No better place to start than "Filly Friday." I hated the name, and despised the concept. I thought it was insulting to the female horses, using them as batting practice for the Saturday card, and in particular I thought it was an affront to Zenyatta, who's no off-Broadway filly. I refused to call Zenyatta's race the Ladies Classic, after it had been run 24 times as the Distaff. Well, Zenyatta's epic win deserved stand-alone status, and it wouldn't have gotten that had her race been mixed in with all the wonderful races that were run and stories that were generated on Saturday. "Filly Friday" was a success even though it was run on a workday, and despite the fact that the Breeders' Cup mercenaries labeled the Friday tickets the same price as Saturday's.
I said that the defection of Big Brown would seriously dilute the Breeders' Cup Classic. It did, but because the English won and the Irish ran second, this was a Classic like no other, and Curlin's defeat wasn't the U.S. downer that it might have been. Trainer John Gosden and jockey Frankie Dettori re-emerging at Santa Anita (Dettori rode there before he became an institution in Europe) was a touchy-feely consolation prize. I said before the day that only Curlin vs. Zenyatta would have revived the Big Brown-less Classic, but now we do have Curlin vs. Zenyatta. At the ballot box.
I have been skeptical of artificial surfaces, I've felt that the California Horse Racing Board rushed into the ultimatum it gave the tracks, and I feared that the first Breeders' Cup not run on dirt would be a travesty. I could see how Eclipse Awards voters might penalize the winners on Pro-Ride and cheapen their accomplishments, but now I don't think that will be the case. Maybe Midshipman will turn out to be a dud when he's exposed to dirt surfaces, but I don't think so, and that will be part of the intrigue if he runs in some of the Kentucky Derby preps outside of California.
Even before this year, there was something about running the Breeders' Cup over two days that rubbed me the wrong way. I thought 11 races in two days at Monmouth and then 14 on Friday-Saturday at Santa Anita were wrong-headed overkill, but it's really only the writing stiffs like me who complain. "This is a perfect program," said John Gosden, who trained two of Saturday's winners, Donativum and Raven's Pass. "Filly Friday was out of this world, and Saturday was a great encore. There's something for everybody. You've got races for fillies and colts, short distances and long, on every surface."
The Breeders' Cup going to Santa Anita for a second straight year is not sounding so outlandish now. Somebody stuck a thermometer into Pro-Ride midway through the Saturday card, and the reading was 147 degrees. Only the horses will complain, and their union isn't a strong one. Trainers from the East Coast, who won one race on the main track and two on grass on Friday, were shut out on Saturday, when five European horses prevailed and the other four winners were trained by California-based horsemen. But the three previous Breeders' Cups at Santa Anita, when the track consisted of the old-fashioned loam, also had a distinct California-Euro flavor. Of course, the ultimate compliment for Pro-Ride this time was that there were few if any serious injuries, and no fatalities. Sadly, top-level racing in the U.S. has come to this. It's not whether you win or lose, but the number of starters that come back.
28 Oct 2008 at 11:11 am | #
Bill, i disagree with you on the Distaff business.
Nobody outside of racing knows what that means. It sounds like an infection. I didn’t like ladies, but at least people (not deeply immersed in the game) knew who was running. otherwise, you were very gracious. talk to you soon, allen g
28 Oct 2008 at 12:10 pm | #
Mr Gutterman,
Does this mean we should consider renaming the “Kentucky Oaks” the “Ladies Derby” so more people get the correlation. Does Oak actually illicit feminine connotations??? Building on history is very important and the Distaff has established itself with many fond memories to only now be called the generic “Ladies Classic”. The Filly & Mare Distaff(or a variation) would have sufficed without doing any damage to the race reputation. Despite this unfriendly fan change… note that people are actually brighter than you give them credit for and those not deeply immersed in the game will only be flash in the pan big event fans to begin with. With this change, it was very rare for me to hear anyone mention Ladies Classic. It was more like: “Zenyatta looks awfully tough in the Distaff”. By no means am I a negative toward the game but I see a number of incorrect fixes(or band-aids) which are unpopular with current fans in an effort to create popularity for fans that may not even exist. Hope this all works out.
