Wednesday, June 18, 2014
A positive approach to Lasix-free racing
It borders on disgraceful that every horse who competed in the 10 stakes on the stellar Belmont card ran on Lasix. These are the thoroughbreds who will eventually find their way to breeding sheds. Obviously not every one of them needs Lasix. Restrictive attempts to curtail its usage have failed. A new approach, which offers rewards for running medication-free, might be just the thing to start momentum rolling in a positive direction.
MIAMI, June 18, 2014--Belmont Stakes Day was one of American racingâ€™s finest hours. It also was one of its most distressing in spite of memorable performances by Tonalist, Palace Malice, Close Hatches and Bayern, among others,
The card was hailed as the greatest assemblage of equine talent ever on a non-Breedersâ€™ Cup program. More than a hundred of Americaâ€™s most talented horses entered 10 stakes, six of them Grade 1. The bummer was every one of them raced on Lasix.
It almost defies the laws of probability that not one of the nominally best thoroughbreds in America went to the post without the controversial pharmaceutical. The same day, Ascot also conducted its biggest afternoon of racing. Not a single Euro raced with Lasix.
Why did every American thoroughbred race with Lasix while not a single Euro did? Because they could in the U.S. and couldn't in Europe.
The bloodlines of Europeâ€™s finest intersect repeatedly with those on our side of the Atlantic. Many of Europeâ€™s champions were bred on U.S. farms. So there is no plausible explanation for why all our championship caliber horsesâ€”just about all our horses, for that matter--are purportedly bleeders yet none of theirs are.
There are, of course, Euros who bleed. Some are treated the old fashioned way, with rest and TLC. The others wind up being shipped overseas to race in the drug permissive U.S.
Even though you would never know it from the Belmont Stakes card, or that at any other track in America, there are American horses who do not really require Lasix. If there arenâ€™t, we ought to shut the whole thing down. Unfortunately, the way things are now, weâ€™ll never know how many fall into this category.
There might be a way to start to find out. What the trans-Atlantic contrast underlines is that Lasix is being used in America for reasons beyond its stated purpose of controlling exercise-induced bleeding. I have been told by countless trainers that they uniformly administer Lasix out of fear that if they donâ€™t, their competition will have an edge. Some owners demand it for this reason.
The Breedersâ€™ Cup tried to introduce some sanity to the situation. It decreed that in 2012 Lasix would not be permitted in its juvenile stakes; the following year the ban would be extended to all the championship races. The hope was that thoroughbreds at the highest levels, the ones who wind up going to the breeding sheds, could be weaned off Lasix.
Attempting to go it alone was misguided. It made no sense to force horses, who run all their other races under one set of rules, to adapt to different conditions for one race a year. Also, the engine that drives racing is gambling. This introduced an element of uncertainty for bettors, which has a negative impact on wagering.
The experiment never was given a chance. Entries for the 2-year-old races the first year plunged, so much so that the Juvenile Sprint, a rich prize you would think would have attracted scores of candidates, was abandoned.
Facing the universal ban the following year, horsemen rebelled, some threatening to boycott the entry box. They also indicated that if the ban wasnâ€™t lifted for future renewals, they would withdraw their permission to simulcast. No simulcasting, no Breedersâ€™ Cup.
There might be another way. In place of the vinegar approach, how about trying some honey? Tracks should experiment with carding races open only to horses willing to run Lasix-free. This would liberate horsemen, who administer the drug solely out of fear that their competitors might have an advantage.
Lasix is not cheap. Trainers and owners struggling to make ends meet might welcome a way to reduce expenses.
A reason often offered for the short fields, which have become the bane of the sport, is the dehydrating effect of Lasix. Horses, who run on itâ€”essentially every horse--are said to be unable to come back as quickly. This, of course, is the opposite of what was claimed when Lasix legalization was being debated.
As few as one or two additional starts annually per horse could contribute to a stronger profits-and-loss scenario for a barn. Lower foal crops can be directly attributed to reduced demand as owners get out of the game because of its cost. Anything that mitigates this would be a step in the right direction.
