MIAMI, March 8, 2013--When are we going to stop with the farce that contemporary “handicap” racing has become? This isn’t a novel thought but it is one that needs to be reiterated until something is done.
Fort Larned is making his 2013 debut Saturday in the Grade 2 Gulfstream Park “Handicap.” The reigning Breeders’ Cup Classic champion was assigned 124 pounds, one pound less than the last time he was in a Handicap, the Grade 1 Whitney at Saratoga, which he won.
An argument could be mounted that he is picking up two pounds off the BC Classic. But it would be hard to make this argument with a straight face measuring the 11 horses he beat in the Classic against his opposition this weekend.
One of his five rivals, Decaf Again, is on a 20-race losing streak. He hasn’t hit the board in his last eight starts and was seventh of eight in a $40,000 claimer less than a month ago. Is there anyone who thinks the 12-pound pull Decaf Again is getting is going to bring him together with Fort Larned?
If this truly were a handicap, Decaf Again’s trainer, Barry Rose, would have to go to a maternity ward to find someone who could make the weight.
Another starter, Discreet Dancer, offers a cautionary note for anyone thinking about sending it in on Verrazano in the Tampa Bay Derby. Discreet Dancer was last year’s Verrazano. He won his first two starts at Gulfstream for Todd Pletcher by more than 15 lengths. Then he tried two turns and his first stakes, the Fountain of Youth. He wound up a non-threatening third, beaten more than six lengths. He didn’t show up again under silks for a year.
Discreet Dancer has shown sufficient promise of brilliance to not be dismissed Saturday. His lone loss was to Juvenile Eclipse winner Union Rags, who would go on to win the Belmont. But Discreet Dancer is still a non-stakes winner, getting only nine pounds from a finalist for Older Horse of the Year.
A week previously, Game on Dude ran away with Santa Anita’s Big ‘Cap by more than seven lengths, the biggest winning margin in the 76-year history of the race. He was burdened with 125 pounds. Santa Anita has a relatively new rule that the high weight can’t be assigned more than 126 pounds.
Many top jocks, the caliber sought for big money races, can make no less than 117, 118 pounds. So if the top weight cannot get more than 126, where is the real handicap?
So why continue the charade of labeling stakes “handicaps.”
Weight used to be a measuring stick for a horse’s standing in the sport. The grading of stakes now serves this function.
Also working against the concept of handicaps is the competition among tracks for marquee horses. The heyday of handicaps was during an era almost all big money purses were offered either in New York or Southern California and air travel for horses was unheard of. So outstanding horses, such as Dr. Fager, Kelso, Forego, Affirmed and Spectacular Bid, had to accept 130 pounds or more and spot in excess of 20 pounds to some rivals or stay in the barn.
Today, tracks, many fueled by slots money, would be lining up to throw million dollar purses at superstars while promising friendly weighting. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing for a sport crying out for attention. Outstanding thoroughbreds don't generate publicity standing in their stall.
Handicaps also have outlived their usefulness for bettors. When there was only win, place and show betting, putting the grandstand on a standout was a way to create the illusion that the field was being leveled enough to encourage players to take a shot, rather than passing the race. Exactas, trifectas, superfectas and horizontal multi-race wagers now provide plenty of pari-mutuel lures.
Uniformity: Discussions of uniformity in medication rules is a hot topic. It will be great if it happens. Meantime, how about a consensus among tracks in another area: uniformity in late scratch rules in multiple race wagers?
The fourth race at Gulfstream on March 3 provided an example of why this is needed. Frank Calabrese entered a coupled entry in the $12,500 maiden claimer. One Tough Cowgirl had a single lifetime start, a second-place finish for $25K, beaten just over a length. Her entry mate, Trini Spice, was the only other horse in the field who had raced for more than $12.5K last out. She was fourth for $16K.
Normally a drop in half in claiming price off a solid race like One Tough Cowgirl’s is a red flag. But this is a move Calabrese routinely employs to win.
Midway through third race betting, well into rolling daily double wagering, with rolling pick threes and the early pick four in progress, it was announced One Tough Cowgirl had been scratched.
Anyone who had keyed One Tough Cowgirl, the day’s Best Bet for the Racing Form’s Mike Welsch, was out of luck. Trini Spice surely was competitive and wound up going off the betting favorite. But you have to think One Tough Cowgirl was the horse many had singled in horizontal bets. Nevertheless, they were stuck with Trini Spice, who finished third. Because they were an entry and one of them started, there wasn’t a consolation.
