regarding The Racing From showed up in my email inbox during this past week. I assume the fact that I have a DRF betting account and have long had stable mail had something to do with me being targeted.

The essence of the multi-part questionnaire was how I feel about the looming construction of a pay wall for much of the content now free on If this had been a live interview, I would have said that I feel the same way I did many years ago when I had to start paying for programming that my backyard satellite dish had been bringing in for free. I wasn’t about to give up TV’s exploding multi-channel universe, so I grumbled and paid.

I visit the Form site several times a day and enjoy it as a source of information and entertainment. I recognize that producing quality reporting and opinion is costly, and salute the Form for upgrading its editorial content in recent years.

But as I wrote at the end of the survey, quoting a golden oldie tune, “Got along without you before I met you, going to get along without you now.”

I’m certain the Form will get along without me, too. But I doubt I am in the minority on this issue. How many more people like me can the Form get along without?
There’s a racetrack saying we’ve all heard. “Never bet your eating money or eat your betting money.” I think paying for Racing Form editorial matter would come close to falling into the latter category.

As someone who worked in newspapers from my first job to my last, one thing I learned is, as circulation drops, so do ad rates. There is no question the pay wall will cost circulation. I would argue substantially. This is especially true with the explosion of alternative sites, such as this one, the Paulick Report, EquiDaily and the Bloodhorse.

So the pay wall could turn out to be a bottom-line negative.

A big issue is price, which the survey suggested could be as much as $19.95 per month. This does not include past performances. Those are extra, as they should be. Those, too, cost a fortune to gather and maintain. However, the $19.95 price point for DRF-Plus would make it one of the most expensive on the net. It’s more than five times what ESPN charges.

This is about double what most folks pay for the wonderful TV world of HBO or Showtime. Indeed, for about $19.95 you could get both, which would deliver about 20 channels of premium television, with something for everyone in the family, 24 hours a day. TV is a different universe but writing a monthly check for one is no different than writing one for the other.

This isn’t an effort to sabotage the Form. I can’t imagine a world without it. Like any business, the Form is entitled to make a profit. But if this pay wall is crucial to its survival, I fear I might have to get used to this world.

Written by Tom Jicha

Comments (9)


Saturday, July 06, 2013

Small fields don’t have to be the new normal

Countless factors figure into the cause of four- and five-horse fields and shorter racing weeks. The dwindling foal crop is certainly at the top of the list. But another major contributor is the reluctance of trainers to enter their horses as frequently as they did in the past. Reasons for this are all over the board, including super trainers with 200-horse barns, the introduction of trainer statistics in the past performances and the influence of the sheets. Whatever the causes, the effect is killing racing.

MIAMI, July 5, 2013--The 1969 Miracle Mets changed baseball.The fuel that rocketed the Mets into baseball’s stratosphere was a youthful pitching staff with a couple of eventual Hall of Famers. Tom Seaver was the ace. Nolan Ryan was actually only the fourth or fifth option in the rotation. Jerry Koosman and Gary Gentry both ranked above Ryan.

Rube Walker, the team’s pitching coach, decided he was going to do things differently to preserve those young arms. The norm for decades was a four-man starting rotation. Pitchers worked on three days rest. In the World Series, some started on two days rest.

Walker decided his prodigies could be more effective and enduring if they had an extra day between starts. So the Mets went to a five-man rotation, with at least four days between starts.

Success begets copycats. Every team in baseball soon followed the Mets’ lead. Starters became incapable of pitching more often than every fifth day. Their anatomy didn’t change. Their way of throwing didn’t change. Only the frequency of their starts changed.

I would argue the same thing has happened in horse racing. Contemporary thoroughbreds aren’t built differently than those from the recent past, although permissive medication might have made them less hardy. Yet the modern horse makes far fewer starts.

As ubiquitous as race-day medication has become, recently developed therapeutic drugs and state-of-the-art treatments should provide some balance. Injuries, which used to be career-ending, now sideline horses for only a few months, if that. Jeff Siegel remarked on HRTV’s “First Call” that if Ruffian had suffered the same injury today that she did in her match race with Foolish Pleasure, chances are she could have been saved.

So why can’t contemporary horses ran as often as those from the not so distant past?

They can, says Hall of Famer H. Allen Jerkens. “Nothing has happened. They could do it if (their trainers) wanted to.”

He clarified that he wasn’t making a blanket statement. “If a horse loses weight in a race or comes back a little sore, you obviously don’t want to run him back. But if he’s feeling well, eating everything, looking good and jumping and squealing, he might as well be running. Now if you run them back and they lose, they tell you that’s the reason.”

