CDI What A Mess! ............and late racing

At Churchill the racing industry infighting continues. The issue? - money what else? I won't even get into the situation at Calder. I'll limit my comments to the situation at Churchill Downs. CDI has announced it will cut purses 20% effective May 14 (BH). Specifically the cut will be in overnight stakes. This is obviously meant to punish it's local community of horseman. Overnight stakes, in my opinion, make up the most important pool of purses for horseman at each particular track. That is because although the purses are substantially increased from those usually at a track they are not so high that they will usually lure out-of town entries. Certainly not those from far out of town. This has the effect of injecting the money back into the stabled community keeping it healthier. If you can't make money you won't stick around. For those who don't have a stable with graded talent (most of them) it is a chance to stay alive. This move by CDI is a thinly veiled attempt to whip it's horseman into submission. Here' how CDI put it:

“We have been left with no option but to reduce overnight purses to offset the amount of lost handle because Kentucky horsemen have prevented horse racing fans from wagering through ADW platforms,” Churchill Downs president Steve Sexton said in the release. “We are disappointed because the failure to send the signal will negatively impact the product both on and off the racetrack. While we are still hopeful this impasse can be resolved, we have no choice but to act now.”

The cut the horseman are asking for is one third the revenue (DRF). That seems reasonable to me. They are the ones getting up every morning, are in care of the product, take the risks and quite simply put, they put on the show. Without them there is nothing to sell.

It's amazing to me that horsemen cannot form a stronger front. It seems to me that all the power is in their hands yet they always seem to be negotiating from a weaker position. In some ways they do it to themselves. Here's an example:

Horsemen in Kentucky are being represented in their negotiations with Churchill over the account-wagering rights by the Thoroughbred Horsemen's Group, a company formed last year to seek a higher cut of the revenues from in-home betting. Officials of the Thoroughbred Horsemen's Group have said that they will not give approval to send the signal to Twinspires.com or XpressBet unless horsemen receive one-third of the revenue from the services.

Flannery confirmed that Churchill is no longer seeking to negotiate with the horsemen's group over the signal rights, and that they have instead sought to conduct negotiations with the Kentucky Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association, which represents the majority of trainers at Churchill. Two weeks ago, Churchill sued the Thoroughbred Horsemen's Group, alleging that the company was violating the Sherman Anit-Trust Act.

The way I read this is that CDI didn't get the result they wanted from talking to the appointed negotiating party so they decided to find a different party of horsemen to negotiate with. One that may be more amenable to bowing to their will. I decided not to finish law school so I don't know enough about The Sherman Anti-Trust Act but you can look at it for yourself and make up your own mind. I would question who is in violation. Perhaps the best defense is a strong offense! But my question to the horseman is: why don't you just form one strong representative body so that you can conduct strong negotiations based on agreement among your membership? The negotiations hardly seem legitimate if they can't be enforceable. And how can they be enforceable if an agreement is made with a body that does not represent the affected party? Is there any wonder why the industry is in the mess it is?

In that same DRF article I found it very interesting that Since last year, Churchill has declined to make its handle figures publicly available except in quarterly and annual financial reports. I'm amazed that that's legal. Aren't they publicly traded? As I said I'm no expert on these matters.

None of the talk of percentages, takeout, ADW's, OTB's -I can go on - is made very clear. We are never given any concrete numbers or facts. There is absolutely NO transparency. That is what the industry needs! Make all parties legally responsible to make ALL and EVERY dollar amount public! Income, costs, payouts, cuts etc... Maybe they need to be regulated. Mention regulation with an honest possibility of it occurring and maybe we'll get a true picture of what's happening. It all is presented in way that is much more complicated than it seems it should be. I'm sure that's no coincidence either.

As ever, when there is an argument in the industry the fan suffers. In this instance by the inability to watch the races or to wager on them. If the situations continues by the reduced quality of racing. In the long run the industry is self destructive.

Have you ever wondered if the tote is true? I have been to the track on some big days and I look at the pools and I think there's no way that's all that's in the pool! I guess I don't trust any of them. Ever wonder how some of these entities are able to give the rebates to those large off-shore parlors? Does that come out as an operating expenses before the takeout is figured? I want to know how it works and will continue to try to make sense of it all. Right now I'm just thinking out loud.

