In response to Bodemeister’s announced retirement at the “Paulick Report”, and the subsequent comments mourning the dearth of this year’s Triple Crown survivors, he wrote, “The ‘stars’ of 2012 look like the New York Mets.”
I ‘m not sure what he meant, but any mention of the Mets always reminds me of their much-maligned catcher, Clarence “Choo-Choo” Coleman, whose career was extended by MLB expansion. Those Mets filled the void created by the carpet bagging Dodgers and Giants and provided the necessary alternative to the enormously successful Yankees.
It now seems that racing’s 3-year-old stars are also disappearing into the sunset, but not to compete against other equine athletes in California. Rather they’re headed for the sidelines and early retirement; ostensibly due to injuries that appeared after their Triple Crown event appearances. The list includes the winners of all three legs and the second place finisher in the first two.
Paynter, who finished 2nd in the Belmont Stakes before winning the Haskell, was sidelined for the Travers, as was Hansen, the Breeders’ Cup juvenile champion who barely beat eventual Belmont winner, Union Rags, in the 2011 Juvenile.
Both horses subsequently were uncompetitive in the 20-horse cavalry charge on the first Saturday in May. Then so were 13 others. Derby survivors Alpha and Liaison started in this year’s Travers, as did Belmont third, fourth, and fifth place finishers; Atigun, Street Life, and Five Sixteen, respectively.
But there were no participants from the Preakness participants Optimizer, who started all Triple Crown races, returned to the turf on the Travers undercard while the Derby pacesetter, Trinniberg, sprinted in the Grade 1 King’s Bishop.
Gov. Cuomo appeared sufficiently concerned about injuries to $7,500 claimers to initiate an independent study on the issue. Shouldn’t he or his racing staff be scrutinizing what seems to be a career-cancelling circumstance surrounding our classiest competitors, and mandate a first safety step, in what is quickly becoming the Cripple Crown?
A few months ago, HRI executive editor John Pricci once again opined that Triple Crown races needed better spacing. I and a few other HRI regulars took a position against “fixing what isn’t broke.” Indeed, had this year’s Derby and Preakness winner been able to win the Belmont – or even compete in it – the situation might not seem as critical.
But now that so many Triple Crown horses are winding up on only three good legs of their own, people might be more ready to reconsider extending the time between TC events and preps. This is, after all, not a one-season phenomenon.
Despite creating a rivalry resembling that of Affirmed and Alydar, I’ll Have Another and Bodemeister both failed to show up for the Belmont after three races in six weeks for the former and three in weeks for the latter.
Changes to eligibility for next year’s Kentucky Derby may relate to this issue. Starters are expected to be more accomplished as a result of being forced to compete in fewer qualifying events -- in particular the major 9-furlong preps three to seven weeks prior to the Derby.
Will the “lucky” qualifiers be less likely to suffer loss of limb and/or life?
Churchill Downs could force a change just by moving the Derby back to give an extra week’s from the preps offering the most points. Hopefully, Pimlico and Belmont would widen their respective intervals to accommodate a schedule change.
Imagine if racetracks were willing to protect the careers of their athletes? However, I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for Churchill Downs to lead the way while they are the biggest beneficiary of the status quo.
If there’s going to be any movement on spacing, it will have to start with the “New NYRA”. Are you listening, Gov. Cuomo?
Innovation that preserves tradition as needs arise is in order. When the same horse wins the Derby and Preakness, the Belmont would remain at 12 furlongs; even if the candidate scratches.
Otherwise, it could be shortened to 9.5 furlongs; the second leg of a bonus-incentivized New York Championship Series for three-year-olds (NYCS) that starts with the 9-furlong Wood Memorial.
When a less likely classic Triple Crown attempt is scheduled for a Saturday, then the Discovery would be run at 9.5 furlongs as Leg 2 of the NYCS on Sunday. If the Classic candidate does not start, the purse for the 12-furlong Belmont would revert to the Grade 1 minimum.
The 3rd leg of the proposed NYCS would be the Travers at 10 furlongs with spacing similar to that between the first two. The first three finishers in legs two and three would receive bonuses based on in-the-money finishes in prior legs. Once the series proves successful, the Jockey Club Gold Cup at 12 furlongs for 3YOs & Up could be added as a 4th incentivized leg in October.
