What with all the travel, we never had a chance to wrap up Breeders’ Cup 28. Now that we’ve had a week to digest, here are some of the developments, positive and otherwise, that quickly leap to mind.
I fully really that averages, especially with small samples, can be misleading. Fifteen is not a big number, but it is a big number of races with the addition of the Juvenile Sprint, a race that proves nothing except for the fact that some babies are really fast.
TV viewership was down. Two words: No Zenyatta.
Betting handle was down, Two words: No churn.
Two more words: No form.
Even when takeout levels are low, you can’t churn what you don’t have. Dividing the $2 win mutuels by 15 races, the payoffs averaged just north of $38.
Admittedly, a 5.1% is a bit on the steep side but considering the comparison was to last year’s record handle, maybe that’s no so bad.
More than $140-million ain’t exactly chump change.
In this game, you take what you get. And, as we’ve said often in the recent past, there will be more pain before the sport begins to grow anew.
TV, especially with respect to national events, drives handle.
Given the new normal, devoted fans and insiders can’t be too upset when nearly 106,000 people show up for any two-day event.
Price-wise, Breeders’ Cup is a bargain event compared to major sports, but it’s not inexpensive, especially if it requires at least one night’s lodging.
With respect to the now retired Uncle Mo, a few observations. Health issues notwithstanding, the colt simply failed to develop from 2 to 3.
Or it’s quite possible that his victory in the 2010 Juvenile was just too much too soon for the individual. Call it a permanent bounce. The feeling is that there’s more to the story than just an elevated enzyme count.
After all, didn’t owner Mike Repole once say to “you guys,“ a.k.a. the racing media, that he doesn’t believe in the concept of full disclosure?
As part owner of an inexpensive claiming filly, I can relate to his reluctance to tell all. That’s all part of the claiming game that‘s part horse racing and part poker.
But if I were ever fortunate enough to own a horse with Uncle Mo’s talent, one that catapults me into the public eye, I’d like to think I would take my obligation to the game seriously enough to be forthcoming, .
You can choose to believe that, or not: There’s more to the game than the price of a stallion share.
As for Havre De Grace, the leading vote getter in the NTRA Poll before and after her fourth place finish in the Classic.
She was a little worse for the wear coming off the racetrack following her final workout for the Classic, I was to learn too late on Saturday afternoon. Unfortunately, that rumor might have had some merit.
However, Havre De Grace finished very respectably to finish fourth, not so the early favorite for the 2010 Kentucky Derby.
Which leads to another question for that camp. If Travers winner Stay thirsty was doing as well or better than any other horse in the Pletcher shedrow, what was his excuse last Saturday? As far as we could tell there was none; he stalked comfortably, then stopped.
I always resist the temptation to judge a three year old class before its time; meeting older horses in the fall. But those who were down on the class from jump street were correct.
It wasn’t until Caleb’s Posse won the Dirt Mile impressively over elders did a three year old win as many as two Grade 1s this season. Two top-ranked stakes in 11 months speaks loudly against this class’s consistency in the overall.
We looked at a replay of the Mile for a third time and still don’t understanding the non disqualification of Goldikova in a display of the worst kind of political outcome.
Philosophically, I’m for discretionary powers for the stewards over a foul-is-a-foul hard mandate. However, this kind of careless riding was egregious and borderline reckless considering the chain reaction involved.
And neither did I understand the scratch of Announce, washy and obstreperous in the post parade, but hardly showing signs of obvious discomfort or lameness. *It was later announced that Announce required12 stitches to mend a cut, the result of a pre-race accident.
Speaking of fillies, did anyone notice that Life At Ten was quietly retired and sold as a broodmare prospect to Frank Stronach, always among this country’s top breeders?
The karma at this year’s Breeders’ Cup certainly was strange. But, per usual, for overall excellence and excitement, it’s the event that never fails to fire.
*Editing correction made on 111211 at 6:48a.m.
12 Nov 2011 at 04:06 am | #
JRP,
You may have missed Announce needed ten staples in a cut caused by banging into the horse ambulance. Her connections announced the next day they agreed the scratch was the proper decision.
The primary function of the Breeders’ Cup was to (1) bring together the best in racing, and (2) showcase it to a national television audience to promote the sport.
Given the TV ratings, down 25 percent on Friday, and down 50-60 percent on Saturday, how’s number 2 working out?
12 Nov 2011 at 06:26 am | #
I will make the correction. Yes, I missed it. The event is virtually impossible to cover in total and while the connections were making their announcement the next day,I was driving south to Nashville; the perils of a one man staff.
I do believe the network that does the broadcasting has some effect on the final numbers. We’ll test this theory when the NBC eventually takes over for ABC on national broadcasts. Thanks for the heads-up!
JP
12 Nov 2011 at 06:35 am | #
JRP,
You are up WAY too early for someone in Florida.
Relax. Take a day trip down to Calle Ocho in Miami and see if you can find if Don Pepin Garcia still has any of his cigars rolled there.
12 Nov 2011 at 11:02 am | #
Goer,
Because by definition, it was a judgment call by the stewards. And we knowhow good they are with judgment calls.
Rule change. Most jurisdictions act asif it’s toomuch of an inconvenience. The wheels of government don’t grind slowly anymore. It simply grinds itself into pulp. These people wear you out.
The racing surface was a factor, as it is every day at every track, regardless of condition. But do know that historically, the CD of spring is not the CD of fall. The fall surface is more demanding.
Nick, sorry but don’t think I’ll make the 40 mile drive south, not even for a Cuban cigar. Traffic here is as bad as NYC.