In New York, the entry would have been scratched for betting purposes. Trini Spice would have run for purse money only. Bet 3 players would have gotten a consolation payoff. Pick Four players would have been transferred to the post time favorite. In the absence of Trini Spice, this would have been Pure Treasure, who won.
For the sake of players, NYRA’s policy should be uniform nationwide.
Written by Tom Jicha
08 Mar 2013 at 06:41 pm | #
What is this ‘game’ all about? Is the attraction for the public thoroughbreds deemed superior by turf writers; or is the attraction the ability to gamble coupled with the challenge of picking the winner and the excitement of the stretch run?
Would Thoroughbred racing exist today if one could not bet on the races? Is Thoroughbred racing’s attraction the betting window or a thoroughbred hyped by turf writers, coast-to-coast? Why are people interested in gambling directed by turf writers to stake races, a handful of trainers, and their interpretation of superior horses while racing goes on at numerous racetracks around the country on a daily basis that provide the same excitement, opportunities to ‘cash’, and are virtually identical in every aspect?
Why do turf writers zero in on a select few thoroughbreds, stake races, trainers, and racetracks? What is wrong with promoting, or suggesting, gambling on the nags at Finger Lakes, Parx, Delaware, et cetera? Just how is racing superior at Saratoga than Parx, Suffolk, or Beulah?
Don’t all races look the same? Isn’t it about picking winners, making money? Isn’t the sole reason people give a look at Thoroughbred racing is because they can gamble?
Thanks to you turf writers, the Triple Crown races, the Travers, Breeders Cup, and other stake races will achieve the most attendance and handle - wonderful, but haven’t they for decades? So, why are virtually all racetracks across this Obama led country dependent on slot revenue for survival?
Seems clearly to me that these hyped stake races once competition for the gambling dollar came into existence (about 1980 with Atlantic City) were a house of cards, or stated another way: why did all those people in the grandstand flee to the casino once they opened? So much for stake races!
Yet, as is written above, racetracks today still look for marquee horses thinking that these thoroughbreds (no doubt trained by Pletcher, Baffert, et cetera) will increase attendance and handle, while ignoring the fact that such stake races are financial disasters. But, turf writers are all over these stake races, knowing also that they are not supported by takeout from handle, but from slot revenue.
Maybe if turf writers once in a while gambled instead of simply writing about the industry they would finally get it.
And the beat goes on .....
08 Mar 2013 at 07:18 pm | #
I don’t bet Pick 4,5, or 6’s precisely because of the scratch rules.
I didn’t even consider the example with the entry. I already don’t like the substitution of the favorite if my pick scratches.
What if, for example I SINGLE a horse that isn’t the favorite? It means I don’t like the favorite. So why should I get STUCK with him if my horse is a late scratch?
I’ll stick to Doubles and Pick 3’s if I play a multirace wager and take the consolation payoff.
*
Agree on the weights issue.
In addition - why do they use the old SCALE of WEIGHTS in the Triple Crown? Reduce the weight on all entrants to 122 pounds.
09 Mar 2013 at 07:04 am | #
“Weight used to be a measuring stick for a horse’s standing in the sport. The grading of stakes now serves this function.”
“When there was only win, place and show betting, putting the grandstand on a standout was a way to create the illusion that the field was being leveled enough to encourage players to take a shot, rather than passing the race.”
TJ,
The addition of exotic wagers does not compensate for the decline in playable long shots, although they do offer additional leveraging opportunities when such value exists.
Both stakes and starter handicaps used to create such entities with meaningful weight spreads, a tool no longer deployed in an era of ubiquitous purse inflation.
Weight still works as an equalizer, even if handicap races no longer apply it properly (we don’t have the option of different starting points in different lanes). We can’t properly eliminate them until we have a better tool to create equal opportunity – a real incentive for larger fields.
The fact that assigned weights were subjective, and generally one man’s opinion at one venue, was a weakness trainers like Frankel and Pletcher were able to exploit.
If weight determination were automatic at all venues, staying in the barn would not be an option.
I don’t have the data, but I think the great ones were beaten when they had to give 20 lbs to their conquerors. So how doe we create such situations fairly and without controversy?