Eventually, the Metropolitan, Suburban, and Whitney could also comprise a bonus-incentivized NYCS for 3YOs & Up, with in-the-money finishers in the Gold Cup being rewarded for all their “money” placings in any of the six preceding events. Such a progression of races would make 12 furlongs at Belmont the true test of champions and stamina.
The immediate advantage to NYRA would be that a berth in the Wood Memorial starting gate would become at least the second most sought-after in racing; likely requiring special eligibility conditions of its own.
Another would be the occasional opportunity to host a 3-day festival anchored by a Brooklyn-Belmont-Discovery sequence that could be expanded to a mini-Breeders’ Cup type series.
Still another is the potential for the Gold Cup to challenge both the Breeders’ Cup Classic and Kentucky Derby as the most important race in North America.
Owners of championship caliber 3-year-olds would immediately benefit from a potentially safer, realistically more lucrative, alternative path to a divisional championship. It would also lessen the control imposed by CDI through its new Kentucky Derby qualifying process.
Finally, it would keep their horses, and the organization, in the public limelight from April through August.
The much-needed benefit to the industry would be the opportunity to promote the positive steps being taken to offset the recent wave of charges against it of insensitivity to--if not lack of concern for--the welfare of thoroughbred horses.
At the very least, there would be more well-known older talent available to race in subsequent years; possibly fueling an NYCS for older horses. Consider the following scenario:
The Wood winner prevails in both the Derby and Preakness, and his connections start contemplating the appropriate course of action. Not since the Zenyatta–Rachel Alexandra controversy are fans so passionately divided.
Traditionalists square off against the progressives, dominating the media as they await the decision.



27 Aug 2012 at 09:15 pm | #
I,
What seems an interesting wrinkle is that if NYS were as concerned with equine safety and public perception as it purports to be (see Belmont and Travers) security barns), it unilaterally could decide to reschedule the Belmont to, say, July 4, which would put pressure on Pimlico to move the Preakness back, maybe to Memorial Day.
That way, the safety of the horses are considered, the public would see that racing is serious about taking care of its own, and the Derby can remain in its tradtional spot on May’s first Saturday.
27 Aug 2012 at 11:32 pm | #
Like Greek to me, haven’t a clue what the message is. However, I have a few thoughts:
Love Cuomo and all he has to do is copy the findings of the Ontario government’s panel on why casino dole given to racetracks is a total waste of money. The findings of the Ontario government: 1) poor public policy, 2) accountability lacking, 3) a culture of entitlement fermented, 4) transparency nonexistent, 5) continuation of slot income to racetracks would allow the industry to keep evading the competitive challenge of today’s entertain market place, and 6) (PLEASE NOTE!) without slot revenue the horse racing indusry will cease to EXIST!!!
Yesterday, the guru, Andy Beyer wrote that ‘NYRA operates the most successful race meeting in America’. I guess, if attendance, handle, and signal fees are the criterion he might be correct.
But, aren’t all business in this Obama led country measured by their success by profits? What does
Wall Street clowns use? Profits! NYRA hasn’t had a profitable year in over a decade.
And what has really jolted me this week is Steven Crist, another gura, writing that the Speed Variant and Track Variant should be ignored; that he, as publisher of Daily Racing Form, only includes them in the past performances to appease the old-times, like me. Wow!
Well, anyway, Woodbine will be out-of-business come next March. And NYRA, and all other racetracks across this country should be closed if they cannot operate profitably without casino dole.
Isn’t the obvious question why are racetracks being supported by slot revenue? Why aren’t mom and pop stores, why aren’t pizza joints, why only racetracks? Why not me?
Who is John Galt? Who is Indulto? Who are these guy’s anyway? Well, if you readers want to responded to a person that won’t identify himself, I guess, that is your decision. Me? I wanna know who I am dealing with. You?
28 Aug 2012 at 12:01 am | #
Who is Samuel Clemens? Who is wmcorrow? Who are these guys, anyway?
I thought the impetus for posting comments was to respond to ideas, not authors per se.
Guess I just don’t get this whole forum thing.
