In a manner of speaking, they ran the Generous Stakes for the 27th year at Hollywood Park over the Thanksgiving weekend. But to pick a nit, the first time the Generous was run was in 1993, so the math doesn't make any sense. Nor did it make any sense when Hollywood Park changed the name of the race, after 11 years, from the Hoist the Flag to the Generous. Consigned to the dust bin was Hoist the Flag, who only finished first in every race he ever ran, and was the early favorite for the Kentucky Derby when his career was cut short by injury in March of 1971.
I was reminded of the insult to Hoist the Flag when the insult to Lady's Secret came along the other day at Santa Anita. For once, however, they can't blame this one on Frank Stronach. The miscreants are Sherwood Chillingworth and the board of directors of the Oak Tree Racing Association, who rent the joint from Santa Anita for an annual fall meet and, of late, a more-than-occasional running of the Breeders' Cup. Not-for-profit Oak Tree's middle name is charity, but there was nothing charitable about the announcement that it was dropping Lady's Secret's name from one of its Grade 1 races and renaming it in honor of Zenyatta, the flavor of the month.
Thanksgiving was no time for assorted columnists, pundits and racing bloggers to be in any way thankful for what Oak Tree had wrought. The undefeated Zenyatta deserves a race, most of them were saying, but not at the expense of the Lady's Secret Stakes, named after the 1986 Horse of the Year and run 17 times during Oak Tree. Steve Haskin's blog produced more than 200 responses alone, more than 90 per cent of them anti-Oak Tree. "This is the first time I've had a negative reaction with Zenyatta's name attached," one of them said. ". . . I consider it an insult to both of these remarkable ladies, because as I see it, they're (also) not doing Zenyatta any favors with racing fans."
As though anything could justify what Oak Tree did, Lady's Secret is not the first icon to have his or her name callously expunged from a race. Try Seabiscuit and Sir Barton, the first Triple Crown champion. How about Whirlaway, another Triple Crown winner, and classic winners Gallant Man, Riva Ridge and Creme Fraiche? Just across the street from where Gallant Man's plaque hangs in the Hall of Fame, Saratoga took his name off one of its races. Then, in a flight of genius, they renamed the Gallant Man the National Museum of Racing Hall of Fame Stakes. At least Gallant Man's
building is accounted for.
The list is not a short one. Davona Dale, who won the Fair Grounds Debutante and also went into the Hall of Fame, bit the dust at the New Orleans track, after 18 years, when Silverbulletday came along and was evidently deemed more topical. Firenze, another Hall of Famer, was scratched from the stakes lineup at Saratoga after her name had been attached to a race for almost 50 years. The pint-sized filly did her running in the 19th century and now is assured of being forgotten.
When horses die, their names on races become vulnerable. When a dead horse's owner also dies--as was the case with Lady's Secret's Gene Klein--it's Katy bar the door.
"Race tracks are far too quick to toss tradition and history aside," one blogger wrote.
Another used the Lady's Secret-Zenyatta controversy as a foundation to decry all that suffocates the game: "I'll be amazed if and when anyone in (the racing business) gets anything done right the first time."
Sometimes names of important races are changed without major horses being the victims. The Breeders' Cup changed one of its races from the Distaff to the Ladies Classic after one of its executives said: "The general public was confused by the Distaff name." After 24 years of Distaffs, that must have added up to mountains of confusion.
If Oak Tree could rethink what it did with the Lady's Secret Stakes, I would imagine they'd renege on their decision. Be my guest. Somehow, some way, there should be room for both a Lady's Secret
and a Zenyatta race in California. Getting everything right the second time around is perfectly acceptable.
29 Nov 2009 at 04:49 am | #
BC,
Lady’s Secret will still have races named after her at Monmouth and Remington Park. Such standouts as Spectacular Bid, Buckpasser, Ghostzapper, Invasor, and Curlin currently have none. How can you and JP live with such inequity?
What’s in a name, you ask? Only so aptly-named a villain as Sherman Chillingsworth could be equated with Snidely Whiplash and Boris Badenoff.
Bullwinkle, I say. You guys at HRI are off your Rocket J. Squirrels. With the Distaff now cleverly disguised as the Ladies Classic, why shouldn’t the Lady’s Secret be cogently disguised as the Zenyatta?
You eclipse-award-voting turf writers are masquerading as members of racing’s clergy and need to be defrocked. If you want to reverse a real racing-official-created injustice, how about getting Braulio Baeza his good name back.
29 Nov 2009 at 05:44 am | #
That’s a good point about Braulio Baeza, Indulto.