Since there would be a limited number of Lasix-free races, at least at the start, horsemen who objected to money from the purse fund going into these restricted races would face the scorn of public opinion. Besides, the multitude of races would still be run under current race day medication rules. If it became initially difficult to fill such races, another way to achieve the desired end would be to enhance the purse for those running Lasix-free, in the same way state-bred horses are rewarded for running in open races.
If horsemen persisted in their objections, perhaps someone like the Jockey Club could find a way to finance the purse enhancements for Lasix-free entrants. Hay-oats-and-water proponents have spent a fortune in vain trying to change hearts and minds. A program such as this could produce tangible evidence that Lasix is not essential to competing successfully.
Itâ€™s worth a try, isnâ€™t it?
Written by Tom Jicha
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Coburn’s Rant Predicted Here
America was taken aback by the graceless rant of Steve Coburn, part-owner of California Chrome. But it shouldn't have come as a surprise to readers of Horse Race Insider. It was predicted last week in this column that Coburn would go off if his colt didn't win, because he set the stage months ago when California Chrome was just a leading candidate for the Triple Crown races.
MIAMI, June 11, 2014--Steve Coburnâ€™s post-Belmont rant shouldnâ€™t have come as a surprise to readers of HorseRaceInsider.com.
I led my Belmont preview column by referencing Coburnâ€™s remarks from this spring that an owner, who joined the Triple Crown grind late or took off the Preakness, was â€ścheating.â€ť In the immediate aftermath of a crushing defeat, the co-owner of California Chrome resurrected this theme and took it a step further, labeling owners who donâ€™t run in all three Triple Crown events are â€ścowards.â€ť
Itâ€™s easy to be affable when things are going as well as they were for Team California Chrome this spring. How someone handles adversity is a more revealing sign of character.
Admittedly, this is a bit harsh. Coburn is a 10-pound bug to the highest level of racing and even more of a newcomer to dealing with the media, who love to pretend they are your friend until an opportunity to play â€śgotchaâ€ť materializes. He doesnâ€™t have publicists to advise and protect him by telling him to shut up. So under normal circumstances, he deserves to be cut some slack.
However, with a night to sleep on his intemperate remarks and given ample opportunity to walk back what he said, if not outright retract them, he exacerbated the situation on Sunday. He compared what happened to his horse to a child in a wheelchair being taken advantage of by an adult. It was one of those moments when you cringe and go, â€śHe didnâ€™t really say that, did he?â€ť
Someone with PR savvy must have finally gotten to Coburn. He issued an apology on Mondayâ€™s â€śGood Morning Americaâ€ť that should have been done when he had the opportunity the day before. He said he was ashamed of himself and did not mean to take anything away from Tonalist or his connections. It was so late, it reeked more of damage control than sincerity.
Dumb Ass Partners certainly is an appropriate name for at least half of California Chromeâ€™s ownership team.
Coburn also showed a lack of understanding of racing and what the Triple Crown is. This is not the World Series, NBA Finals or Stanley Cup playoffs, a winner-take-all, four-of-seven series. The Derby, Preakness and Belmont are separate classic races, each a prestigious and lucrative prize in its own right. Owners and trainers are entitled to prepare their horses, or not, as they see fit.
If Coburnâ€™s viewpoint had been the rule, the Preakness and Belmont would have been three-horse races, shams that few would have paid attention to. The NBC contract would soon be history.
Speaking of which, the TV ratings for the Belmont were the highest since Smarty Jonesâ€™ Triple Crown attempt in 2004. Approximately 20.6 million viewers watched. This was more than three times the 6.4 million for the prime time Stanley Cup finals game between New York and Los Angeles, the nationâ€™s two biggest markets.
The tune-in also was 50 percent higher than for the NBA Finals on Sunday in prime time--when more TV's are in use than any other night--featuring Americaâ€™s love-them-or-hate-them Miami Heat. Not bad for a sport supposedly on its death bed.
California Chrome did not fall short of the Triple Crown because Tonalist was the fresher horse. He didn't come up short because there was an 11-horse field, more than any Triple Crown winner had to contend with. The Belmont now pays back to eighth place, so this is going to be the new normal.
He didnâ€™t lose because Victor Espinoza gave him a questionable ride. You have to admire the nerve of Randy Moss to take this stand, especially after Jerry Bailey more or less told him he didnâ€™t know what he was talking about. Baileyâ€™s counter to Mossâ€™ contention that Espinoza should have gone to the lead was that California Chrome already had a target on his back.