A simplistic solution (which others are free to adjust as weell as for length of time since last raced) would be to
1) Establish a uniform standard assignment range for handicap stakes, e.g.. 109-129
2) Establish uniform standard weight assignments for each entrant category at all venues:
a) G1 winner last out at 10 furlongs would carry 129
1. at 9 furlongs 128
2. at 8.5 furlongs 127
3. at 8.0 furlongs 126
4. at 7.5 furlongs or under 125
b) G2 winner last out would carry 124
c) G1 winner other than a) or b) would carry 123
d) G1 placer last out would carry 121
d) G3 winner last out would carry 120
e) G2 placer last out would carry 119
f) G2 winner other than a) – e) would carry 118
g) G3 winner other than a) – f) would carry 117
h) G3 placer last out would carry 116
i) Listed winner last out would carry 114
j) Listed winner other than a) – i) would carry 112
j) Any other entrant would carry 109
In the recent G1 Donn Handicap, the favored Flat Out carried top weight of 121 and finished 4th at 2-1. The Winner, Graydar carried 115 going off at 5.70-1. Under this system Flatter would have carried 123 and Graydar 114. The result would likely have have been the same though Flat Out’s odds might have been more attractive giving 9 ibs rather than 7 to the likely lone front-runner.
Fort Larned would have had to carry 129 wherever he ran next after his BC Classic win. Game On Dude would have been assigned 128 for the Santa Anita Handicap or wherever else he ran after the San Antonio and would next carry 129. Perhaps they wouldn’t keep ducking each other until November under objective and predictable weight assignments.
09 Mar 2013 at 07:35 am | #
Tom,
I’m a fan of (real) handicap racing.
However, I tip my cap to you for giving the best argument for its end - far better than Steve Crist’s annual diatribe, which usually pins its reasoning on the notion Eclipse voters can’t figure out which are the best horses.
You are correct that handicap racing in recent years has been a farce.
While I wish the genuine article could be resurrected, I realize that the chances of that happening are about the same as Glenn Beck & President Obama getting together for Scotch, cigars, and a friendly game of Poker.
09 Mar 2013 at 01:39 pm | #
WMC:
Second (or second hundred) verse, same as the first.
Denny:
I’m sure your reaction to illogical scratch rules is shared by many.
Indulto:
All the stars I mentioned won with at least 130 pounds, some several times. I believe the shape of a race is responsible for the outcome more often than weight differential, unless is really dramatic, which doesn’t happen often. Also, as I mentioned, today’s jockeys can’t make weights low enough to create a genuine handicap, unless you start putting 135-140 on the favorites. Then the PETA nuts would go wild the first time one broke down.
Nick:
Thanks. I agree that we will never resuscitate the old days of genuine handicaps, for some of the reasons I mentioned.
09 Mar 2013 at 02:26 pm | #
If you like real handicaps, start playing English and Irish tracks. The handicap is the predominant type of race run and the weight actually matters as it has a real spread and the animals have to go up and down instead of just running on a completely level surface.
09 Mar 2013 at 02:54 pm | #
I’m not a fan of handicaps, which is why I would like to see them eliminated, except as occasional novelties.
09 Mar 2013 at 03:54 pm | #
I’m not the brightest bulb in the room, as most of the readers here at HRI will attest to, but I assume in your most recent comment directed to me that I am repetitious - the same ole, same ole crap.
You are right! But, am I anymore repetitious than you and your fellow turf writers? All you people do is write about stake races, a handful of trainers and jockeys, and their nags ignoring hundreds of other trainers, jockeys, racetracks, and thousands of plodders who have contributed a great deal to Thoroughbred racing.
You guys are good. So good that I read today that handle and purses were down for February.
When are you turf writers going to ........
It’s hopeless!
09 Mar 2013 at 04:58 pm | #
I can never figure out if you hate horse racing or you’re just a contarian.
10 Mar 2013 at 05:56 am | #
I’m simply one frustrated old gambler very upset with the the subject matter presented by turf writers. To cut to my current harangue, just how will handicap rules creat more bettors, or improve their chances of winning? The above commentary is for and about owners and trainers.
How does reporting on the Kentucky Derby’s possible qualifiers entice neebies to gamble on the ponies today?
Grrrrr!
10 Mar 2013 at 08:21 am | #
Amen.
There were nine horses in last year’s Whitney “Handicap.” Highweight was 120. Low-weight was 115. The spread was greater when the race was run under allowance conditions! (E.g. Carry Back won the 62 Whitney with 130. The 2nd and 3rd place finishers carried 111 and 110 respectively.) But really, allowance conditions were just another way of giving lesser horses a chance against the better ones. Horses like Buckpasser routinely gave away 20 or more pounds when they ran, except in the fall weight-for-age races.
