The margin after a mile and a quarter was a half-length, Rail Trip finishing in the center of the track, and Awesome Gem completing the course in a spot that a horse named Rail Trip might figure to occupy. John Henry was a horse who, if he could see you, wasn't going to let you outrun him, and he lost an Arlington Million once when his view of the winning horse, Tolomeo, was blocked by a third horse between them. I'm not saying that Rail Trip has the grit of a John Henry, but it looked to me that after he made the lead, he didn't spot Awesome Gem coming. Rafael Bejarano, Rail Trip's jockey, didn't say anything about this possibility after the race, and Hollywood Park didn't make Rail Trip available for an interview.
This year's older-horse division is hardly a bunch that gets the heart pounding. They run these races, and someone has to win them, and then these someones move up in the rankings, but from week to week no giants of the turf emerge. Rail Trip was still below the radar before the Gold Cup, even though his record of eight wins, two seconds and one third in 11 starts was impeccable. The trouble is, he's taken four years to run those 11 races, and now he's taken a half-step backward.
If these horses meet again at Del Mar, in the Pacific Classic, Rail Trip will again be the favorite and will probably win, but meantime Craig Dollase, the trainer of Awesome Gem, can be congratulated for his pursuit of a Grade 1 with his veteran. This was Awesome Gem's 13th start in a Grade 1, and his first win. "He's like fine wine," Dollase said. "He's just getting better with age."
Dollase may have figured that there had to be a Gold Cup out there someplace with his name on it. In 2002, Dollase saddled Momentum, whose nose wasn't long enough to beat Sky Jack, and the year before that Dollase's Futural was disqualified from the win after being first across the line. The Hollywood Park stewards' ears are still ringing over that one.
In the last 12 months alone, Dollase has shipped Awesome Gem from pillar to post in search of wins. The gelded son of Awesome Again has visited eight tracks, five of them outside California. All Dollase had to show for it was last year's Hawthorne Gold Cup. Awesome Again travels because the underfooting is not a consideration. "Synthetic, grass, mud, you name it," Dollase said.
Seventeen times, Awesome Gem has been second or third in his career. In the Hollywood Gold Cup, the longshot Tres Borrachos (translation: three drunks), who might have been one of the pace horses in a six-horse field, broke poorly and then there was only one horse, Compari, to make the pace. The plodding fractions were ludicrous, and the winning time, 2:03.31, was the slowest since Seabiscuit in the first running, in 1938.
Rail Trip is a stalker by reputation, but this time he was asked to play grinder, and still almost pulled it off. He had the widest trip, the winner the shortest, and there was the sense that Ron Ellis, Rail Trip's trainer, was not thrilled by Bejarano's ride. "I don't know why (the horse was wide)," Ellis said after the race. "You would have to ask (the jockey)." Bejarano had won twice with Rail Trip at this Hollywood meet, but not this time. Rail Trip needed a rail trip to win, and he got something far worse.
11 Jul 2010 at 08:04 am | #
Agree that Rail Trip was a bit further back than he likes and was wide. Also thought Richard’s Kid was ridden too agressively taking away his expected late punch.
11 Jul 2010 at 08:20 am | #
One of the clarion calls of horsemen who purchase thoroughbreds, the guys and gals who enter a racetrack from the backstretch, has been, and will always be, “purses must be higher”; nothing wrong with that. I, and my fellow lowlifes, who enter the racetrack from the front entrance, having paid for parking and admission, also have a clarion call: “free parking, admission, and lower takeout”.
Yesterday, four stake races were run with purses from $600,000 down to $167,500; seems to me that these purses were quite adequate, if not excessive. Was the Hollywood Gold Cup worth a purse of $500,000 that was won by an old campaigner? Today’s article in Daily Racing Form starts with, “So what if Awesome Gem needed 13 starts in Grade I races over 40 months to finally win at that level ...”. Could the $500,000 been spread more efficaciously, say five $100,000 stake races, so that more horsemen earned more money? Was the race any more exciting than any other race on the day’s race card?