28 Aug 2012 at 12:21 am | #
Mr. Pricci: You are right, you don’t get ‘this whole forum thing’.
You ask who am I? You know very well who I am?
Yes, the impetus for posting comments is to respond to ideas, but knowing the author is imperative to readers.
Otherwise, Donald Duck’s opinion could be, and probably would be, received at HRI as a knowledgeable opinion.
So, where is your reply to various subjects I comment about above?
28 Aug 2012 at 01:06 am | #
Wendell,
I have responded to the same one-note observations for a few years now. When I read something other than the same-old, same-old, I will respond.
Thing is Wendell, I’m taking you at your word that you are who you say you are. We do not know each other personally, so I trust you’re being honest.
When I read Indulto, I read intelligent ideas and outside-the-box thinking. Even when I disagree, his arguments are intelligently framed and well written.
Those are my only priorities.
I will not respond again on this particular topic. You can take advantage of the HRI Readers blog to express your views at any time.
I only ask it be intelliently written and on topic, i.e., to improve the plight of the horseplaying racing fan.
28 Aug 2012 at 02:03 am | #
Mr. Pricci: Re: Indulto: He/she does write, indeed. Whether the ideas are intelligent, as they apply to the problems facing Thoroughbred racing, are debatable.
What bothers me is that you, and your fellow turf writers, who are aware of the Ontario report, what Andy Beyer has written, and Steven Crist’s comment, fail to broach each subject, comment thereon, and render an opinion.
I conclude that you turf writers are more interested in whether there will be two canoes or one painted in the pond at Saratoga, as if any horseplayer across the country gives a hoot!
I do believe that, for my age, I write intelligently, still have my faculties, and desire truth and facts. Thoroughbred racing is heading south, and people writing about Thoroughbred racing can’t see the forest beyond the lone tree standing in front of them.
Governor Cuomo is going to pull the plug on casino dole going to NYRA. Can you, with honesty, blame him?
Where are you, Mr. Pricci, and your brethren, questioning and condemning, the extravagant purses now being offered at NYRA races?
All I read are about horses entered in the next stake race, their trainers, and the jockeys up.
I think your priorites, Mr. Pricci, should change.
You should direct you attention to the problems facing Thoroughbred racing, and they do not involve the Triple Crown races, the Travers/Pacific, or the coming Breeders’ Cup races.
What turf writers should be directing their attention to, and pen/keyboard, is to how does Throughbred racing compete with casino gambling and sports betting for the gambling dollar.
Quick! Who won last year’s Classic, this year’s
Kentucky Derby, Preakness, Belmont? Who gives a hoot?
28 Aug 2012 at 11:32 am | #
Wendell,
On more than one occasion, John Pricci has offered you a chance to write your own blog on this website. That would be your best opportunity to take up the subject(s) you champion.
You have not availed yourself of that opportunity. In other words, you talk the talk but are unwilling to walk the walk.
Hence, you have forfeited your chance to tell anyone else what topics they should consider important.
So, keep going with your one-note rants. Until you are willing to engage in actual debate, few will pay attention. Debate involves dialogue, which you have shown no signs of embracing.
If a rant falls in the forest, and no one is listening, did any sound actually happen?
28 Aug 2012 at 01:27 pm | #
JP,
My only problem with your proposal is that it preserves CDI’s predominance as the center of the TC universe. To utilize TOC-speak, the “sacrifice” isn’t “shared.” Will there be another Bodemeister next year forced to qualify 3 weeks from the Derby and then put in 2 more races, 2 weeks apart, to be able to attempt a Triple Crown as its 4th race in 8 weeks?
Thanks for the kind words. I wince, however, at the waste of your valuable time--and even more valuable words—defending my decision to remain anonymous to a bully whose only happiness in life seems derived from disrupting discussion at this website.
I don’t mind those taunts because the fact is that any impact my words may have had through my screen name, now exceeds that they would ever have using my given one. Ironically, the relentless ravings of the resentful one unwittingly help promote principles I believe in--that what one says is more important than who one is, and that preserving one’s privacy on-line is prevention worth practicing.