28 Oct 2008 at 05:55 pm | #
Dear Breeders’ Cup organizers and broadcasters:
I’m writing with thoughts and observations about the just completed 2008 Breeders’ Cup at Santa Anita. For the record I am a long time white collar worker in the U.S. racing industry whose name some might recognize. I have watched every single Breeders’ Cup over the past 25 seasons and wagered a considerable amount of money on most of them.
Here are some of my thoughts about this year’s event:
To begin with, the main track surface at Santa Anita was simply splendid and it evolved to become a truly passive factor which was always relegated to the background during the races even though the talking heads mentioned it all afternoon. The racing surfaces, while fast, did not seem to effect any of the outcomes on their own. (Course layout might have hindered some of the Europeans horses, but that is normal and to be expected)
Some Curlin fans will respond otherwise, and while I cannot cite a particular reason why he didn’t go on, it really didn’t seem surface-related. The European runners seemed to take quite nicely to the new footing, and I am confident that they will be back as a force in the near future, particularly to race on synthetic surfaces.
My personal observation, as someone who has studied thousands upon thousands of races over the years, is that the new synthetic surfaces will evolve to be looked upon as being no significant handicapping factor at all. In the present, it seems only natural that synthetics are coming along when a small segment of the thoroughbreds simply dislike the new surfaces. In the future that subset of horses will be disguised as runners who simply don’t run fast enough. Those sorts of horses flood racetracks all around the country and the world, but only now, when form is occasionally reversed without additional understanding, are they scrutinized by people looking for a reason why…
(as such, I would never read publications intended to instruct you on “How to bet synthetic surfaces”. As racing evolves through this period, as it has evolved and adjusted through many others before, synthetic surfaces will become the norm, and people just won’t see those horses who comprise the rare few who suddenly spring to life when switched between dirt and synthetic surfaces. Horsemen can be a very silly lot, and while quite knowledgeable about animals, they in large numbers don’t hesitate to subscribe to the herd mentality when subjected to rapid change. This has been evident on topics like “nasal strips” (heard of them lately?) and it remains the case today on various other elements of the great game of Thoroughbred racing. Synthetic surfaces are fine, and quite helpful in terms of horse safety, and I dare anyone to question that today’s main track surface at Santa Anita was less a factor than either that at Monmouth in 2007 or Churchill Downs in 2006.)
The racing at Santa Anita today was deep and competitive all day long and while my selections weren’t exceptional by any stretch of the imagination, it was a day on which nearly all of the races were won by runners which seemed very live to me. Despite losing my bets, I still came away from this particular Breeders’ Cup in much better spirits than after any in the recent past. The sloppy track rendered Monmouth’s B.C. a non-event in terms of evaluating form or performance, equine or human. The wretched inside bias in effect at Churchill Downs in 2006 rendered that day of dirt results to be inconclusive and not representative of true form.
Today’s Santa Anita offering was a very representative and very fair day of racing and this observer was nothing but pleased with how the contests themselves evolved. True there were a few human errors on horseback which caused better horses to lose to inferior stock, but that happens and it is all part of the game.
Nowthen, moving on:
The Friday element of Breeders’ Cup weekend is just a big waste. I swore from day one (Monmouth, last year) that I simply wouldn’t pay it any attention at all. This year’s move which was taking some of the tradition-rich contests from Saturday and wasting them on ignore-me Friday was plainly horrible.
The Breeders’ Cups of 2007/2008 would have been much better received had they consisted of 11 races, to which it evolved last year, each run on the same day at one venue. If you want to have those stupid new races as part of the Breeders’ Cup, then run them on the undercard of the Breeders’ Cup Steeplechase (where ever that is run).
It was way too soon to expand the roster to fourteen races as was done this year. The one good thing it did was move the uncompetitive B.C. Distaff to a day where it wasn’t interrupting the traditionally competitive main card of “Breeders’ Cup Day”. (The B.C. Distaff has seldom offered players a truly competitive, formful wagering opportunity) It remains wrong to exclude that race in foresight just because it happened to be anything but competitive this year. Field sizes were down this year simply because of those additional races. The latest three should be removed at once!
On that subject, if the Breeders’ Cup must remain a two-day event, then it simply has to evolve to be run on Saturday and Sunday. Yes, yes, I know that racing will get killed by NFL football, and that it might become difficult to find network broadcast time on the mythical Sunday. It still needs to get away from the Friday, when so many people all over the world simply cannot and will not participate.
