September 2, 2010,
Dear Diary,
I’d like to read about some positive racing stories out of California but they are just not forthcoming. In fact, most of the news has been unwelcome.
Among the more embarrassing items, but welcome news, is the fact upcoming Zenyatta Stakes is back to being the Lady’s Secret in honor of that great mare.
This is brought about by the fact that Zenyatta will be using this race as a bridge to the Breeders’ Cup and a horse winning an eponymous race would send a bad message, such as the result being a foregone conclusion.
Non racing fans just wouldn’t get it. And some racing fans, too.
The Lady’s Secret had always been a valuable Grade 1 prize on the Oak Tree meet schedule which, of course, will be run this year at Hollywood Park while a dirt track is installed at Santa Anita.
We like the idea that Santa Anita won’t rush the project, or possibly put its premier winter meet in jeopardy, taking the time to do the job right. Their will be tremendous pressure that the surface plays safely.
While many SoCal racing fans had hoped for and now have been awaiting this return to American dirt racing, no one, including simulcast players, want to see a return to the concrete highway of the past.
In our view, a surface something akin to the old dirt track at Hollywood Park would be welcome.
But the composition of the new dirt track is way above my pay grade and doubtless there will be much scrutiny placed on the project, especially since it will fall under the purview of Frank Stronach.
Most horsemen and a majority of horseplayers have embraced the change. California racing needs something to go right these days.
But with Hollywood’s future being uncertain at best, it presented a problem for Oak Tree that wouldn’t go away. Only the poor economy has prevented the implosion of Hollywood Park.
On Wednesday, the LA Times reported that the Oak Tree Racing Association will use Del Mar as its permanent home, possibly as soon as 2011.
Is that supposed to be the good news? Isn’t the Del Mar Polytrack continuing to have its problems vis a vis safety concerns with the uneven surface?
Clearly, Del Mar would welcome the additional receipts that the Oak Tree meeting would bring. But wouldn’t extended racing take something away from the aura Del Mar’s and its special appeal?
And what about the strain on an already taxed horse population, in terms of the number of horses needed to put on a high quality show and sufficient stabling facilities for said horses? At this point, Oak Tree has chosen the hard place over the rock.
The other issue is what effect this move will have on the quality of racing. Thus far, Hall of Famer Bob Baffert’s threats of stabling somewhere other than Del Mar have been, on balance, just that.
But now with the Oak Tree meet added to the Del Mar equation, Baffert, and other like-minded California horsemen, might consider leaving California for a significant part of the racing year, it not all of it.
With VLTs scheduled to come on line in New York by 2011, California’s loss could become New York’s gain.
The worst news, of course, is that the California legislature has approved a bill that would raise the takeout on exotic bets on California races to fund an increase in overnight purses.
The legislation will be forwarded to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger who is expected to sign the bill because he thinks that would help the horse racing industry.
Of course, Schwarzenegger and the horsemen who support the increase are only hastening the demise of California’s horse industry.
The rake on two-horse exotics will increase 2 percent to a lofty 22.68 hold and three-horse exotics would rise 3 percent to 23.68, lower than New York’s but still too high. To their credit, the straight pool takeout rate remains at 15.43 percent, again lower that New York’s.
But why stop at these proposed increases? Why not raise the take on the superfecta by 4 percent and the Super High Five by 5 percent?
The only glimmer of good news is that the legislation would permit the launch of exchange betting in 2012.
It was hoped, however, that the launch would be concurrent with the increase but the California Horse Racing Board “needed time” to write rules and regulations with industry participants.
Such as existing Advance Deposit Wagering companies? Get the money now; deal with a thorny issue that would provide for real growth at a later date.
And get this: The California legislature also approved a bill that would repeal legalization of betting exchanges in 2016 unless further legislation was passed allowing it to continue.
Consider: Something that’s legal now can be made illegal if new legislation is not passed allowing it to continue to be legal.