To your immense credit, you have not succumbed to the obvious abuse of this website’s freedom of expression policy; even in the light of increasing rudeness by a coward afraid to formally present the “important” ideas he/she repeatedly refers to without substance in disjointed ramblings he/she is free to hide behind.
28 Aug 2012 at 01:54 pm | #
I,
Like it or not, the Derby IS the center of the 3YO universe--not saying it’s right, it’s just the way it is.
And, again, if the series was lengthened, it becomes stronger; attracting late developers while keeping the Derby horses on the trail.
I’m not saying it’s you, but I don’t understand why more fans don’t see that lengthening the series makes it harder, not easier, to win by increasing the number of top class participants, not just those taking a shot in the last two legs because the best of the class is on the sidelines.
Today’s race horse has only a certain amount of runs in them. Asking one to make three in a five week period in the modern era is both unusual and cruel.
28 Aug 2012 at 03:06 pm | #
I fail to understand how my ‘rants’ lack substance and why I am referred to as a bully and a coward by the anonymous contributor - gee, pretty strong words!
For years at HRI I have demonstrated how purses are not sustainable by actually computing takeout and handle; for years I have presented facts that just about all stake races are financial disasters; for years I have questioned NYRA’s country club atmosphere; for years I have emphasized the need for a national marketing campaign; for years I have pointed out that once casinos came into existence, so-called ‘fans’ departed the racetrack in droves; for years I have questioned why racing is referred to as a sport; for years I have tried to get turf writers to stop writing about a select few trainers, horses, and stake races as Thoroughbred racing in pristine facilities exists coast-to-coast; for years I have asked all to explain to me the difference between a stake race and a claiming race; for years I have mentioned that a stake race is only a few seconds faster that a lowly claiming race; for years I have stated that no person on the planet can determine how fast a race is being run with their eyes; for years I have requested that turf writers write about the important issues facing racing (and one certainly isn’t stake races); for years I have written that Thoroughbred racing is about gambling, not stake races; for years I have mentioned how slot revenue is being wasted and has created an atmosphere of entitlement; for years I have asked repeatedly what the function of NTRA is; and on and on ...
What I have written above (the Ontario findings, Beyer’s comment, and Crist’s comment) are relevant issues that I agree with, challenge, and question.
At least I rant (if you prefer to call it) on subjects that are affecting the industry. Most of the commentary appearing at HRI could have been written in 1975, in Thoroughbred racing’s golden years, as few turf writers and commentators seem to realize that the industry is almost belly up.
I may be repetitious and go off-topic (no rule exists at HRI forbidding such) but I am inclined to believe that I am more diversified in subject matter than the usual topics presented at HRI: stake races, Pletcher and Baffert horses, and the horses in contention for HOY.
28 Aug 2012 at 03:19 pm | #
John, I fear that proposed timeframe changes would do nothing to protect horses from potential injury. In addition, it is my belief that the scrutiny attached to the Triple Crown races, makes it appear that these horses are succumbing to injury faster than others in the industry. In addition, the finanacial considerations associated with retiring these incredible athletes leads otherwise honest principals to deliver untruths to the media regarding the reason for their retirement. Call me jaded and a driveler, but that is the way I see it.
TTT
28 Aug 2012 at 04:31 pm | #
Ted,
You comment that horses have been retired early for suspect injuries may be correct in some cases.
However, I’d point out that several of the Kentucky Derby starters have not raced since, or were laid up for weeks before coming back, all with apparent legitimate injuries, or some other issue to the point that they did not appear on a morning worktab for weeks:
Went the Day Well, Creative Cause, Alpha, El Padrino, Done Talking, Sabercat, Gemologist, Take Charge Indy.
I’d also point out the spacing of the Triple Crown races had nothing to do with the reasons those horses were laid up, unless you consider the first Saturday in May as the reason.
Churchill Downs will NEVER move the date of the Derby without some significant financial reason.
28 Aug 2012 at 05:17 pm | #
JP,
I agree that the Triple Crown has to be tougher when all the top talent competes, but given the ever-changing form of developing horse, who is the top talent at any point in time? When is the appropriate time to first test thoroughbreds at 12 furlongs?