10 Mar 2013 at 09:33 am | #
WMC,
America is event-oriented and star oriented, whether it’s baseball, football, basketball, horse racing, The Oscars or American Idol. There are high school football games every bit as exciting as the Super Bowl but they don’t get 110 million people to watch.
One thing you can’t dispute is that the biggest crowds turn out at the race tracks on the biggest days--Triple Crown, Breeders’ Cup, Super Saturdays, etc. The hope is they’ll enjoy the experience and come back.
Otherwise, we might as well be publicizing which slot machine was hot in the racino on Tuesday night.
10 Mar 2013 at 09:42 am | #
ML/NJ,
We’ve gotten a little off track. The purpose of the column was to point out what a sham it is in this day and age to label certain stakes races “handicaps.”
There always will be weight allowances. For one thing, it’s a way for apprentice jockeys to get into the game.
10 Mar 2013 at 01:25 pm | #
#11: The ‘game’ needs bettors. Do most bettors give a hoot if the race is a handicap race? Certainly owners and trainers do. If this ‘game’ is going to survive, without slot revenue, it needs bettors by the thousands. And to get these bettors, they must be convinced that gambling on the nags is superior to sitting in front of a slot machine. They will not be convinced with commentary on what race constitutes a handicap race.
Mr. Jicha: For decades the largest on-track attendance involved the Triple Crown Races, the Travers/Pacific Classic, the Breeders’ Cup, et cetera; these crowds were predominantly comprised of the ‘something to do people’. Yet, today, after years and years of these top-of-the-line stake races, Thoroughbred racing is almost belly-up, kept alive by slot revenue; these stake races haven’t delivered period! The people who attended this stake races did not come back until next year at the same time; yet, year after year it is the same format over and over, with turf writers banging the keyboard in support of them.
Your commenting that the the Triple Crown, et cetera that attracts huge crowds will, maybe, create new horseplayers simply doesn’t fly in the face of facts, and clearly demonstrated by racing’s decline in popularity.
What is the solution to reversing Thoroughbred’s decline? Seems to me that things should be changed. The current ‘in’ phrase is ‘think out of the box’. Damn if I know what that means.
It should be very clear that the Triple Crown races, the Travers/Pacific Classic, and the Breeders’ Cup, favorites to the owners (who control racing) haven’t done nothing to improve racings lot. Lot being increasing popularity.
To me the solution is obvious: Convince people (those people sitting in front of slot machines at this moment by the thousands) that gambling on the ponies is superior in numerous ways; now this is up to you turf writers. Hello?
10 Mar 2013 at 06:28 pm | #
wmc,
Please explain to us how the words of Corrowed turf writers would reach the eyes and ears of slots players sitting anywhere?
Why not just create more Jockey Club “youth ambassadors” and send them to racinos rather than rock concerts?
10 Mar 2013 at 10:29 pm | #
Here’s a slightly different take on wmc’s theme, but the reasoning also helps to justify improving and continuing handicap races.
http://pullthepocket.blogspot.com/2013/03/quality-mckinsey-and-reality.html
“Right now out of the many thousand races run a year, probably three quarters of them are unbettable. Racing must work at eliminating the unbettable and replacing them with the bettable, and it is in their power to do so.”
Racing needs visible winners. When playing the ponies is seen to be a better gamble, and thus more fun than playing slots (given equally inviting environments), people will start to take notice and just maybe start reading more turf writer output.
11 Mar 2013 at 05:59 am | #
Indulto, did you read the one comment following ‘pullthepocket’s’ commentary?
As to reaching the slot players, ever heard of a coordinated national advertising/marketing program that informs slot players by direct mailings, advertising in newpapers and magazine, and spot commercials on television - the means that just about all businesses use to inform potential customers (especially casinos) - that gambling on the ponies is more extertaining and rewarding?
When will turf writers write about the second-tier racetracks, how modern they are, the trainers, and the exciting races being offered?
So, three quarters of all races are unbettable. What empirical evidence was accumulated to justify that comment? Isn’t it really something like 97%, as I have read from supposedly turf authorities that only 3% of horseplayers are profitable.
We are back to that ole maxim ‘quality’. All turf writers want us lowlifes to believe that a stake race is superior to a cheap claiming race. Boy, do I wish it were true; if it were, I would have only wagered on stake races and high level allowance races for the last five decades. Why would I waste time on cheap claimers, if stake races were easier to handicap? Back in the sixties I actually only wagered on feature races and high allowance, and lost most of the time. Then I started looking at the cheaper races and bingo I seemed to cash more tickets - empirical evidence!