If California Chrome went to the front, he would have had several horses immediately taking shots at him, extending him sooner than would have been prudent. Isnâ€™t this what they said about Stewart Elliott on Smarty Jones? But compared to Moss, what does Jerry Bailey, the greatest big race jockey of his generation, know about riding horses?
I canâ€™t say for sure but I doubt grabbing a quarter shortly after the start was a significant factor. Maybe it was adrenaline kicking in but California Chrome showed no sign of distress and looked to be making a winning surge in mid-stretch, more than a mile after the incident. Alas, he couldnâ€™t sustain it.
California Chrome became the 13th horse in 36 years to win the Derby and Preakness only to fall short in the Belmont for the same reason most of the others did. He was beaten by the Belmont distance and horses who could handle it better than he could.
He was right there after a mile and a quarter. He and Tonalist were almost side by side in mid-stretch. Tonalist went on. But with the race and the Triple Crown on the line, California Chrome started to hang, as horses whose tanks have been emptied do.
Tom Durkin, in his final Belmont, called it: â€śCalifornia Chrome is laboring late.â€ť
Runnerup Commissioner is a nice horse but probably a cut below the very best. However, he has a Belmont winner top and bottom in his pedigree. He was particularly suited for the mile and a half. Show horse Medal Count hadn't hit the board on conventional dirt since his maiden win at Ellis Park. But being by Dynaformer, he, too, is bred better for 12 furlongs than California Chrome.
The distance is what beat him. Not three races in five weeks. I donâ€™t think itâ€™s going too far out on a limb to say that at a mile and an eighth or even a mile and a quarter, California Chrome would beat Commissioner and Medal Count almost every time.
California Chromeâ€™s connections said repeatedly he was coming into the Belmont bigger and stronger than ever. His workouts had clockers gushing. So even though I know Iâ€™m spitting into the wind, could we please can the talk about changing the time frame of the Derby, Preakness and Belmont?
California Chrome wasnâ€™t going to beat the horses who finished ahead of him at a mile and a half if the Belmont was run on July 4, Labor Day, Thanksgiving weekend or New Yearâ€™s Eve.
If something needs to be changedâ€”I would argue vehemently againstâ€”it is asking 3-year-olds who have never run a mile and a half, and probably never will again, to handle such a grueling route. But if the distance is diminished, so is the Triple Crown.
With more than a hundred thousand fans at each of the three races, TV ratings near an all-time high in an era when there are more viewing options than ever, the Belmont getting attention all week on the morning shows, the late-night gabfests and everything in between, and now the continuing attention thanks to Coburn, why would anyone in his or her right mind want to change anything?
Written by Tom Jicha
Wednesday, June 04, 2014
California Chrome with my heart, Tonalist with my head
California Chrome, No. 2 in the starting gate but No. 1 in the hearts of most of America, is the horse to beat and the one few want to see beaten in the Belmont Stakes.
However, the 3-5 morning line favorite will have to overcome breeding that says he will be in trouble when he reaches the top of the stretch at Big Sandy having run as far as he ever has and still has a quarter-mile to go.
He also will be challenged by fresh horses, a factor his supremely confident co-owner, Steve Coburn, said he feared as far back as April. One of those,Tonalist, who drew the outside No. 11, has everything you would look for to score the upset.
MIAMI, June 4, 2014--Steve Coburn has been Muhammad Ali-like throughout late winter and spring. The co-owner of California Chrome brazenly professed to have no doubts his colt would run away with the Santa Anita Derby, Kentucky Derby and Preakness. As Ali would say, â€śIt isnâ€™t bragging when you back it up,â€ť and California Chrome has done that.
The Belmont was another matter, Coburn said during an NTRA conference call prior to the Santa Anita Derby. It wasnâ€™t the mile and a half distance--California Chromeâ€™s biggest obstacle--that Coburn fretted over. His concern was that his colt would be denied the Triple Crown in the Belmont by a fresh horse who had skipped the Derby and/or Preakness.