In the world of politics, perhaps California and New York are not that different after all?


02 Sep 2010 at 06:40 pm | #
John,
..."Among the most embarrassing items...send a bad message...forgone conclusion.”
You mean it’s just like Rachel Alexandra last year when she won the Woodward Stakes. To most of you on the east coast - it was a forgone conclusion that she was the HOY. But then Zenyatta came along and won the greatest thoroughbred race ever - at least this side of Secretariat. And it embarrassed those of you that had that forgone conclusion that Rachel Alexandra was the HOY, but you still voted Rachel Alexandra as the HOY thus sending a bad message.
Now I get it.
02 Sep 2010 at 06:52 pm | #
John,(Poster #1)
In the words of the great Wendell M Corrow:
Who gives a crap???
Concentrate on picking winners rather than this very tired argument.
02 Sep 2010 at 10:23 pm | #
But Gary, I thought I WAS concentrating on picking winners.
John, that was embarrassing. This piece wasn’t about THE GREATEST HORSE WHO EVER LIVED, BAR NONE.
Now Eastern turf writers are biased even when they show some empathy for what’s going on out there. This is just so sad. Hang in there.
JP
03 Sep 2010 at 04:20 am | #
John,
No, you don’t get it.
If you think Zenyatta’s Breeders’ Cup Classic victory was “the greatest thoroughbred race ever,” then you need to find a library with the last 40 years of the American Racing Manual and start doing some research.
Here are a couple of lesser examples of a better race: Sunday Silence’s 1989 Preakness and B.Cup Classic victories over Easy Goer. They pitted two Hall of Famers against each other, and did it on dirt, confirming Sunday Silence’s superiority.
And by the way, Thoroughbred is always capitalized.
03 Sep 2010 at 05:00 am | #
Here’s a couple more for you, John, in case you zealot-colored glasses impair your good judgment.
The 1984 Breeders’ Cup Classic: the 3-horse stretch duel won by Wild Again cemented the race as an American classic in more than name only.
The 1987 B. Cup Classic: As announcer Tom Durkin so aptly called it, the two Derby winners” hit the wire together.”
Zenyatta’s Classic was one of the most memorable moments of the last couple of decades, and she may be the best mare of the last quarter century. Nevertheless, your exaggeration tarnishes her accomplishments and diminishes the history of America’s greatest sport.
03 Sep 2010 at 05:02 am | #
Sorry for the typo. “You” should be your.
03 Sep 2010 at 05:53 am | #
Gary Walker: Gee Gary, I’m impressed. Thanks for the plug.
Mr. Kling: You left out a couple of other great races: a) the feature at Rockingham Park years and years ago when I made my first large wager and watched my horse (Jolly Jet) hold on to dead heat for the win. And the other was my largest wager ever back then, when John’s Jewel shipped over to Philly Park from Green Mountain and finished second to a heavy, heavy favorite - just where I put my wager, to place.
03 Sep 2010 at 06:38 am | #
Wendell,
You should have played the quinella if it was available, exacta if not.
03 Sep 2010 at 08:25 am | #
“The only glimmer of good news is that the legislation would permit the launch of exchange betting in 2012.”
I am in shock you would think exchange betting would do anything except cannibalize existing pools and return a lower return to everyone-except Betfair.
Shocked isn’t strong enough.
I am appalled that someone like you, with all your experience in the industry, could possibly be in Betfair’s corner.
03 Sep 2010 at 11:24 am | #
You guys are a little hard on John, over zealous though he may be. Maybe I’m just getting soft, but Zen’s Classic and Rachel’s Woodward are the only two races except Secretariat’s Belmont to make me cry tears of joy. If that’s his measure I think you have to respect that part of his opinion.
Greatest races from a competitive standpoint, agree with the ‘89 Preakness and ‘87 Classic. Locally, always been partial to the ‘88 Travers - Forty Niner over Seeking The Gold and Brian’s Time. And Go For Wand’s Test had something really special about it.