While the Kentucky Derby is usually the center of the 3YO universe, the Belmont Stakes transcends it at those times a Triple Crown is on the line; not only because it answers the question the Derby and Preakness cannot, but also because when the answer is yes, the excellent expands to the extraordinary, the dream becomes reality, and the vision becomes the truth
The business cannot survive without the sport, but the sport cannot survive without healthy equine athletes, which in turn threaten the human ones. When horse racing is reduced to ailing animals with numbers attached--running in a circle as merely the basis for the redistribution of wealth from casual to serious bettors-- there is no sport, there is no heart. It cannot exist on its own because doing so would conceal neither the disrespect for the thoroughbred nor the degeneracy among horsemen and horseplayers alike.
TTT,
Drivel a little over this way, please. I’m considering hiring the TRDA (Thoroughbred Racing Detective Agency) for the seminal investigation monitoring the mountings by suspected studs fraudulently retired under false pretenses.
28 Aug 2012 at 07:53 pm | #
Anyone notice the three year old Dullahan winning the Pacific Classic over older horses Game On Dude and Richard’s Kid.
One thing I would point out is that the race was run at a mile and a quarter over polytrack. He set a track record in the process and earned a Beyer of 111 for his effort (which I think might be a little low, and is a topic for discussion).
It’s interesting to me that Alpha and Golden Ticket earned 100 speed figures. Which means Dullahan ran roughly 20 lengths faster!
---
It also seems clear to me that horses who run primarily on synthetics are around for a lot longer time, and maintain a higher level of performance as well. Zenyatta for example.
This also appears to be true for turf runners and we now have studies (which are mostly ignored) that show the number of fatal breakdowns are less on both synthetics and turf.
Maybe the real problem is the so-called natural surface horses are forced to train and run on - DIRT. Maybe we need to consider this further.
28 Aug 2012 at 08:13 pm | #
Just realized some people don’t have much trust for Beyer speed figures, so I’ll give the actual times for each race:
Travers Stakes 2:02.74 final quarter 25.49
Pacific Classic 1:59.54 final quarter 24.29
The final time difference is 3.20 seconds (16 lengths the old-fashioned way) not too different from what I said with the Beyers.
I think it’s also significant that it took 1.20 seconds longer to run the final quarter mile (after a slower pace I might add) in the Travers.
Any thoughts from others who do speed figures of their own?
28 Aug 2012 at 08:51 pm | #
It appears to me that you, Denny, are a young man. I don’t wish to discourage you, but you are wasting your time giving times of a race any credence; also, simply toss the Beyer Speed Figures, as they give to much weight to preconceived class categories: example, if a stake’s horse runs six furlongs in 1:09 and in the very next race on the day’s card a claiming plodder completes six furlongs in 1:09 also, the BSF for the stake horse will be at least 15 points higher - go figure!
Time is only relevant if you are in jail. Pace dictates time, and jockeys can and will screw the pace of a race up the majority of races.
I suggest, if you look at Thoroughbred racing as a gambling venue (which I don’t believe you have gotten to that level yet, being in awe of stake caliber horses) that you concentrate on what nag has the class in the race, combined with what plodder appears fit; then give a point or two to what jock is up, and who the trainer is - then pray. No doubt your nag will stumble out of the gate, be carried wide on the turn, get blocked in mid-stretch, then get squeezed on the rail, the the jock will swing out and lose a couple of lengths, then quit riding as your trifecta wilts.
And, realize that you are going to pick winners probably 33% of the time, if that.
------
Imagine that, a comment going right to why I and thousands like me follow racing: to gamble! Nothing in this comment about how entrants qualify for the stake races, or the significance of winning these turf writer hyped races - like two different worlds within thoroughbred racing: commentators who spend their time on stake horses, Pletcher and Baffert, stake races; and, lowlifes like me who are interested in what plug is going to win the very next race in a couple of minutes.
28 Aug 2012 at 09:37 pm | #
wmcorrow,
Thanks for your concern, but, I’m not as young as you think (unless you consider 55+ young) and I do understand how the figures are computed having read Beyers’ books. I also understand “raw” time is relative to the speed of the surface that day, etc.
The main point I was trying to make was really relative to racing surfaces and their effect on the health of the horses and the physical demands they place on them.