â€śTo me, going in just the Preakness or Belmont is cheating,â€ť Coburn said. â€śIf youâ€™ve got a horse you think can do it, put him in the first race and keep him in the second and third races.â€ť
Coburn is obviously a student of the game. The past eight Belmont winners skipped the Derby or Preakness or both. Afleet Alex is the only colt in the past dozen years to win the Belmont after competing in the first two legs of the Triple Crown.
Afleet Alex is also the only Belmont winner during that period to even run in the Preakness. The second jewel of the Triple Crown almost always gets the Derby winner but, in recent years, the majority of Derby also-rans have tended not to show up in Baltimore two weeks later.
This explains why Pimlico president Tom Chuckas is pushing hard to change the spacing of the Triple Crown races. He isnâ€™t thinking of what is good for racing. Heâ€™s all out for his own track, which, to be fair, is his job. With a month between races, Chuckas argues, more top Derby contenders would also show up in Baltimore.
A well researched piece by Natalie Voss, published by the Paulick Report, notes that the Triple Crown trail has taken many forms over the years, including a different order of the races. However, an accompanying chart shows that 10 of the previous Triple Crown winners did it within a 35-day time frame, same as now. Coincidentally, seven had exactly 35 days.
Three did it within an even more compact period. Assault accomplished his sweep within 28 days; Gallant Fox did it in 29; Sir Barton in 32. The exception is Citation, who had 42 days between his Derby and Belmont. This is still less than Chuckas and others, who advocate a month or more between the Classics, would prefer.
But I digress. To return to the point, if California Chrome is to fall short, it most likely will be a fresh horse, or a horse fresher than him, who spoils everythingâ€¦and not one who also chased him home in the Preakness. This would eliminate General a Rod, who drew post 10, and No. 5 Ride on Curlin, whose 12-1 morning line seems generous in light of his second place in the Preakness.
I wouldnâ€™t leave the latter off exotic tickets. He has hit the board in six of eight career stakes but has never reached the wire first in an added money event.
The only other starter likely to draw much support is Derby runnerup Commanding Curve, who's 15-1 from post 4. However, he still has only a maiden win on his resume.
Better places to settle for those who feel compelled to try to beat the favorite are Wood Memorial winner Wicked Strong, who'll start from post 9, and No. 11 Tonalist, coming off a win in the Peter Pan. Wicked Strong had a troubled trip in the Derby and was one of the few still running hard at the end. Heâ€™s also a New York-based horse, which has proven advantageous to recent upset winners Palace Malice, Daâ€™ Tara and Birdstone.
Like most of the hundred thousand-plus who will be at Belmont and the tens of millions watching on TV, Iâ€™ll be rooting for California Chrome to end the Triple Crown drought. But as a player, the horse who interests me most is Tonalist, also New York-based. The Peter Pan was only the fourth race of his career, so he is fresh.
Tonalistâ€™s breeding is a pole better than California Chrome, who is by a sprinter out of an $8,000 claimer. Tonalist is by the hot sire Tapit, out of a mare by Pleasant Colony, an outstanding dam sire, who missed his own Triple Crown in the Belmont when he was a tired horse, according to his trainer, the late John Campo.
Tonalistâ€™s 3-year-old campaign has been stellar. He opened by breaking his maiden at nine furlongs at Gulfstream, then ran second in an entry level allowance at the same distance. The winner, Constitution, next won the Florida Derby. Tonalist bounced back to capture the Peter Pan over the Belmont strip without having to go all out, a perfect prep. So while he is fresh, he has ample foundation with three wins at a mile and an eighth.
Because of its infrequently contested distance, the Belmont is often a jockeyâ€™s race. Ronnie Franklin managed to get Spectacular Bid beat, Kent Desormeaux probably cost Real Quiet his Triple Crown, and Stewart Elliott made his move way too soon on Smarty Jones, to name just a few riding gaffes that denied racing a Triple Crown winner. None of those riders were Belmont regulars at the time.
Victor Espinoza, who is unbeaten aboard California Chrome, is an accomplished journeyman but, as a Southern California regular, has rarely ridden the only mile and a half track in America. Tonalist has Joel Rosario, who rides Belmont every day and is one of the strongest finishers in the sport.
I hope Iâ€™m wrong and California Chrome makes history but most of the key indicators make Tonalist the horse to beat.
Written by Tom Jicha