Nick, “may be the best mare of the last quarter century?” I don’t know who you could possibly put ahead of her. If she wins the Classic again and finishes 20-0 are you still going to deny she’s the greatest American mare of all-time?
03 Sep 2010 at 11:41 am | #
Ace,
I understand how you might be nervous about exchange betting. But let me ask you, I assume you’re a player, and you’re not interested in exchange betting, right? Neither am I. It’s possible the appeal will be to mostly younger, sports gambling types. If that is true it could grow handle and work to broaden the games appeal. But it is somewhat dicey. I can’t disagree.
03 Sep 2010 at 01:32 pm | #
To me, it is very clear that exchange wagering to the model we now have is exactly the the same as the giveaway the tracks made when approving off track wagering and gave away the signal. Gave it away.
That horse left the barn, lets not allow another round of siphoning money away from the industry occur.
Kyle, I’m not nervous-I’m terrified.
03 Sep 2010 at 02:10 pm | #
Ace,
Hard to defend the track record to racing and its governmental overseers. So I certainly understand the source of your angst. I do believe there is also the possibility exchange wagering could exert downward pressure on straight wagering takeout. Hopefully, NYRA gets that ball rolling when they get slots. Then exchange wagering adds to the momentum? I’m being optimistic, I know.
03 Sep 2010 at 02:27 pm | #
Kyle and Ace: Give the following some thought: Who rules Thoroughbred racing? Who sits on the boards of all racing associations? Who is the only group making money? Who determines who is going to be the CEO on down at any racing association? They are sui generis. The answer: Breeders and very wealthy owners of blue blood thoroughbreds; they don’t have a clue about gambling, nor do they care. All they want is to make sure there are numerous stake races with gigantic purses, hyped by the media into racing ‘stars’, so that their horses, soon to head for the breeding shed, will be in demand.
You, I, and any other person, stupid enough to enter a racetrack through the front door, is, in their mind, 1) stupid, and 2) irrelevant.
What do they care about the Betting Exchange? Their only interest is in winning the inflated stake race purses so their horses go on to the breeding shed.
Check out the directors at the prominent racetracks, find me a ‘bettor’ on the board. Also, check out how many of these directors own stallions, and are involved in breeding.
Soon, only Pletcher and Asmussen, the wealthy directors and owners’ favorites, will have the only horses entered in the Kentucky Derby, Travers, et cetera.
And, Pletcher and Asmussen train more horses, per Daily Racing Form, than any other trainer on the planet - there amazing, aren’t they?
03 Sep 2010 at 05:29 pm | #
John:
In a very famous episode of the original Star Trek, the great Frank Gorshin played a government official chasing a runaway “prisoner” throughout the galaxy. Gene Roddenberry’s brilliant allegory about race relations in the late 1960’s was centered around the fact that the only difference between the two warring factions was that, although both men were 1/2 black and 1/2 white, the colors were merely reversed on each other’s faces.
Why is this episode relevent in this discussion? I have been wondering for most of the past year what will become of the two “warring” sides in this endless non-competiton between the Rachel and Zenyatta camps? After this year, they will be in the same positon as the two combatants in Star Trek, to wit, they will have reached their “Final Battlefield.”
What will they do with their time? Will the Zenyatta “people” only be assuaged when all racing journalists get down on their knees and in a “Perry Mason” moment, admit to their “East Coast Bias”? Will the Rachel fans need to see Zenyatta finish up the track at Churchill in order to satisfy their collective craving for some type of revenge?
Again, why would your column about the new Cali takeout be used as another forum for bashing last year’s HOY balloting?
John, will we ever see fit to join together to attempt to rectify racing’s multitude of probelms? Or, are we doomed, like Frank Gorshin, to chase each other endlessly throughout the galaxy with no resolution ever in sight?
