Friday, October 31, 2008

Horse of the Year Requires Deeper Reflection

SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY, October 30, 2008--On the shuttle ride back to the media hotel several hours after the curtain fell on Breeders’ Cup 25, the question was put to me this way: “So, who’s your vote for Horse of the Year?”

My response was that I didn’t know, that I needed more time to reflect. That was five days ago and I’m no closer to having a definitive opinion. Several years ago, the Eclipse Award committee decided that split votes no longer would be valid.

Too bad. It might have been a viable option this year.

I could vote for Curlin or I could vote Zenyatta and make a winning case for both. I could also consider Big Brown, strictly a biased opinion of course. First, he’s a very neat animal. Second, the ability he demonstrated winning the Kentucky Derby and Preakness, in tandem, were the best performances delivered by an American-based Thoroughbred this year.

But, of course, there was Curlin’s consummate Dubai World Cup victory; Zenyatta’s thoroughly comprehensive Ladies Classic to consider. Similarly, I was very impressed by Goldikova’s Mile and, believe it or not, by Square Eddie’s electric turn of foot while dominating Keeneland’s Breeders’ Futurity.

Or is turf or synthetics or a victory delivered 6,000 miles from these shores out of bounds? When choosing, it’s about mostly multiple variables. But it can also be about one victory in one particular race

But turf and synthetic-surface victories matter, as do victories far from home providing there‘s a local resume, too. And it’s all very subjective, really. And there’s something else: The Joe Hirsch Factor.

The JHF, as defined by a legendary founding member of the National Turf Writers’ Association, is that “the Horse of the Year can be anything.”

Parenthetically, the NTWA is one of three industry groups charged with defining a champion in any given year. Daily Racing Form staffers and Racing Secretaries from America’s leading racetracks are the other groups.

In general, what’s good for Joe Hirsch traditionally has been what’s good for the game. In this matter Hirsch feels there’s no clear delineation between a horse making the most championship-defining victories in prestigious events and a horse, such Big Brown, who despite an incomplete championship portfolio, occasionally demonstrated that he was best in show. Clearly, he did more to capture the imagination of the general sports public on a national level than any other horse to race this year.

Those critical of this notion hold that Horse of the Year is neither a popularity contest nor recognition for racing’s Most Valuable Horse. But why not? After voters finish counting Grade 1 victories, the rest of the process is about subjectivity and politics. On graded value, there is no difference between the Derby and Preakness. But if there were a tie-breaker involving these two races, on what side do you believe most voters would err? Like synthetic tracks, all Grade 1s are not created equal.

In political terms, I am willing to wager any amount there will be more West Coast Horse of the Year votes cast for Zenyatta than there will be for Curlin. Any takers? I am also willing to bet that the converse will be true. Interesting to note, however, that Zenyatta already is ranked #1 atop the weekly NTRA poll.

And some racing secretaries, when given no clear cut mandate, will be even more provincial. They invariably will lean toward those horses or connections who either brought the big horse to their racetrack or whose horses and, by extension, and trainers labor in their barn areas. Human nature.

It is expected that 2008 will mark the 17th season in which a champion will be crowned after winning a Breeders’ Cup event race day. Make that race days: Filly Friday and Sire Saturday.

And that leaves Curlin out, although he did win at Saratoga, Churchill Downs and Belmont Park, in addition to Nad Al Sheba. On the other hoof, Zenyatta remained undefeated, but only once on dirt outside of California. But she did defeat a reigning filly champion, Ginger Punch, at Oaklawn Park, but nary a boy in sight.

Champions have been crowned in the past off singular Breeders’ Cup victories. Eclipse rules say that the only qualification needed is a lone win in North America, which presumably includes Southern California. Hey, then what about Raven’s Pass?

Raven’s Pass beat a horse that beat him twice, Henrythenavigator, winning his previous start and earning a Timeform rating the equal of Curlin’s in the World Cup and better than ‘Henry’ ever earned in his life.

The Classic was his fifth Grade 1 win of the year, he beat elders, including Curlin, at scale weights. Why not Raven’s Pass for Horse of the Year? Right. He “only” won on turf and Pro Ride, but not dirt. Unlike Curlin, who couldn’t win his debuts on turf or Pro Ride, the Classic was Raven Pass’s first time racing left-handled.

I’m not saying I would vote for Raven’s Pass, even though the Horse of the Year “can be anything,” and because he’s arguably the most accomplished horse to run all year. The point is that Horse of the Year often is a subjective exercise. Why should this year be any different?