Pullthepocket.com is pulling your pocket!
And, of course, we are now back to what I have written numerous times here at HRI: a) just how does a stake race look any different from a claiming race to the human eye? b) without being informed via a program, can you determine if the next race is a cheap claiming race or a stake races when observing the entrants in the walking ring and post parade? c) can you actually observe that a stake race is being run faster than a claiming race with the human eye? d) can you really pick out the stake horse in a walking ring with a couple of claimers? e) are the stake races more exciting and the payoffs greater?
Sure the flock gravitates to the stake races, as they are directed to them via turf writer commentary. What is ironic though, is that these stake races are financial disasters, as the takeout and signal fees never are enough to pay for the purses. What are the most profitable races at Belmont, Saratoga, Del Mar, et cetera? The claiming races!
BTW what constitutes a bettable race? One where a horse towers over the other entrants? Aren’t horses normally placed where than can win by their owner and trainer? Aren’t just about all races bettable, as usually several entrants appear ‘on paper’ to have a chance to win - thus the creation of the exacta, trifecta, and other exotic wagers.
Name another industry so screwed up; an industry where its various associations are actually operating in competition with each other; where most of the organizations are dependent on slot revenue to stay in business; and where all promotional effort is directed to a select few races that are a huge draw on profitability.
-------
Thank goodness Philly is operating today; nice small fields making the pick threes enticing.
11 Mar 2013 at 08:56 am | #
WMC (and thanks to those trying to talk sense to him),
You just don’t get it on so many levels.
March Madness is here. People who watch few, if any, college basketball games suddenly get interested. Why? Because it’s an event and their friends are interested and talking about it.
Why do 110 million people--triple or quadruple a typical NFL audience--watch the Super Bowl. Same reasons.
Baseball is slipping badly as a daily habit. But the World Series still attracts big audiences.
How do you suppose we are going to get people talking about the fourth race on Tuesday at Parx?
Moreover, you have no idea how tough it is to get space in newspapers these days. A “big” race merits some column inches. A writer who suggested covering some mundane race at a second tier track would soon be covering municipal sewer & water commission hearings.
I remember decades ago hearing racing was dying because of how gray the audience was. It’s still around, and still gray. But today’s grays are yesterday’s younger people who only came out for the big events. When they had more free time as they got older, they started to come more often.
Attendance is down at the tracks because there are so many other ways to bet--simulcast centers, phone, cyber, etc.
Also, the influence of slots cannot be underestimated. There are millions of people who just want to gamble and slots provides a mindless alternative. That cannot be changed.
11 Mar 2013 at 10:01 am | #
I now have a very high opinion of you, as I do of Mr. Pricci (though he at times is a bit sensitive). Apparently, like Mr. Crist, you can take a punch.
Your first misunderstanding (and it is ingrained) is your comparing horseracing to March Madness, the Super Bowl, et cetera; racing is not a sport period, but you and your fellow turf writers will never accept that fact.
I’m not writing about you getting people interested in the fourth race at Parx. You can write about the plant, about the successful trainers, about the prominent trainers who do send horses there, about how racing at Parx is comparable to other racetracks - at least put the track on record.
And, you and your fellow turf writers can do something else. You can direct your writing to emphasizing the gambling aspects by informing readers of the prior day’s payoffs of various exotic wagers at various tracks.
Your last paragraph is very unsettling to me. It seems that you have conceded that ‘there are millions of people who just want to gamble and slots provides a mindless alternative’. Your writing that these millions cannot be influenced to try gambling on the horses exudes a defeatist attitude, as I can’t recall any racing organization ever attempting to go after the slot players.
Slot players are just as gray as horseplayers; both have the time and the disposable income. Yet, when certain racetracks decide to promote racing they present night racing or concerts just when I am preparing for bed - so much for their awareness of the people providing the pools.
Readers at HRI, along with me, have mentioned how gambling on Thoroughbred racing is the greatest ‘game’; why don’t slot players know this, or are we simply more knowing, smarter, or whatever?
I simply find it incomprehensible that a person would choose a slot machine over a horse race if they were totally informed about gambling on the plodders.
I could prattle on for hours and put you to sleep in a few more minutes, if you aren’t already. I’m off to the local OTB joint, Philly’s pick threes, and a few Foster’s.
Psst? Got twenty till tomorrow?
11 Mar 2013 at 10:35 am | #
Maybe this analogy will help. There are people who think there is no greater pleasure than reading a good book. There are others who wait for the movie version.
