With the exception of early domination by Team Todd, equipped with his gang of two-year-olds and Mike Repole leading-owner dropdowns, early results were a bit monotonous. Then the wealth began to be distributed a little more evenly.
Chad Brown emerged as a force, and there were a number of other live outfits--the second-start-at-meet Asmussen runners, anything saddled by Mike Hushion, just to name two--livened up the parimutuel action considerably.
With the exception of a handful of days, the weatherman helped keep most turf races right where the belonged. But let’s be fair and give P. J. Campo a little credit here, too.
It’s become more than fashionable to knock NYRA‘s Vice-President of Racing, making him the poster child for the decline of quality racing in New York. If you want to believe that’s the case, know that he had plenty of help.
In the main, fans would rather bet on larger fields of less than stellar horses than smaller fields full of quality, graded stakes notwithstanding, of course.
Campo has filled these cards admirably considering what he has to work with. And didn’t it seem for a while that every other race ended in a blanket finish?
There's more to good racing than top horses; the races themselves need to be as competitive as possible. A creatively written condition book helps achieve that goal.
Fans approved by voting with their dollars. On-track betting handle has been up marginally virtually every week, bucking long-standing national trends. Somebody likes the product.
Something else, too. All-sources handle has remained flat, fairly amazing once you consider that the $44 million kicked in by New York City-OTB each of the last two years is but a distant memory. This gives flat a good name.
Having said this, I’m a little disappointed with how the final Saturday stakes events have shaken out.
I’m going to get to see Harve De Grace all right, but even though she’s taking on males on the Woodward, it wasn’t the matchup I was hoping for.
I wanted Harve De Grace vs. Blind Luck in the Personal Ensign, But Harve De Grace’s connections weren’t all that anxious to meet Blind Luck at 10 furlongs, or even any other filly in the Personal Ensign for that matter.
With the Ladies Classic at nine furlongs, and with a hoped for victory in the Woodward, Harve De Grace would be legitimate Horse of the Year material if she won those two events, beating her rival in the process.
The Woodward was good enough for Rachel Alexandra, after all, it would be good enough for Harve De Grace, right?
Not necessarily. Rachel was a three-year-old when she won the Woodward, and had a race called the Preakness tucked away in the pocket of her hindquarters.
Similarly, however, Harve De Grace has her Blind Luck, the way Rachel had her Zenyatta. That was a close and highly contentious battle, just like this one figures to be.
Meanwhile, we won’t lay the entire burden in the lap of Rick Porter, owner of Harve De Grace. After all, Jerry Hollendorfer made overtures about running in the Pacific Classic, then very quietly went in another direction.
I was looking forward to seeing Sidney’s Candy in the Woodward, and why not? He’s won graded stakes going long on three surfaces; dirt, turf and synthetic.
He made his first start since the WinStar purchase winning the grassy G2 Fourstardave. But when no one challenged the speedster early in that race, in the end it had all the drama of a public workout for pay.
The Woodward I thought would provide a gauge on the older horse division which, a couple of exceptional moments aside, has lacked definition. Also, it might have provided a clue as to whether 10 furlongs was within his scope in the manner he handled nine.
It turns out that his trainer is not all that anxious to answer the question at this moment either, unless he figures he can win the Grade with his deep bench.
“The Woodward and the Forego are very attractive races and Sidney’s Candy is a horse who is so good at all these things,” said Todd Pletcher. “But we felt the seven-eighths [of the Forego] was a little more comfortable distance...”
Never want to get uncomfortable if you can help it, but maybe it’s a learning process for the man who only has raced this star pupil once. If distance is the question, then the G1 Cigar Mile or Breeders’ Cup Dirt Mile would fit more snugly than the Classic would.
So it turns out that without either one of the divisional stars, the Personal Ensign is a relatively easy way for any member of the field to add a Grade 1 to her resume; win, place or show.
Harve De Grace, meanwhile, will supply the drama in the Woodward. That makes the Forego the most dramatic race of the day, featuring a meeting between the aforementioned Sidney’s Candy and Jackson Bend, winner of the extremely deep James Marvin.
Jackson Bend has trained like a wild horse for Nick Zito since that tough seven furlongs.
So, I guess I’ll just have to settle for three straight Grade 1s on a Saturday afternoon in Saratoga. Someone has to.


02 Sep 2011 at 07:34 am | #
And, while racing was going on at Saratoga during the month of August and September numerous other racetracks were operating across the country offering terrific wagering opportunities. I read that several Finger Lakes’ horses shipped in and won at Saratoga. To read the commentary emanating from turf writers the only racing was at Saratoga and Del Mar.
Well anyway, people watching the stake races at Saratoga on TV got to see Pletcher, Baffert, Zito, Mott, et cetera straighten their tie and button their suit coat as they head for the winner’s circle, then to the bank.
-------
The Jockey Club is a staid organization existing to register thoroughbreds; its members are wealthy breeders, horse owners, and racetrack executives along with others who are pillars of business and society. Its chairman, Ogden Mills Phipps, is also a board member of The National Thoroughbred Racing Association and Breeders Cup Ltd and is a longtime director of NYRA. Just this year MaryLou Whitney and Charles Hayward (CEO of NYRA) became members. It is apparent that a very small number of people make the key decisions for the Thoroughbred industry.