Another old school trainer, the late Hall of Famer Woody Stephens, used to say, “If they’re doing good, run them,” according to his former assistant and now top trainer in his own right Phil Gleaves. Stephens famously captured the Met Mile with Conquistador Cielo then won the mile and a half Belmont with him five days later.

More recently, Willy Beamin, then trained by Rick Dutrow Jr., won the Albany Stakes for New York breds at Saratoga last summer on a Wednesday and came back to beat a Grade 1 field in the Kings Bishop on Saturday.

Ken McPeek, more from the new school of training, offered an intriguing theory for why horses run as infrequently as they do. The trainer statistics in the Racing Form, a relatively new addition to the past performance charts, are a factor. “Owners rate us by our winning percentage. I’ve lost horses to high winning percentage trainers. If you don’t run them, you have no risk.”

You might not be able to win a race standing in the barn but a trainer's winning percentage doesn't suffer from a loss. In football, this is put down as playing not to lose.

To his credit, McPeek doesn’t allow this to change his methods. “I believe that getting a race for a horse is better than four more workouts even if it means I’ll always be a 15-16% trainer.”

Jerkens, too, believes the published stats have had an impact and sometimes put a trainer between in a tough spot. “The racing secretary expects you to run your horses. But if you run them where you don’t have a real good chance, it’s a problem.”

Jerkens and McPeek aren’t in accord on the effects Lasix has had. “You can’t run a horse on Lasix back that quickly,” McPeek said. “They lose 25 to 30 pounds in a race, more in the summer.”

What about Willy Beamin?

“That was bizarre. I’ve never seen anything like it.”

Jerkens doesn’t buy this thinking. “Horses get (lost weight) right back once they drink their water.”

Another unconventional theory deals with the emergence of super trainers. Some, such as Todd Pletcher and Steve Asmussen, have as many as 200 horses under their care. Inevitably, many fit the same condition. “They might have 15 horses in the same category and they can’t run them all at the same time,” Jerkens said.

If those horses were spread among several barns, you could get another two or three starters in races for that caliber horse. Pletcher might run five in the Kentucky Derby and Belmont Stakes but you wouldn’t see that in an ordinary entry-level allowance.

McPeek doesn’t see this as a major issue. “Maybe Todd has that problem but not a lot of guys do. If I have two (in the same condition), I’ll run them as an entry.”

Something not to be overlooked or underestimated is the influence of “The Sheets.” Len Ragozin and his imitators have suggested it is counter-productive to run a horse too often. Many trainers have become disciples, because they and their owners are sheets players.

Unfortunately, it’s impossible to trace who was racing’s Rube Walker, the trainer who initiated the less is more theory of running horses. But there is no disputing that it has created a flipside to the kiddie tune about the little train that could.

In racing, it has become, “I don't think I can. I don't think I can. I don't think I really can.” So they don’t try. And the sport is being killed by four- and five-horse fields.

Written by Tom Jicha

Comments (33)


Friday, June 28, 2013

Halftime Report: Best Is Yet to Come in 2013

The first half of 2013 might have been a bit of a disappointment to some, with no Triple Crown possibility and most divisions lacking a standout. But this augurs well for the second half of the year, where wide-open categories, especially among the 3-year-old colts and fillies, will encourage multiple showdowns well before the Breeders' Cup.

MIAMI, June 28, 2013—Halftime. Six months down, six months to go.

The lack of a clear leader in most divisions inspires optimism that the best is yet to come. The only undisputed leader is Wise Dan as top older turf runner. With Point of Entry sidelined and Little Mike not having reestablished himself, the top challenger, if there is one, has yet to be identified. Maybe the Firecracker at Churchill on Saturday night will produce one. Keep an eye on Lea.

With three different winners of the Triple Crown races, the 3-year-old male category is wide open. If the vote were today, it would be a tossup between Oxbow and Orb. Those two and Belmont winner Palace Malice are ticketed for a showdown in the Travers. However, this far out, it’s never wise to anticipate a prospective field will be the one to show up on the day.

Suppose the Triple Crown trio does make it to the starting gate. Who’s to say a repeat of the 1982 Travers won’t reoccur. That year Runaway Groom upset Derby winner Gato del Sol, Preakness champion Aloma’s Ruler and Belmont hero Conquistador Cielo. A lot of people--myself not included-- remain high on Normandy Invasion.

This would open the door to Verrazano, who still has suffered his only loss in the Kentucky Derby and is being steered away from the three Classics winners. His major summer goal is the Haskell, where he figures to be odds-on.