JP
12 Nov 2011 at 05:31 pm | #
I know I am in the minority, but I believe the non-DQ in the mile was the most fair (whatever fair means) outcome possible. I say this because of the following:
The objection was raised by PVal on Courageous Cat, a horse some believed was the best in the race. The horse definitely was checked with a good deal of the stretch to go. It’s what happened next that I find most significant in defense of the decision.
PVal quit riding the horse.
He finished dead last.
On purpose.
This is what created a problem for the stewards. Had the horse continued on and finished 6th, 8th, 9th, whatever, while still trying, I would agree that the horse was cost a placing and a DQ should happen. Instead, Pval quit riding. This is the crux of my argument.
The purpose of a DQ is to try to make “more right” the horses being fouled by moving the horse causing the foul down below the fouled horse because position was lost. However, by failing to persevere with the horse, PVal cost Courageous Cat any chance to be in the money and effectively said his horse didn’t have anything left. You can’t tell me this horse shouldn’t have finished in front of Get Stormy foul or not and given him the honor of finishing last 2 straight years in the race. So Courageous Cat’s final position was a result of his rider by in large, not a foul.
Then you say, what about other horses that were jostled? None had an objection raised by their riders in the first place, and in the second, PVal effectively moved up their positions up one anyway at the cost of his own mount when he quit riding and finished last if we are to believe his horse really should have beaten her. So they were placed pretty much exactly where they would have had PVal persevered and Goldikova went down.
Some say, well what about those that bet on Gio Ponti? I would say she finished in front of him and didn’t foul him, so all they are complaining about is that they didn’t luck their way into the payoff rather than earn it. Sorry, not good enough reason.
In the end, the actions of PVal, in my opinion, are what caused this result. Had he kept riding, I think she would have had to come down and I would have argued for it had it not happened. Since he didn’t, there was no point in taking her down as effectively he said his horse didn’t have anything left anyway, so she didn’t cost him a position.
I think it is way too easy to blame the stewards on a call like this and in this case I think leaving the result alone was the fairest outcome, given what PVal did. I also believe Peslier and Pval should have gotten days for the way they rode. Peslier was overly aggressive and PVal for failure to persevere on his mount. I personally find what PVal did a much greater wrong as at least Peslier was trying to win from start to finish and I am also glad the stewards did not reward that behavior, a situation which I would consider a far greater “black eye” than the arguements I’ve heard abot the non-DQ doing so.
13 Nov 2011 at 05:53 am | #
We must bring back the strict race riding rules of the 60s. It has eroded to the point where the jockeys believe they can get away with anything, and they try to do so at every turn. Once they realize, that when they change lanes in the stretch, crossing over in front of another horse, that they will be disqualified, they will quickly change there ways, there will be fewer claims of foul, fewer controversies. This is the only way to go. We do not need social workers in the Stewards booth, rationalizing and making excuses, and bad judgments. Stop the madness.
TTT
13 Nov 2011 at 06:40 am | #
Al, How do you know that the incident didn’t hurt CC and PVal wasonly protecting him?
Further, no one can know where a horse would finish whether a foul had been committed or not.
And you’re right by thinking Goldi would have been placed last. And she should have been.
When it comes to betting, I’m as contraian as the next guy. You are the ONLY person I have read orspoken to that has taken the non-DQ position.
Is it possible that you might be in error? But go ahead and defend the CD stewards. We all know that they have the best interest of the customer uppermost in their thoughts.
13 Nov 2011 at 06:58 am | #
Whether Valenzuela did or did not stop riding is immaterial, nor is where Courageous Cat finished.
Even if PVal told the stewards he had no horse left, which is unlikely since he claimed foul, Peslier and Goldikova’s battering ram tactics caused at least 2 other horses to steady and lose position.
There is no way of knowing where they might have finished, but they were clearly, negatively impacted.
The notion Goldikova should not have been DQ’d makes no logical sense whatsoever.
The Churchill stewards have shown over the last 2 years they have no interest in protecting the betting public. They should be relieved of their duties.
13 Nov 2011 at 07:30 am | #
3 comments and all shaded with the standard hate for the stewards bias.
Mr. Pricci, it’s such an automatic knee-jerk reaction to blame the stewards that no one even looks at the situations anymore and thinks about what happened and why the stewards themselves were put in a very tough situation. Call it contrary if it makes you feel better.
Your first question is whether the horse was hurt. He wasn’t. Had he been, there is no way they could not have DQed. Would imagine it was one of the first questions asked of him.
Your second point is no one can know where a horse would have finished. I ask you then, why should the stewards ever change the order of finish? Fines and suspensions would be enough.
Mr. Kling says that PVal stopping riding is inmaterial. He stopped riding on purpose. Would you reward this behavior, especially if it was done in a vindictive way with the intent to place Goldikova last? Is that “fair”?
Then he says it caused 2 others to lose position. Where was their claim of foul? Evidently they didn’t think so or they would have objected as well.
I see a very logical argument for why she wasn’t DQed. My blame for the incident is not on the stewards but PVal.
13 Nov 2011 at 11:39 am | #
Al,
Blaming Valenzuela is like blaming a murder victim for walking in the wrong neighborhood.
The stewards would deserve some slack if they had hung up the inquiry sign and then decided not to DQ. The lack of the inquiry is strong evidence they had no intention of changing the outcome, whatever the facts.
I should have added the following to my earlier comment (#9):
Aside from this horrible call, and the equally egregious Life At Ten incident, think back a couple of months to when the wrong payout was posted and the Kentucky stewards declined to punish the person responsible.
What more evidence does any reasonable person need to determine the Kentucky stewards consider horseplayers nothing more than an annoyance?
Betting on Kentucky races as long as these people are in the box is the equivalent to playing Russian roulette with a single-shot gun.