"Defenders of some of the downgraded races will have their quarrels, but at least these were thoughtful and defensible decisions made in consultation with a wide-ranging and geographically balanced group of racing officials, owners, and breeders. That is a sharp contrast to Churchill Downs’s new Kentucky Derby qualifying system, which threw the graded stakes system out the window in favor of a corporate-driven marketing plan to boost the importance of races at tracks owned by Churchill while punishing its rivals The idea that winning the Grade 2 Louisiana Derby is literally 10 times more important than winning the Grade 1 Breeders’ Cup Juvenile is utterly preposterous to anyone not employed by Churchill, where officials have said they consulted with no one else about the new scheme,"
"The Graded Stakes Committee swiftly acknowledged it made a mistake with the Hopeful after just one year. With any luck, Churchill Downs will do the same and come up with a more fair and reasonable Derby-qualifying system just as quickly."
I must commend Mr. Crist for keeping the Illinois Derby Issue (IDI) alive, albeit indirectly, as the preceding was at least the second time he has weighed in on the subject. What I find preposterous, however, is that earnings were the basis for Derby eligibility for so long, and that the ability to win a single race as a two-year-old could guarantee a start in the Derby as a three-year-old.
At least that error in judgment has been corrected.
What I find shameful and embarrassing to the sport is CDI’s having eliminated the Illinois Derby at Hawthorne Race Course as a Kentucky Derby qualifier which was no error but rather a deliberate act.
The main problem with Churchill Downs controversial changes is not the way points are allocated – or even that most previously qualifying races were eliminated – but that the single glaring exception to the strategy for elimination of races appears to have been designed to disrupt the operation of a business competitor.
Doubts that eliminating Hawthorne’s signature event as a traditional stop on the Derby Trail was somehow related to competition for racing dates with CDI’s Arlington Park were dispelled when Hawthorne officials subsequently offered to move their race to a date accommodating CDI’s newly defined points assignment intervals, but were rebuffed by CDI officials.
Assuming a National Horse Racing Commission (NHRC) existed, should it, and would it, have addressed CDI’s IDI? Consider this hypothetical: "Conduct detrimental to …" is a familiar phrase used in conjunction with disciplinary actions by major league commissioners in other sports … why not in racing as well?
The lack of a centralized racing authority prevents uniformity which is the key to fairness in racing. Since support for it has been elusive, some are seeking Federal intervention, seeking a means of possibly establishing policy in advance of a commission’s existence.
My previous remarks requesting greater transparency from Horseplayers Association of North America also apply to Bladerunners, another "grass roots" racing reform movement, this one to establish an NHRC.
I haven’t signed on yet because the only issue I ever see their point man, Sean Kerr, pursuing publicly is the medication issue from an anti-Lasix posture. I hope this is not another case where a self-appointed elite group is determining objectives without sufficient feedback and support from those who would be affected most by their policies and actions.
Perhaps a representative from Bladerunners might interact with HRI readers publicly regarding the IDI to discuss whether or not it would make a good candidate for advancing their agenda. Maybe he/she would also consider discussing whether plans include level playing fields for horseman AND horseplayers through a) uniform medication rules with consistent enforcement and b) uniform rewards to all pari-mutuel participants by lowering direct takeout while simultaneously eliminating rebates for a privileged few.
Some wrongs can’t be righted but when trying a universal solution chances of doing the right thing are increased. The Genie is already out of the bottle with regard to alternative legal gambling and off-track wagering. But surely the equitable and impartial aspects of the game can be shoved back in.
The first Saturday in May is now less than five months away. Can enough outrage at the IDI travesty be encouraged by the media to force CDI to alter its stance in time for Hawthorne to move its race backward? Probably not. The Illinois Derby will likely morph into this year’s most lucrative Preakness prep not called the Kentucky Derby. They could run it on the same day Churchill opens with its Derby Trial, offering a two-turn alternative with a larger purse.
Thus, the Hawthorne situation would still be news on the day of the last Derby qualifier when all eligible horses resulting from CDI’s grand experiment will have been determined.
By moving its race forward, Hawthorne could provide the media some fuel to expose some of the CDI rhetoric in the final few days leading up to the Derby, inviting comparisons between Derby winners in such far flung regions as Illinois, New Mexico, and the United Arab Emirates. The ramifications of the 2013 prep season could linger long beyond May’s first Saturday.
10 Dec 2012 at 11:25 pm | #
What everybody seems to be ignoring is that CDI - Churchill Downs Inc. - is a publicly traded company. As such, they only have an obligation to their shareholders, and not to competitors like Hawthorne, or Delta Downs, or anyone else. They’re doing what any other corporation in America does.