The Man O’ War offered a purse of $600,000, achieving five entrants, and Gio Ponti paid $2.80 to win. Again, seems to me like a terrible waste of precious purse money, and was the race any more exciting or whatever than any other race on the day’s race card at Belmont?
Two other stake races, Long Branch Stake, purse $167,500, with the winner paying $3.00; and the Delaware Oaks, purse $263,200, with the winner paying $2.40. Thrilling races worth six figure purses that will create new fans? I don’t think so.
Again, it seems to me that there is plenty of purse money around, but it is not distributed equitably among races; and that horses like Rail Trip with a distinquished owner, will, along with similar owners having influence, continue to be turf writers fodder for a long time while thousands of other owners of thoroughbreds and thousands of trainers who provide horses at race meets and train them while earning far less than a handful of owners and trainers who receive all the booty and turf writers attention.
So, you readers out there tell me how the Hollywood Gold Cup and the Man O’ War were worth purses of $500,000 and $600,000; and, specifically, tell me just how more exciting these two races were than any other race on the race card at either racetrack.
11 Jul 2010 at 08:24 am | #
Opps, mistake. The Man O’ War had more than five entrants, but the point is not changed.
11 Jul 2010 at 09:06 am | #
Always feel like I’m waking up to the same day when I read your posts, Corrow!
11 Jul 2010 at 10:00 am | #
Mr. Corrow,
Perhaps the more salient issue to discuss is how the national racing scene got to the point where race tracks feel the need to offer up these large purses to induce the best horses to show up (too much unregulated competition?). I agree that purse money could be more equitably distributed, and you will note that when a track is suffering sufficient economic decline, the fat purses are the first thing to go.
I’m not going to belabor discussing the numerous remedies that have been articulated on this site and others, but if you have faith in the law of supply and demand (I’m not sure I’m a true believer), and you have the patience of Solomon (I probably do not), then the market will shake out the weak and unproductive tracks, and those that remain will have to re-structure their product (Monmouth is but the opening gambit of an industry-wide shake out?)in order to attract enough bettors.
eric s.
11 Jul 2010 at 03:04 pm | #
Eric: Why the purse of one race is $750,000, or higher, and another on the same race card has a purse of $30,000 leaves me nonplussed; particularly when a person in a seat at the track or in a carrel at a racino or OTB will note little difference between the two races as far as excitement, ability to pick the winner, or the payoff. What the six-figure purses are suppose to accomplish has had me mystified for decades. I have concluded that it is the turf writers by their incessant commentary on a few horses, trainers, and jockeys that have convinced the public that stake races are far better than a cheap claiming race, and racing at a few select racetracks are superior to all other racetracks, thus there has been established an erroneous stratification that has transferred the wealth gained from winning purse money to a few owners and trainers, and has virtually left thousands of owners and trainers to table crumbs. If it were not for slot revenue, only a few racetracks would be operating and the result would be horrendous for the industry: thousands of owners, trainers, and jockeys out of work; and such would solidify even more the strangle hold that the ‘big eight’ and their owners now have on racing.
So, is it necessary to offer a huge purse for the ‘best’ horses to show up, when I still don’t understand what a best horse is, and, to repeat again and again, there is no difference between a claiming race and a stake race to the human eye, nor is one easier to handicap than the other.
Over and over I repeat myself at this website, as Groundhog Day stated. I still haven’t received answers to any of my questions.
What would be a fresh start and a rejuvenation of the industry would be for the National Association of Turf Writers to spread the word that attending racing at any racetrack across the county is worthwhile; and for a better purse distribution so that more owners make money to stay in the ‘game’ and to purchase thoroughbreds.
Please give thought to casinos. Is there one casino that is superior to another when it comes to their main attraction: gambling? Are not all casinos equal as to gambling? Isn’t Thoroughbred racing about gambling, or is it about watching the ‘best’ horses run?
(To Mr. Pricci, I appreciate the opportunity to continue my drivel. I do regret being so redundant with my comments, but I do hold you turf writers responsible for a large part of why Thoroughbred racing is losing its popularity. I have to keep banging the drum until, as Eric says, there is a shakeout).