On a lighter note there is another interesting article on the Bloodhorse site today about injuries. I was particularly interested about the information that 4 year olds have the highest incidence of catastrophic injuries. Now at face value this seems counter intuitive. But, when I thought about it more I had to wonder how many of those horses had run at 2 and 3? And of those it is reasonable to assume that they were good or valuable enough to hang around. So the injured,weak or the poor runners have already been culled out. There is a good possibility that the fact that 4 year olds are more likely to break down is another reason not to run them early. Let's get some stats on the percentage of horses that have broke down at 4 that did not start until three. Then we can compare that to horses started at two and we may have something valuable. Facts and statistics are seldom as clear as they appear to be.

Late Notes:
We all saw Casino Drive blow away the field in the GII Peter Pan. A very impressive victory, yet I can't say the field was a very strong one. But that was also said (not by me) about the Derby Field. Nonetheless, it does set up the very exciting possibility of Better Than Honor being the dam of three consecutive Belmont Stakes winners. What odds would you have given to take that bet? I'm sure we would have all spent the take already! I would have bet against any mare having produced three consecutive Belmont starters! Amazing! Patrick at Handride had an entertaining take on the race.

I was also very impressed with Lucky Island in The Bold Ruler (GIII). He really had to grind it out for a while in the stretch, maintained his poise and intensity to be much the best at the finish.
In the Lone Star Derby (GIII) El Gato Malo proved he is not going to go away. He ran into a bit of trouble coming round the final turn. there was some bumping and it looked like he was being pinched but he fought on determinedly and got the job done. A pretty gritty performance. I love to see a horse that doesn't quit in situations like that.

Friday Notes

An article in The Times Union by Tim Wilkin, had John Lee -NYRA's director of Communications- back stepping faster than Michael Jackson doing the moonwalk about replacing the tracks with synthetics. He says he was misinterpreted. I give him the benefit of the doubt. But, I don't think this is the last we'll hear about this issue.

The Jockey Club has appointed a seven member 'Safety Committee,' to study every aspect of the sport and how each relates to the welfare of the horse. Well there's nothing wrong with that but it's made up of people who are in the industry, have been for most of their lives and could have implemented changes and up until now haven't. In the Blood Horse report I read Greg Avioli, applauds J.C. efforts. In The Times Union article NTRA president, Alex Waldrop is doing the praising. Sometimes it just gets too much to take! I just can't stand all this backslapping for nothing. I'm not saying that something good will not come out of the findings - it better- but it smacks of the same old problem in the world: lip service and no action. Or lip service until the incident and it's after effects have blown over. ARRRRRR!

I really like where the Peter Pan has been placed, it makes a lot more sense. It should have the effect of us in NY getting to see some real nice horses at home. I'm still not crazy about The Woodward ending the Saratoga meet as opposed to opening the fall Belmont meet. As much as we all love Saratoga it already has an embarrassment of riches and it just seems a perfect way to kick off the fall racing. I think it fits into the racing calendar better as well, as the Peter Pan does now.

Synthetics in NY?

There's a lot of news out this morning and I haven't time to address more than one issue and even that only briefly. I'll try to add to my comments later and save the other topics for another day. Without any more ado...

This morning I learned that NYRA is considering replacing all the racing surfaces with synthetics. What! We are all aware of the overflow of bad press that has resulted from Eight Bells' breakdown, but this seems like a knee-jerk reaction to press, not a well thought out or researched decision. To release news of this magnitude is just a bad idea. In the mind of the public, I believe, stating they are considering this change is tantamount to saying it will be done. The fact that they said this makes me believe it is inevitable as well. Now if they don't go ahead and install these surfaces the first time a horse breaks down they will be labeled killers; and we all know breakdowns are going to occur. The same outcome will manifest itself if they change the surface at one venue but not the others. It would have been much more prudent to state that they would install a synthetic surface over the Belmont training track and to hold off issuing that news until they have actually decided to do so and how they will pay for it. Never promise a child ice cream and give them an empty cone. Also such a move seems a reasonable one and would allow some observations as to how a surface would fare in the North East during a year. What's wrong with that! Does anyone know how these surfaces respond to the weather variations we have here in NY? Again it seems to be putting the cart in front of the horse. I know I seem to be overreacting to this news but with the climate of public opinion and the press at the moment I think it was unwise to overstate anything. I was also unaware that the tracks at Belmont, either the main or training track, were considered poor training / racing surfaces. I was under the impression that quite the opposite is true.The same for Saratoga, especially the training track, as deep as it is I can't imagine the surface is unsafe. The main track at Aqueduct, we all know has problems, but with a fifty million dollar price tag to do all the tracks (and if that's their estimate, we all know it will cost more -reason not to do them all?) which track do you think is odd man out? Does anyone think they will install a synthetic at Belmont and then run at Aqueduct in the winter?Those nasty rumors of winter racing at Belmont are starting to haunt me. Adios Aqueduct?