There is no way you are ever going to get the latter group to change their ways. A goodly portion of their kindred spirits used to fill race tracks when it was the only way to gamble. Being a horse player requires work. Now they can sit in front of a slot machine with the greatest effort required being to push a button.
11 Mar 2013 at 01:48 pm | #
Mr. Jicha: You seem to have a disrespect for the intelligence of the slot player. One thing you seem to fail to understand is that no person who gambles likes to lose money, and most slot players do; therefore, wouldn’t these people be receptive to another possible gambling venue, just a few yards from them (racino)?
You obviously have concluded that slot players are not interested in gambling on the horses. So be it.
11 Mar 2013 at 01:58 pm | #
I do have a low regard for some slots players. Not the ones who enjoy themselves challenging the now no-armed bandits on an occasional night out or a vacation trip to Vegas or one of the other casino sites.
However, anyone who plays the slots regularly as part of their weekly routine is an idiot.
Most horseplayers lose money. But with some skill, it is possible to turn a profit. There is also the intellectual challenge of trying to come up with a winner.
This doesn’t exist sitting in front of a slot machine pressing a button.
11 Mar 2013 at 03:24 pm | #
And the skill part doesn’t come overnight, whether you are at Gulfstream, Parx, or Fort Erie, someone has to show you the ropes. How many of those people that come on big days don’t come back because they are overwhelmed with the intricacies of wagering. The bettors who already think it’s the greatest game going need to mentor others!
11 Mar 2013 at 04:50 pm | #
#23: Did someone mentor you?
Mr. Jicha: The people who sit in front of a slot machine on a weekly basis are not idiots; they simply have not been informed of what wagering on the horses has to offer.
Over and out.
11 Mar 2013 at 04:53 pm | #
yep....didn’t know a thing about racing, then took a job where the boss went to a bookie joint most days for lunch.
spent lunch reading the form and starting betting, then going to the track and then reading andy beyer and so on and so on....
11 Mar 2013 at 05:27 pm | #
For years now I have been writing about the racing industry’s failure to have a fair grading system in place. Some of these so-called graded races are nothing more than allowance races, and that’s sad. I haven’t placed much credence in graded numbers for some time now, and that is unfortunate. My longtime friend former jockey agent Harry “The Hat” Hacek and I have had many conversations about the lost art of real handicap weights. Unfortunately we find these racing directors catering to the elite by handing their horses meaningless imposts. I wish this wasn’t so, but that is what it has come to be.
In regard to the slots I can state when I lived in Las Vegas for 11 years I played “four-card” keno machines. It is a great game where the player can play 40 cents a spin and actually win a nice amount from time to time. Since I moved to Louisiana I have not found any casino that offers similar games and have not played the mechanical monsters for a dime. What I did witness during those years in Las Vegas was video poker was the game most players got hooked on. I would rather wager on horses.
11 Mar 2013 at 10:23 pm | #
Rdid,
We come from a similar place. My father had a newstand and all the horse players would congregate waiting for the scratch sheet to arrive.
They hooked me on betting horses.
Yes, there was a time when you had to wait until almost noon to get a 4-page sheet with that day’s scratches around the country.
12 Mar 2013 at 08:19 am | #
Armstrong, Get your Armstrong!
12 Mar 2013 at 10:33 am | #
You remember!
I wonder how many others do.
Armstrong also had a results show on an obscure radio station from 6:30-6:45 p.m. with all the results from around the country.
The guy who delivered them was like the electronic voices we have now.No commentary or anything.
“In the fifth, Secretariat paid $3.60, 3.00 and 3.20 and that’s OK”
12 Mar 2013 at 05:02 pm | #
Mr. Jicha: Did you ever purchase the Morning Telegraph? And notice in the window of the local
business that sold newspapers the following: ‘Armstrong sold here’.
13 Mar 2013 at 10:34 am | #
WMC,
My father sold the Morning Telegrapgh and Armstrong Daily. That’s how I got into the game.
15 Mar 2013 at 08:30 am | #
As a very young boy sitting with my father in the clubhouse at Aqueduct, I recall him explaining the weight differences in handicap races, and remember thinking how unfair it was. To me, I wanted to know who the best horse was, and could not understand why anyone would want to burden one animal with added weight to give a lesser animal more of a chance. After all these years, still feel the same way. Believe that every effort should be made to have the lowest possible weight carried by each horse; less stress on the animal; less breakdowns; happier horses. To hell with attempting to helping inferior animals. Survival of the fittest. Believe that the added weight should be put in vests carried by the trainers and owners.
TTT