12 Jul 2010 at 03:44 am | #
wmc,
The ground hog day analogy was as accurate as it was humorous, but I have to agree with you that the Gold Cup purse was too high—at least for a winner who didn’t sweep the Hollywood Park classic division series as Rail Trip could have. With the first two legs lowered to the minimum purse for their grade, the Gold Cup purse should also have been lowered to the $250K minimum for a G1 with a $100K bonus to the winner if he had won either of the first two legs and $250K if he had won both. An additional $250K should have been available to the winner of both the Santa Anita Handicap and the Hollywood Gold Cup.
As far as the actual running was concerned, that Gold Cup did NOT look different from a lower purse race. In fact, jockey Flores guided an even longer shot to victory over a Bejarano-ridden, odds-on favorite earlier on the card. IMO the real villain in the race was the synthetic surface which turns horse races into jockey races. This Gold Cup was a replay of the Bluegrass stakes victory by Dominican over Street Sense.
If I were Ellis, I’d wait and see whether Mike Smith is available before naming a jockey for the Pacific Classic (assuming Zenyatta and Drosselmeyer aren’t running), but I know that would violate your principle that top jockeys and trainers shouldn’t be making most of the money.
Del Mar should restructure the purse of the Pacific Classic. Again the base purse should be $250K with the winner getting an additional $100K if he won the San Diego Handicap, an additional $250K if he won either the SAH or HGC and an additional P0K if he had won them both. Surely you wouldn’t deny such rewards to the owner of so worthy a steed. IMO no base purse of $1 M is justified in CA unless Zenyatta is a starter.
It would certainly be a feather in the cap of the new DMR prez if “Z” were to run in his track’s signature event. It might almost offset the feather in his tail as a super synthetic surface supporter. If other CA owners couldn’t have a shot at the big money unless a certain CHRB commissioner ran his BC Classic champion as well, maybe he’d feel obligated to compete.
Even though recapturing nationwide interest in CA racing doesn’t seem to be sufficient incentive for Mr. Moss. I’m surprised he isn’t capitalizing on fellow California owner Jackson’s unwillingness to cross the Rockies the way Hannibal crossed the Alps. Indeed, the not-yet-fully-ripened Alexandra the Grape’s reputation is withering on an ungraded vine while the wine magnate contemplates ways to squeeze racetrack executives in his winepress. On the other hand, perhaps Rachel’s presence in New Jersey will help save racing in that state.
Either way, appearances by the amazing amazon of the West—and the erstwhile dominatrix of the East—shouldn’t be wasted on apple cans. We want to watch the best face the best. Big base purses no longer guarantee big fields, much less competitive ones, but big bonuses should boost field quality.
14 Jul 2010 at 11:54 am | #
This has nothing to do with the column above. It is the only way I can find to contact you re your DRF 7/12/10 article, “The two worst offenders”.
You write that The Jockey Club Registrar said they don’t look at owner’s name when an application is received to name a horse. That claim is pure bullshit.
Because I had the audacity to sue TJC for violating my First Amendment rights, they put me on their watch-list. I am still on it and they will find some way to reject the name for which I apply. Latest eexample:
I applied for name “Black Beauty”. Rejected and the ‘RULE’ cited is - 6, F9, “Names clearly having commercial, artistic or creative significance.”
There is nothing commercial about Black Beauty. Artistic ??? Creative ??? It was the title of a book written in the 1800s, long since in the public domain. So, where is the ‘clearly’ or ‘significance’??
Among names approved that might be clearly artistic &/or creative &/or commercial are:
Winslow Homer; Christine Daae; Pussycat Doll; See Alice; Black Bottom.
Are the TJC examiners so far out of touch with American culture the don’t see the possibility those names might not qualify under their rule?
I accuse them of having a blacklist. I guess my name is at the top.
Of course, now that the media has won it’s case against the rulers and censors of TV broadcasting perhaps TJC will take another look at it’s “Rules” and their application.
17 Jul 2010 at 12:37 am | #
Bill, we disagree that the older horse division is “hardly a bunch that gets the heart pounding”.
signed,
rachel alexandra
quality road
zenyatta
blame
battle plan
musket man
general quarters
vineyard haven
now if you could only get us in a race together.....