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Belmont Park vs. Breeders’ Cup: Act II

ARCADIA, Calif., October 28, 2008--The rumors began to surface in Saratoga about a week or two in advance of Breeders’ Cup 25. Racetrack rumors can be especially viral, so my first thought was to place it on my pay-no-mind list.

But when the same rumor resurfaced in California, twice, and from different sources, it deserves an airing.

If it turns out to be untrue, I’m sure it will denied at length and in detail sometime in the near future by an official spokesperson. And so we’ll pose it in the form of a question.

Is the New York Racing Association planning to stage a Fall Championship Day at Belmont Park in direct competition with Breeders’ Cup?

It’s useful to recall that on the final day of the Saratoga meeting in a press box news conference, NYRA President Charlie Hayward revealed that the Breeders’ Cup had backed out of a handshake agreement that the 2010 Breeders’ Cup program would be held at Belmont Park.

Subsequent to that statement, Breeders’ Cup Chairman William Farish was quoted in the media, saying only “that may be [Charlie’s] version of the story. I’d rather not comment.”

At the time Hayward made his statement, he announced that Churchill Downs would be awarded the 2010 Thoroughbred World Championships.

One month later, the heads-up turned out to be fact. In a joint press conference widely attended by Kentucky officials, Breeders’ Cup announced jointly with Churchill that Louisville would be the site of the event two years hence.

Both organizations left the door open for hosting the event back-to-back, as was the case for the first time this year and in 2009 at Santa Anita Park.

The question is was the “agreement” with NYRA a wedge by Breeders’ Cup to bring Churchill Downs back to the bargaining table? Churchill Downs has drawn six of the largest seven crowds in Cup history.

The publicly held CDI made no secret that it wanted a larger share of Breeders’ Cup revenue. Apparently Churchill got its wish in return for lobbying the Commonwealth to waive the tax imposed on outside events held at the Downs, the equivalent of a licensing fee.

The track, in conjunction with the city of Louisville, successfully argued that the fee, approaching six figures, in no way compensated for a projected loss of $50-60 million in tourism revenues. Indeed, the “Breeders’ Cup waver,” about to sunset, needing extending before the 2010 event could be staged in the bluegrass.

The back-story doesn’t end there. HRI sources claim also that Breeders’ Cup management was put off by having to negotiate with Gavin Landry, the NYRA Vice-President of Marketing and former president of the Saratoga Convention and Tourism Bureau, knocking heads over sponsorship issues. Landry recently resigned under pressure.

Landry’s failed marketing policies and personality left the NYRA with little recourse with respect to his responsibilities. Indeed, his departure was deemed imminent late in the Saratoga meet, but didn’t occur until after racing returned downstate to Belmont Park.

Sources tell HRI that the 2009 NYRA stakes schedule, which will be formulated next month and subsequently submitted to the new state mandated Board of Directors will be incomplete with respect to the fall stakes schedule.

It is anticipated that NYRA will counter-program against Breeders’ Cup, either by putting major races in direct opposition on the same weekend, or by scheduling them so close to the event that high-profile Grade 1 horse flesh couldn’t possibly run back on such short rest.

The domination of European and California-based horses at last weekend’s silver anniversary edition of Breeders’ Cup would be a large temptation to have Eastern-based runners remain close to home, next year or any other in which championship races are scheduled on a synthetic surface.

For many dirt horses, all-weather tracks present a tremendous challenge, as Jess Jackson and Steve Asmussen would attest. Shipping Eastern horses to West Coast racetracks was a daunting obstacle even before all-weather surfaces were mandated in the Golden State.

This tack would strike at the already tenuous balance of power within a fractured Thoroughbred industry that lacks a central authority. It would seem now that the ball is in NYRA’s court, and Hayward picked it up.

“We have no intentions to schedule against the Breeders’ Cup in 2009,” Hayward said. “There are some interesting questions about the prep races, and we might make some adjustments to our stakes schedule prior to getting it approved by our board in December.”

If the NYRA eventually decides to pay the Breeders’ Cup back in kind, the association would inflict serious damage to an industry on the brink, undermining one of the sport’s defining events. “We‘ve gotten a lot of suggestions to run against the Breeders’ Cup,” said Hayward.

Does that mean it‘s on the table, or off? “We have to make this industry healthy. We don’t root for each other enough.”

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Synthetic Tracks and the Future of American Thoroughbred Racing

ARCADIA, Calif, October 27, 2008--Because readers sometimes see and believe what they wish, and because sometimes me no write so good, allow this amplification on some of the comments we received concerning the impact that synthetic-track racing had on the silver anniversary edition of Breeders’ Cup and the future of American racing as we know it. First, some reiterations.

