Thursday, October 28, 2010
A Plethora of Eclipse Storylines, Including Leading Rider
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY, October 28, 2010--If by now you’re still unaware of the major storylines permeating Breeders’ Cup 27, here for your edification is a brief recapitulation:
Of course, Zenyatta’s continued pursuit for perfection and dual victories by a female in the Classic, ultimately determining her place in racing history.
Goldikova, in her quest to become the first three-time winner in Breeders’ Cup history, would evolve into an international star of the first magnitude, a genuine legend.
The clash of young titans: Undefeated juvenile Uncle Mo versus uber impressive Boys At Tosconova, whose only loss came in his debut, a graded stakes over the Breeders’ Cup track in which he was a strong second.
But there are others; storylines of interest for racing’s true fans not to be ignored. To wit:
Whether the Europeans, despite fewer numbers given the switch back to dirt from two consecutive years of all-weather racing, will continue their recent dominance of America’s best runners. Foreigners won six races in 2009.
And, whether they continue that dominance or not, will an Arc de Triomphe winner finally break through and parlay that victory into a Breeders’ Cup Turf score.
Can the three-year-old protem filly champion Blind Luck make her sixth transcontinental a successful one for the fifth time, this time against a deep field of elders?
Will this renewal rank as Breeders’ Cup’s best ever? On Monday, a record 184 horses were pre-entered. As a group they have won 865 races and over $125-million in purse earnings.
Can Espoir City, Red Desire, or both, become the first Japanese runners to win a major American race, appearing in the Classic and Filly & Mare Turf, respectively?
Will Todd Pletcher, with 11 pre-entrants, dominate the event in the manner of Richard Mandella, who won four Breeders’ Cup races in 2003.
Who’s better at a mile and a quarter at level weights; Quality Road or Blame?
Will this year’s event--with Friday’s races carried on ESPN2, the first three Saturday on ABC, and the heart of the program, the final five, on ESPN, attract anything resembling a good-sized audience?
And, finally, will a successful two days of race riding break the blockage atop the list of America’s most successful jockeys? The latter is really interesting.
I am old school, but not old school enough when it comes to the fact that Eclipse Awards for leading rider invariably, almost automatically goes to the jockey who has accrued the most earnings.
I think this honor should a little less about dollars and a little more about sense. Rather the award should go to the rider who’s won more than his share of high profile races. He should have a winning percentage north of 20 percent, and there should be a return-on-investment statistic indicating the rider was much more pilot than passenger.
Not sure the top riders would think this a good idea; as a group they are extremely covetous of their “customers.” Every good jockey presumably can win on the favorite.
So wouldn’t it be preferable if voters and fans had another way to measure the kind of season the sport’s human athletes had, where it might be surmised that the rider was the difference between victory and defeat?
Clearly, it’s too late for this idea to take root immediately. But an ROI for jockeys seems an acceptable statistical measure of Eclipse worthiness sometime in the future.
Anyone who follows the game regularly probably can name North America’s top money riders, whether it’s literal or figurative: Bejarano, Castellano, Dominguez, Garcia, Gomez, Husbands, Leparoux, Lezcano, Rosario and Velazquez.
I couldn’t name a single one I wouldn’t want on my horse based on his ability to win a horse race.
But if purse earnings alone is considered THE measure, then a Breeders’ Cup Classic score coupled with another major victory will determine this year’s Eclipse Award winner.
According to the most recent statistics on the NTRA website, $4.2 million dollars separates the leading Ramon Dominguez, $13.7 million in purses, to seventh ranked Martin Garcia, at nearly $9.6 million.
Last year’s defending Eclipse champion, Julien Leparoux, is $1.2 million behind Garcia.
The real logjam is at the top where less than $100,000 separates, Dominguez from his closest pursuer, Johnny Velazquez. And a mere $400,000 separates current show finisher Rafael Bejarano from fifth place Joel Rosario, with Javier Castellano sandwiched between. Garrett Gomez is $800,000 behind Rosario.
Competition between riders in million dollar races is always fierce, of course. This Breeders’ Cup not only provides a stage for jockeys to show their talents but truly has Eclipse implications as well.
Now if only the racing gods can provide the right answers to just a few of these storylines, 27 might just turn out to be the 1.
Written by John Pricci
Thursday, October 21, 2010
All-Time Favorite Dominant Distaffers
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY, October 21, 2010--While doing my daily surf thing the other day, I noticed that a poster on Thoroughbred racing brought up the subject of his Top 10 Fillies of All Time.
This got me to wondering, which were mine? So with pen and notepad (remember those?) I began jotting down names. My brain went on tilt when I reached 25.
I couldn’t believe it. And I didn’t include names like Twilight Tear or Regret or any of the other legendary race mares of history.
So I thought I’d limit my choices to those I actually saw race live, in person or through the miracle of video. In good conscience, I found that I couldn’t whittle it down easily.
Then I remembered that, as a horseplayer, conscience had nothing to do with it.
Uncomfortably, then, I thought of 12 names I absolutely couldn’t live without.