Now if horse racing had a league - with a commissioner - like other sports do, that would different. They would be a dominant ‘team’, but,they would have to follow the rules like everyone else.
11 Dec 2012 at 01:54 am | #
DM,
Is unbridled capitalism any more acceptable in this century than the previous one? Isn’t fair play still associated with the American way?
Racing needs a commissioner’s office. However, rather than finding a party or parties with experience and character acceptable to most if not all, then granting them authority, and then abiding by their decisions—current efforts seem to be concentrated on obtaining congressional support for an agenda dealing with only one side of only one issue among the many that need to be addressed in order to establish uniform regulations for uniform enforcement and adjudication at all racing venues.
Let’s not forget that major league baseball still can’t get agreement on the designated hitter rule.
12 Dec 2012 at 01:48 am | #
Whether capitalism is good or bad has no bearing. CDI is only responsible to it’s shareholders - by law.
MLB has two independent leagues - not one, unlike the NFL or NBA.
Horse racing has fiefdoms that will probably never agree.
12 Dec 2012 at 01:56 am | #
correction: take out the ‘only’ after CDI. They must uphold state and federal law as well. But, they do have to answer to them (the shareholders).
12 Dec 2012 at 03:30 am | #
Capitalism is no villain, but corporate excess is—which is why anti-trust laws exist. The Kentucky Derby may now be the nearest thing to a monopoly as there is in racing.
Eliminating all turf and sprint races was not targeting individual competitors. Establishing points assignment intervals was a judgment call related to race “quality” and Derby starter production.
“Nudging” the Illinois Derby into an interval including the G3 Sunland Derby rather than leave it in with the G1 Santa Anita and Arkansas Derbies would have been more ethical, and even effective, than eliminating it altogether.
Surely other tracks competing with a CDI property will now know what they are dealing with. Nobody likes a bully and CDI has clearly demonstrated its capacity in that regard. Who will stand up for them when CDI decides it’s their turn.
History has already taught us the folly of appeasement. If the industry collectively permits this action on CDI’s part, and Congress or a Court views it as restraint of trade, Federal intervention could be closer than we think.
13 Dec 2012 at 01:13 am | #
It is amazing that CDI could get away with such cheap shot move and not have more people taking them to task. Good job Indulto
Regarding the Lasix Issue click on the link for the Pdf.
Click on the link for the full PDF.
http://www.nytha.com/pdf/the_lasix_question.pdf
Excerpt:
The medications approved for use in competition in human athletics are not nearly as tightly controlled as in Thoroughbred racing. The raceday use of Lasix is highly regulated. It must be administered no less than four hours prior to a race, in strictly
controlled dosages, by a licensed veterinarian (in New York, Lasix is administered by veterinarians employed by the New York Racing Association, eliminating the practice of having a private veterinarian in a horse’s stall on raceday).
In a statement released last May, the Association of Racing Commissioners International revealed, “The ‘anti-doping’ standards in horse racing are more aggressive than those deployed in the Olympics. In fact, the worldwide annual drug testing budget of the
World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is dwarfed considerably by the collective investment made by the state racing commissions in just one country, the United States. U.S. state racing commissions commit over $35 million annually to directly test for medication violations. By comparison, the World Anti-Doping Agency’s world-wide effort relies on $26 million in funding. The financial statements published on their website reveal that, of that amount, $1.6 million is specifically earmarked for testing fees”
According to the RCI, “In 2010, 324,215 biological samples were taken and tested. Lab results show that 99.5% of those samples were found to contain no foreign or prohibited substance. In other words, only 1/2 of 1% of samples tested was found to have contained a substance in violation of the rules. An examination of racing commission data also reveals that, in those relatively rare instances when a violation of a medication rule does occur, most were associated with a legal substance administered in the normal course of equine care by a licensed veterinarian and cannot be characterized as ‘horse doping’ or as indicative of a ‘drugging.’ Those substances that could legitimately be construed as a ‘horse doping’ (RCI Classification Categories I and II) represent just 47 instances out of 324,215 samples tested in 2010. That represents 0.015% of all samples tested. The use of terms like ‘rampant,’ ‘endemic,’ ‘widespread,’ ‘chemical warfare,’ or ‘racing’s drug addiction’ do the sport and the tens of thousands of families who rely on it a great disservice.”
Click on the link for the full PDF.
http://www.nytha.com/pdf/the_lasix_question.pdf