03 Sep 2010 at 09:15 pm | #
Nick,
..."Nevertheless, your exaggeration tarnishes her accomplishments and diminishes the history of America’s greatest sport.”
Wow, I’m impressed, Nick.
I didn’t know I had that much influence.
No, wait a minute. I don’t.
I’m just a obscure person out here in the hinterlands reading and responding the half-baked junk you east coast folks try to feed us.
And Nick, speaking of tarnishing her accomplishments-she has already been voted the greatest American female racehorse in the last fifty years by obscure people like myself in both the Daily Racing Form and Bloodhorse polls.
You mentioned quarter of a century. It’s fifty years, Nick. So stop tarnishing her recognition and thus diminishing a chapter from America’s greatest sport.
04 Sep 2010 at 03:37 am | #
John,
I realize those of you who march in the Zealotry brigade of racing fans like to toss out the “East Coast” bias. In this case, it’s a red herring.
Perhaps you neglected to notice that three of the four races I mentioned were won by California-based horses, and the other was run in California.
No, John, my bias is against those who substitute misplaced passion for fact and good sense.
Regarding the polls you cite, I’d point out to you in November of 2008 Barack Obama got 53 percent of the vote for President. If the election were held today, he’d be lucky to get 40 percent.
The point? The public’s affection can be a fickle thing. Were the voters wrong then, or now?
Here’s the bottom line on Zenyatta. If she wins her last two races she will be universally acclaimed as the greatest mare of the last 50 years, perhaps ever, and deservedly so.
If she loses the Classic, she will be considered among the best two or three of the last 50 years, and deservedly so.
Try to be objective, John. You might discover it makes racing more enjoyable when you can embrace the accomplishments of great horses wherever they race.
04 Sep 2010 at 10:41 am | #
Nick,
Thanks for responding.
I notice you bring up the part about some California horses.
Was that inserted to establish in me the thought that you are not some east coast biased writer?
Or did you think that I was a Californian that needed to be appeased with the fair and equal treatment of outstanding California racehorses.
Fact is, Nick, I was born in New York. And I started following horseracing around the time of Dr. Fager, Damascus, and Buckpasser.
So I’m well aware of an east coast bias within the horseracing industry.
You also seem to deride the opinions of common folks. But do you also have the same disdain for the fickle voting members that actually voted for the HOY?
Didn’t Zenyatta have a slight lead in the final NTRA poll of 2009 only to lose to Rachel Alexandra?
Were some voters right then, then wrong later, or vice versa?
Finally, you think that east coast bias is a ‘red herring’.
Fact is, you really must read Bill Dwyre..."Her defeat was at the hands of a bunch of sportswriters, many of whom may have had fogged brains from summer hummidity in the East.”
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-dwyre-zenyatta-20100807,0,101169.column
04 Sep 2010 at 11:12 am | #
John,
Does an East Coast bias exist? It has at times. There is no question it was in play during the Easy Goer/Sunday Silence era.
If it was in play last year, it had only a minor impact on HOY. I can’t recall who, but someone analyzed the Eclipse votes and discovered the percentage of voters by region varied little between Z & RA. I wish I could remember where I saw that. Perhaps one of the readers will remember and respond.
My objection last year was to the unfortunate unwillingness of the National Turf Writers Association, of which I’m a member, to support the option to have joint HOY winners. Pasted below is the link to the column I wrote at the time. You will note it predicted the rancor which now exists between fans of the two.
If the option had existed, it would have gotten my vote. Since it didn’t, I had to choose one, and my narrow decision was for RA for all the reasons hashed over for months now. In addition, there was the issue of surface. The second link below covers my thing on that issue.
My vote had nothing to do with bias.
http://www.troyrecord.com/articles/2009/12/01/sports/horseracing/doc4b14bd2080caa679584035.txt
http://www.troyrecord.com/articles/2010/01/22/sports/horseracing/doc4b593c9cef270115231197.txt