I can name my selection in every single Breeders’ Cup race of all time, except for those run on your ridiculous Fridays during the past two years, which I simply have not even bothered to look up the entries to see who was running. I don’t care about any Friday Breeders’ Cup racing - please get it through your heads and do the right thing!!
As for the network broadcasts:
While there will always be the absurd errors by the talking heads and the stupid references to “World Thoroughbred Championships” (which is simply factually inaccurate), there are a few other things that need attention. (One odd issue this year was the constant reference to surface temperature at Santa Anita. Those offered temperatures sounded frightening when not offered with data relating to the temperature when one was seated in the infield grass or standing nearby on blacktop when lining up for a hotdog.)
First, the non-traditional camera angles should never be used during the live running of a race. People who have watched racing all their lives have trouble figuring out where the whole field is on the race course let alone where their own horse is in relation to the others. Today the B.C. Sprint began while the live camera was shooting from behind the gate, and it was pointless.
Network people need only study the televised product that goes on at every track in North America on a daily/weekly basis to understand the camera angles which simply must be utilized exclusively in the near and distant future.
Today’s racing was supreme in so many ways and yet these dumb camera angles (which might indeed be interesting as a lark, perhaps on an instant replay after the fact, particularly on Santa Anita’s unique downhill turf layout) at times took a lot away from what should have been an exceptional telecast.
The banter among the various talking heads was quite spirited and enjoyable while not taking away from the product we tuned in to see.
For a time I was thinking that the silly “Gryder’s Up” introduction of some of the jockeys by fellow jock Aaron Gryder was too silly to be aired. Then, when I saw that he got to skewer “The Fog Jockey” from two decades ago in reference to that man’s son, I decided that it was a pleasant way to let the viewers (esp. novice viewers) seem a little more familiar with the various riders taking part. (of course I expect some complaints by friends and family of Sylvester Carmouche, but none he didn’t bring upon himself)
As for Jessica Pacheco, she’s a beautiful woman who sincerely does know her racing stuff, and that really merits observation and respect for someone who has done a great deal for herself in a brief career as paddock hostess.
Trevor Denman was quite superb today and this observer could only pick-out one tiny little fumble during his calls (which was a slight bobble near/at the wire with the name of one of the winners). I know that Trevor Denman didn’t begin his Breeders’ Cup tenure with the cleanest performances but he simply stands far above all other North American announcers and he plainly is the right man for the job. Perhaps the familiar surroundings of Santa Anita helped him to relax and slip somewhat into the background during an impressive performance.
John McCririck is an amusing part of the annual Breeders’ Cup broadcast, and he should indeed remain so. Of course some people can’t listen closely enough to understand all of what he’s saying, but it’s his energetic banter and high-strung nature that is humorous to most everybody (not “all").
All in all I was generally pleased with everything I heard during the Saturday Breeders’ Cup broadcasts on the two networks, and I cannot be emphatic enough about my firm belief that Breeders’ Cup day went off without a serious hitch or glitch in 2008.
Congratulations Santa Anita! (and I doubt many are protesting next year’s return there now)
29 Oct 2008 at 05:52 am | #
Allen Gutterman,
I want to address the implication of your Distaff comment. That attitude is the problem with the paradigm that drives today’s marketing of racing. The idea that racing can appeal to the masses by contorting and distorting and disguising itself is just plain wrong. What’s the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results? How long are we going to keep this up? People love racing because of its esoterica, its complexity and the challenge it presents. To run away from that reality is counterproductive and ultimately suicidal. One great example is how tv treats betting - as buffoonery. Why does racing allow that? I know it’s a difficult marketing challenge, but trying to obscure the true nature of this game (and I use game deliberately, not sport)is the wrong way to go. There is definately a niche for racing, one that can be expanded over time. Racing though is never going to “American Idol.” but it could be Seinfeld.
29 Oct 2008 at 11:25 am | #
Kyle,
There is only one way to describe your comment. To do so, I will gratefully steal from the old Guiness commercial:
BRILLIANT!
29 Oct 2008 at 03:18 pm | #
Thanks, Nick. Nice to hear you agree. On the plus side, I thought the ABC/ESPN coverage was marginally better this year. Fewer commercials helped and it was nice to at least see the post parades. Last year I watched the entire thing on the webcast; this year it was mostly tv.