Perhaps you share the same thoughts regarding my Terrific Twelve, perhaps not, especially if the firestorm of the past two years relative to Rachel Alexandra v Zenyatta or, if you prefer, Zenyatta v Rachel Alexandra, is the measure.
But one thing became abundantly clear, however. If my life depended on picking the winner of this mythical 12-horse field, I wished that my charred remains be buried somewhere in the infield of Saratoga Race Course.
I predict that RA and Z would attract the most attention, which would be disappointing. Not that either is unworthy but we’d like to see some historical perspective here.
But I’m sure if I asked sports fans to name the best NFL linebacker they ever saw, Troy Polamalu would get more votes than Mike Singletary; Singletary more than Lawrence Taylor; Taylor more than Sam Huff; Huff more than Chuck Bednarik.
But since racing’s audience skews older, I‘m hopeful.
These are fillies I saw race often, most for their entire careers, some Europeans notwithstanding. I tried flashing back to how I felt at the time I saw them compete and whether in my mind’s eye I could conceive them being defeated.
I’ve been interested in watching horses race, and betting on them, for 49 years. Here are my personal favorites--again, favorites; not best. They amount to less than one filly every other
year, 24 in all.
The Terrific Twelve is listed alphabetically at the bottom of this post. Feel free to agree, or not, or write-in the name of your favorite filly.
Your comments would be most welcome. You can supply those in the usual manner.
Here are 12 that didn’t make my personal BHF cut. You’ll be shocked by many of the names on this list; I know I was. (Three turf specialists were included in a separate category below):
Champion older mare 2002, 2003 and 2004, Horse of the Year in 2002, Hall of Fame 2010.
Champion older mare 1989, 1990, Hall of Fame 1998.
Champion three-year-old 1974, Hall of Fame 1988.
Champion three-year-old 1973, older mare 1974, Hall of Fame 1979.
Champion three-year-old 1980, Kentucky Derby winner, Hall of Fame 1986.
Champion older mare of 1992 and 1993, Hall of Fame 2001.
Champion older mare 1988, undefeated winner of 14 races lifetime, Hall of Fame 1993.
Half-sister to Affectionately defeated juvenile male champion and eventual Horse of the Year, Hall of Famer Buckpasser, in the 1965 Futurity in an extraordinarily brilliant and game performance.
Champion three-year-old 1972, Champion older mare 1974, Hall of Fame 1976.
Hall of Fame 1994. “Beautiful Girl,“ Dr. Fager’s half-sister, twice beat males in the Fall Highweight carrying 130 as a three-year-old and 140 at 4. She won the Interborough spotting the second highweight 29 pounds.
Horse of the Year and Female Turf Champion 1983, Hall of Fame 1990.
American and European Champion Turf Female 2009, winner of 11 Grade/Group 1 races.
Champion Turf Female 1985, first filly to beat males in the Eclipse Stakes, winner of the Champion Stakes.
The Terrific Twelve:
Co-Champion Juvenile 1962 and Older Mare 1965. Champion Sprinter 1965, Hall of Fame 1989. Saw the “Queen of Queens” win 1965 Vagrancy beneath 137 pounds. Beat boys in the Vosburgh and Toboggan and, a sprinter by nature, she still won the 9-furlong Top Flight by 8 lengths as the highweight. Unforgettable.
Champion three-year-old 1979, Hall of Fame 1985. Won eight straight stakes at 3 including two
Triple Crowns, the old NYRA variety of the Acorn, Mother Goose and Coaching Club American Oaks, the latter also concluding the older national version, which started with the Kentucky Oaks and Black-Eyed Susan.
Champion Older Mare and Horse of the Year 1986, Hall of Fame 1992. Won an amazing 20 of 32 starts at 3 and 4, including the Whitney, in one of the most aggressive campaigns by a filly we‘ve ever seen. Twenty for thirty-two!
Champion juvenile 1982. Broke her maiden first time out in 1:08 1/5 and a week later won the Hollywood Lassie in 1:08 by 21 lengths, the largest victory margin by a two-year-old ever at Hollywood Park. One of the most brilliant fillies we’ve ever seen.
French Champion Two-Year-Old Filly 1986, European Turf Filly Champion 1987, 1988, American Champion Turf Female 1987, 1988, French and American Hall of Fame in 1999. Positively electric turn of foot; hard to imagine one more impressive.
Co-Champion Juvenile 1965 and Co-Horse of the Year. Ridan’s full sister was the only juvenile filly ever to earn that honor. A dominant sprinter/miler, she beat the boys at 4 in the Phoenix Handicap. Big, blocky, breathtakingly beautiful.
Go for Wand:
Champion Juvenile 1989, Champion three-year-old 1990, Hall of Fame 1996. Seven for nine in her sophomore year, finishing second in the Kentucky Oaks, until that fateful afternoon at Belmont Park. Speed and uncommon courage.
Champion Older Mare 1984, Hall of Fame 1991. Seventeen for 21 lifetime after going six for six at 2. Totally dominant, no weaknesses, uncommon versatility. Can’t understand how she once finished off the board.
Champion three year old and Horse of the Year 2009. No introduction necessary for future Hall of Famer.