Also, I enjoy following stakes races, but, agree that more attention should be paid to lower-level races and to the gambling aspects of the sport.
Thanks
28 Aug 2012 at 09:54 pm | #
Denny, will put in a call to Mr Fotias for a “figures” comparison of the two races.
Intuitively, noever having ridden, only bet on horses, Ithink it would be probably easier to run faster on synthetics--you know--where the rubber meets the road.
Both surfaces respond to water content--not talking slop or mud--but the water administered by track superintendents to what otherwise would be “fast” or dry surfaces.
Just hypothesizing here but will get you the cold figures as soon as I reach my man. Thanks for bringing this up.
28 Aug 2012 at 10:14 pm | #
JP,
Thankyou. What you said about moisture is also important to me. I think the “form” or whatever pp’s people use should note when a surface is wet. This applies to dirt as well as synthetics, and even grass course which may still be listed as firm even though a shower may have passed through and made the grass wet and slippery.
How about a “w” before the fast or firm for dirt or turf.
This would be good for synthetics in particular which are always listed as fast regardless of the weather.
Den
28 Aug 2012 at 10:28 pm | #
JP,
I just re-read your comment and almost had missed what you said about track “maintenace”. This is also a largely ignored, but, quite possibly a very significant piece of information.
I paid attention to it when I attended the races in person. I’m longer privy to that info since I am now a simulcast and home player most of the time and am therefor at a disadvantge in that regard. Should the tracks do more to keep us informed? Or is that asking too much?
28 Aug 2012 at 11:46 pm | #
Track condition is one aspect that the NYRA gets right, for the most part, with messages or announcements as to whether the track has been “harrowed” or “sealad.” It matters.
Rule of thumb is harrowed is closer to honest or free of a prevailing bias whereas sealed tracks are usually speed favoring. No “rule” is absolute, of course.
While at Newsday, I tried to start a movement whereby past performance aggregators would use “wet-fast” or wet-firm” when appropriate. Perhaps this is an issue that HANA can get behind.
29 Aug 2012 at 11:06 pm | #
Who is John Galt? Who is Indulto? Who are these guys?
Mr. Anonynous writes ‘the business cannot survive without the sport’. Business/sport? Who’s on first, Alice?
I dunno what he/she is referring to, but I do know that Thoroughbred racing’s only attraction is the betting window; that former patrons of the track (because they had no other place to gamble legally) left to gamble at casinos. So much for the attraction of thoroughbreds.
In his last paragraph, anonymous suggests, I think, that me, a lowlife, has no respect for the thoroughbred; they are wonderful animals which I respect and want them to be treated accordingly.
However, Thoroughbred racing’s only chance, now that they have competition from other sources for the gambling dollar, is to convince the public that gambling on the nags is far superior to any other form of gambling. And, to succeed, turf writers and promoters of the ‘sport’ (ugh! that word) have to promote gambling across the country, at all racetracks (unfortunately this will not happen, as Pletcher, Baffert, etc. will not give them an audience, which they scramble to get in line).
It is very obvious to all of us wagering on the ponies that drugs administered to thoroughbreds must be controlled, and that takeout must be reduced. But, if these two apparent problems facing Thoroughbred racing were addressed, just how would John and Jane now at a casino respond?
They wouldn’t, ‘cause they are into gambling at the casino.
Where to hell is the marketing program nationwide that informs people that gambling on the nags is far superior to any other form of legal gambling in this Obama led country?
31 Aug 2012 at 01:02 am | #
The 2nd line of the 3rd paragraph of my comment #13 should end with “… athletes, the lack of which in turn …” I can see where some might misinterpret my thoughts there, so allow me to expand on them.
Perhaps #22 chould start trying to read what I write without a Fosters firmly in his/her fist, and stop assuming everything is about him/her. He/she continues to repeatedly restate the obvious – that the opportunity to gamble on the outcome of a race is the primary attraction of the sport. Has anyone here ever contradicted that premise?
The problem for the business end of the game is getting more money through the betting windows, particularly from recreational bettors –veterans as well as new recruits. The higher takeout has resulted in their churning less and losing faster. As entertainment is their primary objective, the increasing awareness of negative factors inhibits what they are willing to risk. The professionals don’t require marketing, just reasonable takeout, and many are subsidized to that effect.