Also, when there is a gathering of Club members it is a certainty that under the same roof is a dining room with white linen tablecloths with silverware set for a seven course dinner.
No Larry Lunchbuckets or Danny Dinnerpails in attendance at a Club meeting; you know, the guys/gals sitting in carrels at OTB’s and racinos, hanging on the fence at a racetrack, or working the computer at home ready to call a bet in to their ADW account - the people Thoroughbred racing needs desparately to survive.
The Jockey Club members are not customed to doing things themselves, thus their need to hire someone to inform them of what is currently wrong with Thoroughbred racing. Odgen Phipps, and other members, could have realized racing’s problems if he had read the 230 or so responders to NTRA’s request to readers to express their opinions; or have read the commentary and comments here at HRI.
Instead McKinsey & Co. were commissioned to deliver a report to them - yet another delegation of duties.
Early in the report McKinsey’s representative said, “Thoroughbred racing has declined over the past decade. In our view, the PRIMARY REASON is a failure to innovate fast enough and well enough to compete for new fans and bettors.” (note a distinction being made between fans and bettors).
So, what did he say? Got me scratching.
It is mentioned that Grade I and II handle per race is up 23% (23% of what?), nor was it said that these stake races are financial disasters, meaning that handle and signal fees do not cover the purse.
The rep. proudly states that the Monmouth Park Elite meet had a 117% increase in total handle and enjoyed a 58% increase in revenue (again, 58% of what?) by reducing race dates - less is more. What he failed to mention is that Monmouth Park was providing $1,000,000 approximately in purses each day ($84,000,000 as a gift from the state) and that the Elite Meet also was a financial disaster. Then the rep. puts his foot in his mouth by commenting that 28% of all races do not generate enought takeout, and that 50% of race days fail to generate enought takeout to cover the purse and expenses for the day (quite clear that the Elite Meet’s purses were not sustainable and that all stake race purses are to excessive, driving racetracks out of business).
As to takeout being a cause of racing’s decline, the rep. stated that only 26% of heavy bettors ranked takeout as affecting the sport (think about that readers).
Now, as to whether racing is a sport or a gambling entity, McKinsey & Co. interviewed what they refer to as fans. The rep. said, “When we asked fans what they liked about the SPORT of racing, they responded with what they loved about GAMBLING - comaraderie, winning streak, and the change to win BIG MONEY (so why is racing called a sport?).
Finally, the rep. said, “The exposure of racing on television is at a low-point. The number of new racing fans who discovered racing on TV 10 years ago was 9%. In the last year virtually zero joined (poor choice of word) racing in the past year.” Seems to me that television exposure showing horses racing isn’t the answer; that showing people, via spot commercials gambling as casinos do is the answer.
Not one word was mentioned about a national marketing program and advertising program promoting gambling. Yet, in their interviews of people, the people were drawn to racing because of the ability to gamble.
It ain’t a sport Alice, the horse ain’t the draw, the betting window is. Hello?
And McKinsey & Co. got paid for their report to the Club members, who no doubt were thinking about the aperitif coming soon.
02 Sep 2011 at 11:35 am | #
Good job, Wendell; agree with some ideas, disagree with others. Will revisit the broad strokes you painted after this meet ends; plate a little too full at the moment.
You asked the readers to think about it. Hope they do; I do, and will get back with a reasoned response.
Meanwhile, the beat goes on!
Thanks ,
JP
02 Sep 2011 at 12:27 pm | #
I’m all pumped up! I just hit the Finger Lakes double paying $4.30 - like stealing.
If I may, I wish to add one further comment to the McKinsey & Co. presentation to the Jockey Club. They had the audacity to follow their initial comment that Thoroughbred racing has declined in the past decade by suggesting that all is not lost. Their comment: other professional sports are down citing that the all-star game, the tennis open, and the NBA playoffs declined in attendance; like these three sports have a problem obtaining television coverage and are totally ignored by the public (McKinsey & Co. continuing to classify racing as a sport; do these three professional sports have betting windows available?
Why wasn’t someone banging a shoe on their armchair?).
02 Sep 2011 at 04:32 pm | #
wmc,
You’re on fire! Proof that freshening works for horseplayers as well as horses. Welcome back.
As far as I can tell, not all of the report has been made public. We don’t know how they defined a “heavy bettor” or what percentage of total bettors or total handle they represent.
We also don’t know the source of the increase in G! and G2 handle. To me, more questions were generated than answered. In particular, I’d like to know how they justified their conclusion that rebates to heavy bettors should continue instead of leveling the playing field for all customers.
03 Sep 2011 at 06:18 am | #
Indulto: The McKinsey & Co. report to the Jockey Club lacked depth and was really amateurish. Imagine what you, I, and numerous other commentators at this site, plus a few other gamblers possessing industry knowledge could present to the Jockey Club - our report would be full of facts, not misleading comparisions and data; and the report would be free.
But, on second thought, why would we want to present anything to members of a Club whose members don’t gamble, don’t have an ADW, and wouldn’t be seen dead at a racetrack on a weekday?
BTW, would the Club buy me a suit, shoes, and tie and would someone explain to me what silverware I should use from appetizer to desert?