A longshot possibility is the 3-year-old Rydilluc, who has crushed everything lined up against him on the grass. He could throw his hat into the ring if he keeps winning and perhaps gets over on Wise Dan at some point. A turf runner as 3-year-old champion is not out of the realm of possibility this year.

Dreaming of Julia’s dud in the Mother Goose bolsters Kentucky Oaks winner Princess of Sylmar’s claim to pro tem 3-year-old filly leadership but there will be plenty of opportunities for Beholder, Midnight Lucky, Unlimited Budget, Close Hatches and Dreaming of Julia to make their bids for supremacy.

Royal Delta’s disappointing comeback race after Dubai leaves a huge hole at the top of the older filly category. One race (two, if you count Dubai) doesn’t disqualify the reigning queen, especially with so many opportunities to make amends and no clear heiress-in-waiting.

Delaunay sits atop the sprint ranks but he still has challenges coming from the likes of Fast Bullet, Sahara Sky, Comma to the Top and Jimmy Creed. The latter two face off Saturday in Hollywood's Triple Bend.

Fort Larned’s turnaround in the Stephen Foster after a couple of clunkers sets the stage for an East-West battle with Game on Dude, which might not take place until the Breeders’ Cup Classic. Paynter’s exhilarating return adds dimension to this category.

At this point, it doesn’t appear any of the 2013 3-year-olds belong in the same starting gate as their accomplished elders. Someone I respect, who has been making solid figs for decades, says this year’s crop is weak even when measured against some of the ordinary bunches of recent years.

As long as we’re putting the first half behind us, there are other things, which have fallen through the cracks, I’d like to get off my chest:

It was infuriating to hear how union operatives hijacked NYRA’s Fan Forum in June. Despite their claims, the unions, which are a big part of NYRA's problem, have access to high ranking officials. Fans get to air their gripes and suggestions less often than there is a sweep of the Triple Crown.

Hopefully, the public will get a better hearing at Saratoga. If necessary, NYRA should follow the lead of political debates. Gather questions in advance, then invite the fans who posed the most universally interesting ones to go to the mike at the meeting.

Granted, this process could be used to weed out queries to which NYRA would rather not have to offer a response. The solution is to allow media to become involved in the winnowing process. It would lend credibility to the procedure. The racing media is far better attuned to the concerns of the betting public than the swells on the top floor.

How can anyone believe the state will actually privatize NYRA in three years? Thanks to political gamesmanship, it took 10 years after VLTs were approved to get them into Aqueduct, costing the state (read “taxpayers”) billions in lost revenue.

NYRA under state control is going to be OTB all over again, a sewer for political patronage that politicians will be reluctant to surrender.

Moreover, by the time Cuomo the Second finishes surrounding the tracks, which he clearly has no use for, with casinos, there will be little interest among potential investors in taking over what will surely be doomed to be a losing proposition. So the state will be able to argue that with no viable bidders, it has to continue to operate NYRA.

One final thing, only peripherally related to racing. I had a great pre-Derby week at South Point in Las Vegas. The racebook is clean and bright, Racing Forms are essentially free ($2 deposit refunded when you bring it back) and the people behind the counter are friendly and patient. For the money and the spacious rooms, there is no better housing value in town. Make that “was.”

South Point is the latest casino/hotel to jump on the “resort fee” scam. Theirs is $14 a day, which is about at the midpoint of the Sin City range, which goes from $6 to at least $25, depending on the property.

But when they pitch $35 rooms on racing websites and email, the $14 fee amounts to a 40% percent tariff. Tack on the unavoidable state taxes and $35 becomes almost double that. This is the resort industry’s version of OTB surcharges.

Any business, whether it be a casino/hotel or an airline, is entitled to charge whatever it feels is necessary to remain a profitable operation. What is unseemly is to bait customers with a low price, then pile on exorbitant hidden charges.

What do you get for this additional fee? Hotels actually have the nerve to include things like free parking (anyone know of a casino that charges for parking?), in-room local calls (which in the era of cell phones is as generous as a free Bible in the nightstand drawer) and the swimming pool (no comment needed).

So the next time you are planning a trip to Sin City and see an attractive rate, be sure to inquire if there is an additional resort fee. There are still some hotels that don't participate in this outrage. There are even billboards around town urging tourists to fight these fees, undoubtedly bankrolled by hotels that don’t charge them. This is probably a losing battle but it is one worth enlisting in the resistance to fight.

Written by Tom Jicha

Comments (6)


Page 33 of 42 pages « FirstP  <  31 32 33 34 35 >  Last »