Champion juvenile 1974, Champion three year old 1975, Hall of Fame 1976: Five for five at 2 and five for five at 3 until her tragic match race with Kentucky Derby champion Foolish Pleasure. No horse was ever ahead of her at any point of call in her career. Beloved legend died on the lead.
Champion Older mare and Turf Champion 1970, Champion Older Mare 1971, Hall of Fame 1975. Won the NYRA Triple Crown at 3 (but lost sophomore championship to Gallant Bloom). Won the Jockey Club Gold Cup at two miles at 4 and 5, the last time by 7 lengths. Big and powerful, she imposed her will on the competition.
Champion Older Mare in 2008, 2009. The only female winner of the Breeders’ Cup Classic. Her pursuit of perfection continues in less than two weeks.
*The only turf specialist to make our Top 10 Plus Two.
HRI READERS SPEAK:
Written by John Pricci
Thursday, October 14, 2010
“Horse Racing: America’s Best Bet”
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY, October 14, 2010--Yesterday’s post regarding an increase in takeout rates in California and a proposed horseplayer boycott generated many interesting comments from today’s sophisticated racing fans.
But there was one post that stated while this bettor understands the effects that high takeout rates have on churn, that models such as betting exchanges and lower takeout rates are overstated as a means to sustain and grow the game.
While I can disagree with both posits, I agree with the premise that a major factor is the failure to attract new users. I will take that to mean new bettors and not new fans of the sport.
Last New Year’s Eve, we posted an idea from another commenting contributor for a new wager that could attract new users because of its appeal to the non-thinking gambling audience, namely slots and lottery players.
Given that slots and lottery players exist in greater numbers, new horse bets that cater to that mentality certainly would be worth considering.
Clearly, the racing industry needs to try something different to attract new users, such perhaps luring players from the casino side of a racetrack over to the racino side. The following is an idea from Mark Mulier, edited from the original:
“The idea is to run separate pools with only random-number-generated tickets, no handicapping allowed, and only straight tickets; no picking your own numbers or boxes or wheels.
“You could run a "Pick 3", "Pick 4", etc., just like the lottery. It should be possible to create [similar] bets with odds so large that ‘rollovers’ would occur.
“For instance a Straight 8, or a Straight 10. You would have to have more runners for each race than the number of winning digits to allow for scratches [and the drawing in of also-eligibles].
“A scratched horse could be a free winning digit in the ticket sequence, or a substitute digit could be [made available].
“Some method of dealing with late scratches and coupled entries would have to be developed.
“This could be done in conjunction [or partnership] with each state's existing lottery, as [all] are all looking to generate revenues at this time.
“The existing Pari-Mutuel pools would continue to be played by people as usual;
handicapping and making logical selections.”
Mulier’s idea is a variation on a Quick Pick available at some tracks. But with a high payoff and a delivery arm as vast as a state lottery’s, non-horseplayers would be inclined to check race results, something they wouldn’t do ordinarily.
Should the concept work to the degree that it becomes moderately successful, a portion of the takeout could be earmarked for addition into the track’s straight pools which would effectively and painlessly lower takeout.
The reason for using the straight pools are twofold: The lesser the degree of difficulty, the lesser the learning curve, the easier for would-be neophyte handicappers to understand.
Additionally, tracks and simulcast venues could cross-promote the lottery-type horse wager with the predictive elements of traditional handicapping. The lower takeout rates could be advertised, literally and figuratively as “Horse Racing: “America’s Best Bet.”
Other outside-the-box wagers have been introduced with little success. Churchill Downs offered odds-evens wagering and an equivalent of an over-under total, achieved by adding up the winning program numbers of the first three finishers.
Breeders’ Cup has and is offering Jockey head-to-head action. A jockey “team racing” wager has also been offered.
While these bets may have been greeted with a collective yawn by horseplayers, the concepts were never really given a good chance to succeed. Churchill is a popular signal but it’s only one venue; Breeders’ Cup is a two-day event.
If a number of tracks banded together on a Saturday and made new wagers available to the simulcasting market, the concept might have a decent chance to catch on.
In order to get payoffs to significant levels, the degree of difficulty needs to be high. Whether it’s a Quick 6, or a Great 8, a 50-cent wager--even with a 25 percent takeout allowing for earmarks that lower the take on straight wagers--should increase both handle and liquidity, benefiting the players, tracks and horsemen.
Further, another portion of the proceeds could be designated for horse retirement programs and other worthy racetrack charities such as Belmont Park’s Anna House or the Disabled Jockey’s Fund.
A lottery-type racing wager is not only a means to introduce new people to horse racing but horseplayers could take a lottery shot, too, knowing they might get no-brainer lucky for a buck or two. If not, giving something back to the animals and people who make the game go might provide some comfort.
Like any conceivably worthwhile notion, it will take time to bear fruit. By cutting Lottery in on the action in exchange for wider distribution, more gamblers would be introduced to racing in a brand new way.
There would be many organizations, both in and outside the industry, with a vested interest in the success of a lottery-type wager for horse racing. It would provide impetus for positive spin, increased racing revenue for a state’s education coffers and for the community at large.
Written by John Pricci