Heard at Aqueduct yesterday--you’ll be glad to hear--that he began working again at Hialeah yesterday.
Good for Braulio, good for Hialeah, and good for John Brunetti.
Meanwhile, Bill, I’m not sure of the number, but I remember walking down the steps of the Saratoga clubhouse one afternoon this year, looking up at the impressive banners named for its prestigious races hanging from the rafters and wincing:
I saw that the Go for Wand Stakes had been run, or was going to be run, for about the 120th time, or something to that effect. So much always has been made about the sport’s traditions yet its practioners show no respect for its history.
JRP
29 Nov 2009 at 07:45 am | #
How about the (now) graded Victory Ride at Saratoga? Please.
29 Nov 2009 at 11:03 am | #
I’m not saying that renaming the Lady’s Secret was the right thing to do, it seems to have been done in the heat of the moment. This did happen last year for a horse of the moment when Saratoga named a race the Curlin Stakes. But what should a track do when they want to name a race to honor a horse, but there are only so many stakes races available?
29 Nov 2009 at 12:08 pm | #
Mr. Christine:
I relished your post (doesn’t mean agree or disagree). All I will say is that I was deeply saddened (yeah...you got it) that some how Lady’s Secret just wasn’t so special anymore because we just don’t have the space on the card or marketing acumen jacks my jaw (no dis to Queen Z). Great real! You know what bugs my butt...the ash and trash mentality of mankind and this industry. These horses and horsemen deserve vigilence based on performance, standards and quality...not the next headline. If we don’t do it (the racegame) and fail to maintain standards, we are doomed to obscurity.
BTW..does the HOF remove members based on contemporary interpretation? Or do they still do that only X# of horses can be in the HOF at one time?
Bottom line, Mr. Christine...I get your point. It was somewhere between tacky and stupid schlock by Oak Tree. Who’s runnin’ the races...the horses/horsemen or the media/PR weasels (who are never there in the beginning)? No answer necessary. What I see is what I get.
29 Nov 2009 at 02:22 pm | #
JP,
Thanks for sharing that wonderful news about Baeza. If you or BC ever talk to him, please tell him that while I’ve cashed many a ticket due to his daring, I started losing my hair when Malhoa caught him napping on Geneva II as she closed with an inexorable rush much like Zenyatta.
Some races and horses become indelibly etched in the minds of those who witness them. The explosive fast finishes fashioned by Mike Smith on Zenyatta mirrored Baeza’s late bids on Buckpassser. There were no Beyer figs back then, but we still knew who the best horses were when we saw them run.
Which reminds me, no rabbits were required to render Zenyatta’s foes vulnerable to her closing kick ... just a hare-brained surface switch.
Rachel’s own success on synthetics, however, did not fuel any projection of her possible predilection for Pro-ride. Instead her connections’ protection against possible subjection led to her ultimate defection and jeopardized her HOTY selection.
For me, this superimposes the Aflack insurance TV ads onto another poster’s interjection in his original objection to pending past-performance data infection ... “Poly want a quacker?”
Thanks, Raz.
29 Nov 2009 at 02:32 pm | #
Insulto--is your beef with the messengers, or the message? What happened to our capacity for discernment? Why give the good people who run the tracks a free pass if they abandon their fidelity to protecting the prestige and integrity of their own business?
29 Nov 2009 at 04:48 pm | #
I don’t understand the brouhaha about the Lady’s Secret. As has been pointed out, she has her name on multiple stakes races around the country, there are only so many graded stakes to go around, and Zenyatta is a horse indelibly associated with the SoCal racing circuit. It makes perfect sense to me.
29 Nov 2009 at 07:47 pm | #
eric,
Your play on my pseudonym debuted previously at paceadvantage.com, but I appreciate the effort.
I don’t give the tracks a free pass on anything. There’s so much that needs to be done to stem the tide toward racing’s demise, but even some of our most esteemed turf writers seem to have joined the forces of distraction from really important reforms.
What difference does it make what a BC prep stakes race on a non-championship surface is called when too few races of any kind are run with fields sufficiently large and competitive to attract handle large enough to support all tracks trying to compete for the horseplayer’s dollar?
Why is who becomes 2009 HOTY a raging controversy when only rebated players can get relief from the excessively high takeout that makes the game harder to beat than ever before at a time when racing needs more customers, not fewer?
Why are people trivializing Zenyatta’s performance when too few people ever got to see it because racing management lacks the vision to make sure it reached the largest possible audience?