The phrase “ignorance is bliss” was never more appropriate than when applied to the racing fan and casual bettor whose ranks are being depleted by their heightened awareness of what is happening to the horses that entertain them. Not that affection for animals is always accompanied by concern for fellow humans, but distaste for the concept that unsoundness to some degree is the norm among today’s thoroughbreds—and that extensive use of medication is required to maintain their availability as wagering vehicles—is an impediment to enthusiasm and confidence when wagering.
One doesn’t need to put one’s fingers around a fetlock to appreciate the fragility as well as the beauty and majesty of some racehorses. Nor should every breakdown be blamed on callousness or worse on the part of the connections of the equine victims. But I would argue that insensitivity to the increase in the rate of breakdowns, and the decrease in stamina displayed in the face of increased dependence upon medication since the last Triple Crown was won, is a measure of degeneracy among racing participants.
The unrestrained breeding of thoroughbreds with little or no concern as to the consequences when the result is no longer (if ever) able to compete, has recently exposed another negative aspect of racing of which few were formerly aware. No such concerns inhibit players of slots and casino games whose ranks, allegedly, include a higher percentage of women.
Please do not confuse the term “degenerates” with “lowlifes.” The latter lack the requisite social skills and awareness to enhance the experience of those around them. Like an infant, they cannot understand what others tell them, they only know want they want, and if it isn’t forthcoming, they simply repeat what little they are capable of communicating. Women already suffering from overexposure to infantile behavior are less like to go where “lowlifes” predominate.
But here’s the crux of the issue: Whether or not handicapping horses and wagering on them is the greatest of all pastimes is in the eye of the beholder. Two things are usually required to induct new members into this, ahem, fraternity: 1) they need the learning curve to be shortened by someone who cares about them as well as the game, and 2) they need to experience the feeling of winning. Chances are if 2) occurred when one’s own winner was picked, that a lifetime devotee was created.
Rather than complain what others are not doing, a frustrated communicator should become a mentor to a new racing fan. Tracks should offer a bounty on trained recruits. That’s something even a couple of old quacks like Daffy and Donald should be able to agree on. You can tell which one is Daffy by his alliterative “sufferin’ succotash.”
31 Aug 2012 at 03:34 am | #
Safety for Three Year Olds: One Suggestion==> ban Lasix
Who is Indulto?
1) The pen name for a fine newbie turf writer.
2) A thoroughbred racehorse warrior who raced a total of 89 times against strong competition winning 27 times in the early 1960s. What has changed in 50 years since that makes horses less durable? The introduction of Lasix. Hello!!!
Who is Affirmed? The last TC winner(1978) who raced 29 times and won 22 of them. After a 9 race 2 yr old schedule, he would race 11 times as a 3 yr old and 9 more as a 4yr old before retiring to stud. His 3 yr old campaign would begin with an allowance race followed by the San Felipe Hdcp, SA Derby, Hollywood Derby then the TC(KY Derby, Preakness,Belmont) then the Jim Dandy and Travers, then the Marlboro Cup(against 4 yr old Seattle Slew) then the JkyClub Gold Cup. What has changed in 35 years since that makes horses so fragile? The introduction of Lasix, Hello!!!
Racing around the world is striving without Lasix. Top owners in the USA like Phipps,Janney, Hancock and Godolphin have finally seen the light and have stopped racing their 2 yr olds with Lasix. More need to follow for the health sake of the most important member of the sport, the athletes ie the horses. The industry needs to come together now on this issue.
History is a big part of sports. A big part of horseracing. Why would you need to tinker, to change the tradition with the spacing of the Triple Crown, if the horses were healthy? The answer my friends is blowing in the wind, you don’t, just try banning Lasix.
Who is Robert Zimmerman?
31 Aug 2012 at 08:23 am | #
Robert Zimmerman wrote the following lyrics which actually relate quite well to this thread:
“Yes, I wish that for just one time
You could stand inside my shoes
You’d know what a drag it is
To see you”
“Yes, how many times can a man turn his head
Pretending he just doesn’t see ?
The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.”