I don’t hate synthetic surfaces, which is not to say I like them, either. It’s been a few years now and I’m still ambivalent. Does this mean ultimately that I don’t view the safety of horse and rider as preeminent? Let me answer that by posing another question, in the immortal words of Vincent LaGuadia Gambini. “You were serious about that?”

Competitors in every sport should enjoy safe journeys. But the widely accepted notion that “stuff happens” is somehow unacceptable when it comes to racing Thoroughbreds is not only unreasonable but patently unfair. If we can accept that even on perfectly macadamed roadways over which no one speeds or drives impaired accidents will occur, why isn‘t that true at the horse track?

While early exit polling appears to indicate that synthetics are “safer” than conventional dirt, the prevailing wisdom falls well within the margin of error. There is much evidence, empirical and otherwise, that synthetics play a role in the increase of soft tissue injuries. And, remember, there were recently five catastrophic breakdowns on the Pro-Ride surface in the run-up to Breeders’ Cup, four during training hours.

Of greater significance were televised reports that the Pro-Ride surface reached 147 degrees in the heat of the Southern California sun. What sort of toxic brew is bubbling beneath the surface? There must be a reason why some jockeys ride wearing surgical masks at Woodbine. And that would be Toronto, not Los Angeles.

I spoke with a foreign photographer the night the event ended. He had been working out and about the surface all week. He said that when he knelt down to snap a photo, he could feel the heat of the surface burning through his pants--not that it was just too hot, but that he experienced a burning sensation. And that he and others had been experiencing respiratory issues all week, i.e., troubled breathing. Has anyone asked the horses?

I say learn how to make dirt better, safer. But even if man can improve on God’s formula, will it prevent accidents from happening? That’s the inconvenient truth, why they’re called accidents.

With respect to track bias, I’m learning to get over it. If you expect to continue playing the game, you had better, too. Never underestimate the relationship between confidence and wagering success. Never. Take a proactive attitude. Like Yogi says, you can observe a lot just by watching.

And it’s not like Keeneland was a fair surface pre-poly, or that wet tracks don’t give speed horses a significant advantage.

My biggest problem with all weather surfaces is that pace loses it efficacy. On many synthetics, a controlled slow pace in no way guarantees victory with the same regularity and to a large measure removes pacing strategy from the equation. I didn’t attend the races every day during Breeders’ Cup week. When I did I never saw a frontrunning winner. Having snuck into racetracks since the time I was 15, this doesn’t seem right.

Another variable has me conflicted. I love it that more races are wide open and that laying, not playing, the favorite makes eminently more sense. And I love, too, that the surface brings fields closer together. In midstretch, it feels like everyone’s still in with a chance, frontrunners notwithstanding. But, given usurious takeout rates, I hate that predicting the outcome of races is more difficult.

Interesting the relationship between turf and synthetic success. I learned from my European colleagues long ago that in grass races nothing is more important than the ground. The same is true of synthetics. Not only is Polytrack different from Cushion Track is different from Tapeta, etc., etc., but not even all Polytracks are created equal.

We have not seen the end of dirt racing in America, or in the Breeders’ Cup for that matter. After a Santa Anita repeat, the circus moves to Churchill Downs in 2010. There will be an artificial surface installed at Churchill the day the Toronto Maple Leafs open their season in hell. There now are three surfaces in thoroughbred racing. We are just beginning to see the emergence of some bloodlines having synthetic-surface success.

I am neither anxious nor desirous of jettisoning centuries of traditional American dirt racing. But there never will be a day when the sport reverts back to two surfaces, even if it were grass and synthetic only. More actually might be better. It’s certainly adds to handicapping’s intellectual challenges.

As to the perceived catering to Europeans in an event designed by American breeders to definitively crown North American champions, it’s been European participation that has keyed the success of Breeders’ Cup as a concept from day one. Not to forget the victories of Lashkari and Royal Heroine at Hollywood Park in the ‘84 inaugural. And isn’t it true that if you seek recognition as the best you have to beat the best? Isn’t that the essence of all sport?

Unwittingly, in their worship of the bottom line, Breeders’ Cup officials might wind up saving the sport instead of, as has been oft-stated, killing it. Like it or not, fair or not, Thoroughbred racing is on life support. If greater foreign participation in Breeders’ Cup means expanded worldwide interest in what happens between the rails of America’s racetracks, how can this be a bad thing? It may turn out to be the only unintended consequence the sport can live with.

Tomorrow: New York Racing and Breeders' Cup