Why be concerned how Rachel’s never-being-passed in the Woodward compares with Zenatta’s passing all her opponents in the BC Classic when residents of some states are denied the opportunity to watch and wager on races over the Internet from the privacy of their own homes? Why do some states that do permit their residents to wager on-line, not allow them the option of using ADWs that do give rebates to residents of other states?
I could go on, but hey, what’s HANA for?
29 Nov 2009 at 08:41 pm | #
Mr. Cristine,
Look through your “American Racing Manual” and you will see that this event happens on a frequent basis.
OakTree and Sherwood Chillingworth understand that Zenyatta is the most brilliant mare that has ever raced on this circuit since December 25, 1934.
From this point forward, every filly or mare that steps foot on the racetrack that lies at the base of the San Gabriel mountains will be measured against the legendary “Zenyatta”.
The incomparable “Zenyatta” is at the pinnacle and the pantheon of all fillies and mares that ever raced. Ruffian is the only one that can be compared to her.
I have seen Lady’s Secret in person (during her racing career). I have all her video footage. Zenyatta breathes different air. She is in a different area code altogether, compared to Lady’s Secret.
Eugene Klein has been quoted and has said that Lady’s Secret could not beat aged males at a mile and a quarter. His actions speak volumes. He was true to his word. He never entered Ladies Secret in the Breeders Cup Classic.
Mr. Klein would be honored to be surpassed by the brilliant mare “Zenyatta”.
Ladies Secret was one of the great ones , but there are only so many Grade I events for fillies and mares at the OakTree meeting.
It takes a “Horse of the Year” to replace a “Horse of the Year”, Mr. Christine.
29 Nov 2009 at 08:46 pm | #
Indulto,
So what are you accusing turf writers of, OJ-ing of the hard news about the game and the industry?
One man’s opinion, but controversy that rages over HofY 2009 is for the players and fans who remember and still enjoy memories like Malhoa catching Geneva II?
Besides, turf writers that live on HRI are not shy about taking on weightier issues. But if you bang the same drum over and over, EVERYONE will begin to tune you out.
It’s about balance, and patience. If the Oak Tree flap isn’t the biggest problem racing faces, it’s symtopmatic of how the industry destroys itself little by little, for the new headline, for the next promotional opportunity.
Turf writers and fans and, to a certain degree, the tracks and horsemen, can’t take matters into their own hands--because the states have the only true power. Here’s where the lack of a central authority is killing the game.
You think these fools would call a truce, sit down at a table, hammer out a league office and appoint a commissioner.
JRP
29 Nov 2009 at 08:50 pm | #
Christine,
Tell your east coast race tracks that you would like them to name a race in the honor of “Lady’s Secret”.
Out here in the west, we found a better mare to replace the former “Horse of the Year”.
Understood?
29 Nov 2009 at 11:47 pm | #
This is almost as stupid as replacing REAL DIRT with synthetic.
This has been a silly trend of late. They renamed The Sir Barton Stakes, The Barbaro Stakes. I guess a Triple Crown winner takes the back seat to a horse that was going to lose to Bernardini anyway regardless of his breakdown.
Ridiculous.
They renamed the Riva Ridge Handicap after Woody Stephens, a guy who was reported to be a real jerk.
Now they renamed the Lady’s Secret after Zenyatta who hasn’t won and probably won’t win Horse of the Year due to the connections cherry-picking their races.
Are they going to rename the Bing Crosby after Michael Jackson? The Charles Whittingham after Bobby Frankel?
What if they change their mind and run her next year?
30 Nov 2009 at 01:30 am | #
Secret meetings are held
where the naming of a stakes’ race in
your horses’ honor is barter in
return for your horse performing at that track.
30 Nov 2009 at 04:40 am | #
I can appreciate the sentiment on both sides of this issue.
But frankly, you could call a race “The Alpo Special” and it wouldn’t make a damned bit of difference to me. What *would* matter to me is who passed the entry box.
30 Nov 2009 at 07:00 am | #
There, apparently, is an inexhaustible amount of nonsense in the horse playing community. But, for the record, Woody Stephens was not a jerk.
30 Nov 2009 at 10:57 am | #
Hi JP,
I respectfully submit that, coming from the audience, we commenters can make noise, but not news. You turf writers, however, are the talent that turns drum beats into music others will listen to. Unfortunately, each of you is a different drummer whose bailiwick as individuals is to complete ballots for a business in need of a bailout.
Collectively, your designated duty should be to determine deficiencies, describe derelictions, and discover delinquencies deserving disclosure and deliberation. You could make a difference despite your past deferments.
That aside, HRI does a good job of moderating and mediating what is mentioned in the media at the moment. When you actually take a position against the establishment, however, there should be no “crying wolf.” There are enough foxes in hen houses to keep you busy. No trivial J. Worthington Foulfellows are necessary.
02 Dec 2009 at 06:28 am | #
Indulto,
Thanks for your confidence, I think. I just didn’t quite understand the “you could make a difference despite your past deferments.” Sure glad there are archives in which are contained HRI turf writers taking on issues. Out of sight, out of body-of-work mind, I guess.
I make no apologies for myself or the HRI staffers. To the contrary, in fact. I’m proud of the work we do here and with other sites like these we are making a difference, albeit SLOWLY.
Altering attitudes and paradigms before effecting what might be considered real change take time. But here we also like to talk about the sport, the horses, the betting. Remember fun?
And, in trying to please our constituents, we also hear the cries of those who say “you’re too negative and you’re adding to the problem.” So, our best attempt is one of balance because, as sports bettors know that from week to week, “no team is as good as it looks when it wins, or as bad as it looks when it loses.”
I guess we’re trying to please everyone, which is turning out to be a fool’s mission.
In deference to your concerns, I would look to shine a light on an issue not previously addressed by myself or any of the HRI staffers. Would be only too happy to oblige.
As always, thanks for your thoughtful analyses. Your wit is not lost on anyone here.
John Pricci, executive editor
HorseRaceInsider.com
02 Dec 2009 at 12:52 pm | #
JP,
Indeed HRI has nothing to apologize for. In providing a forum for the passionate, it must weather all the negativity and incivility that surfaces as well as accept the appreciation and accolades it deserves.
First of all, let me correct any impression that my respect for you and the others whose threads I visit here varies with my reaction to the topic being discussed. And while I’m unapologetically disappointed, generally, with professional observers of the game who watch things go wrong without writing about them, I’m less so inclined toward you and your colleagues here. I suppose the beat of war drums in my own commentary sometimes drowns out the sounds of encouragement for your efforts that are always intended.
You wrote, “Altering attitudes and paradigms before effecting what might be considered real change take time. But here we also like to talk about the sport, the horses, the betting. Remember fun?”
Hey, I’m all for fun, JP. I love to respond to BC because he inspires my whimsy. Similarly, VZ stimulates my philosophical side. You, however, trigger the horseplayer in me.
I remember fun playing the horses. I remember when weekend warriors like myself could keep our bankrolls intact for the entire 9-month season at New York tracks with an occasional outing to Monmouth thrown in. Since then competition has gotten tougher and takeout has gotten higher. What’s hard to take is that takeout is lowest for the toughest who aren’t playing for fun. It’s kind of like the fungi playing the fun guys. Sitting on the sidelines waiting for an opportunity to play isn’t fun in any game.
Then there’s the fun we all had in seeing Zenyatta’s performance in the BC, the joy of which lasted only a few hours until evaporating into the HOTY struggle. Instead of being able to anticipate more sightings of the Duchess of Pro-ride in preparation for taking on all would-be gunslingers in the Big Cap, we are told that perfection must be retired rather than repeated. Consequently the Mare that saved the Breeder’s Cup won’t be the Mare that saved Southern California racing by forcing the best to come to her. Are we having funyetta?
Thanks for what sounded like an invitation. The inspiration to respond to original thinking is far easier to come by than an original thought, but I’ll try. I’m relieved to learn that my wit isn’t lost here. If you happen to find it flapping around again, I hope you’ll return it.
P.S. By “deferments” I meant issues deferred by turf writers, collectively. My vocabulary does not yet fully support my spasms of alliteration.
02 Dec 2009 at 01:29 pm | #
What is the hurry in retiring her?
1. There will be no money in breeding the next few years. The sales this year have been down 40% over a bad year last year.
2. Zenyatta has run only 14 times so she can’t be worn out.
3. There is a Dubai World Cup worth 10 million dollars run on Tapeta which is aching for Zenyatta to run in. What the hell is wrong with Jerry Moss and what is this obsession with retiring undefeated? Secretariat didn’t do it, does that make him less of a champion than Zenyatta? Would any body think less of Zenyatta for retiring 14 - 1?
4. Churchill downs has the BC this year. A big stretch would suit Zenyatta just fine.
So why not run her in the Dubai World Cup, a few races against stiffs in California, then the BC Classic? She breaks Curlins’ all-time earnings record, they add 6 or 7 mil to her earnings, and they can breed her in 2011. It would take 6 stellar foals to equal what they can make in purses next year.
And let’s not forget that if Sea The Stars had run in the BC Classic, Zenyatta would have run in the Ladies Classic.