It seems to me California acted hastily in their decision to change all their racing surfaces to synthetics. Let's learn a little from the toe they stubbed. Along with the travesty at Santa Anita this spring Del Mar, the premier meet of the west coast, got a bit of a black eye last year as a result of the surface. Their loss was Saratoga's gain.

It may be that these surfaces are the way of the future, in that case they will be here soon enough. However, let's march to the future having done our homework and having learned from any mistakes other's have made along the way. Public opinion, no matter how overwhelming, isn't always correct. Let's not bow to it just because of its' weight. Let's make information and the consideration of all possibilities the basis of a decision. Let's get this right!

Lot's more thoughts about this...

Flux or Flub ?

Whenever crises' occur the calls and challenges for change are heard. This is true regardless of the size or scope of an an issue. It can be national security, the economy or the much smaller stage of horse racing. We work under the assumption that these crises could or would have been avoided had the players done something different. The truth is we will never know for sure; there is no way to go back and do it again. Was Eight Belles' breakdown avoidable? I don't see how anyone could say it was. Sometimes bad things happen. PETA and other activist organizations always try to take advantage of tragic happenings. Their arguments under these circumstances are always ad populum arguments. Obviously, in a situation such as this, every one's emotions are going to be sympathetic to the horse (horses by extension). Further, these arguments portray their target as having the opposite sentiments; that is simply not the case here. Just because Eight Belles broke down doesn't mean that the industry doesn't care about the horses. Again just the opposite is true. Their contentions that the surface or the whip was necessarily a cause of the accident also commits an argumentative fallacy. This is an atypical occurrence. It does not follow that because breakdowns occur (let alone this particular breakdown) then all industry practices are wrong or inhumane. And it doesn't prove that all horses that feel the whip are going to break down or are abused.

The industry is concerned about the care and treatment of horses, lessening the occurrences of breakdowns and portraying the sport in a positive light. But, I agree they can do more. First and foremost they have to act as united industry. Positive change is not going to occur if every racing jurisdiction doesn't adopt uniform rules. The first issue that needs to be agreed on is a uniform drug policy that will include steroids. Decide what's legal and what's illegal and have good reason for making those decisions. If bute or another substance is deemed legal to use during training then make it known that on race day any amount above allowable limits will result in an extreme penalty, suspension or both. In regard to serious violations, banned substances, etc., it should be a once and you're out policy. A trainer is responsible for his barn. Biancone should be gone. This is necessary to show the public that the industry is serious and does care about the treatment of the horses. The public needs to know that the horses' well being is not being compromised for a pot of gold. And, further, the handicappers need to have confidence that the product they are investing in is legitimate. No compromise is acceptable. A slap on the hand and lip service is not enough.

Surfaces are the talk of the industry at the moment. I believe a lot more needs to be known before we all embrace the synthetics. The statistics are far from decisive. There are so many variables they may never be. Just comparing numbers is not enough. The types and ages of horses using those synthetics need to be taken into account. The weather conditions as well. For those of us who watch winter racing in NY we have become used to seeing many of the same old warriors year after year. These horses have already proven themselves pretty durable. With this class/type of horse running I would expect to see fewer injuries/breakdowns no matter the surface. With 2 and 3 year old Graded races I would expect that the extreme level of competition and age of the horses would result in more injuries no matter the surface. I really don't know if these assumptions are true, I'll look into it.

We do hear of different types of injuries and soreness occurring in horses training on synthetics, particularly hind end soreness. My theory on this is that they can't grab the surface quite as well so their hind legs slip ever so slightly as they propel themselves. Maybe certain horses won't extend themselves when they feel this. Also I don't think the issue of going from synthetic to dirt has been looked at enough, if at all. As I understand it, in humans, the stress of concussion helps strengthen bones. And the stress of resistance training helps develop muscle. Obviously too much concussion can lead to tragic events, but we need some stress to maintain strong bones and muscle. So my concern is: will we see an increased occurrence of injuries in horses that switch from synthetics to dirt? Do they get enough concussion on the synthetics? I prefer watching racing on dirt. I believe that dirt tracks can be made as safe as any. But, if it can be proven otherwise, so be it.

Obviously there are many more issues that need to be dealt with. And just because the arguments made by PETA are not logical that does not mean that some of the issues that they point to are not legitimate. If they weren't there wouldn't already be rules in place about excessive whipping or the controversy now taking place about synthetics. But progress does need to be made. The industry needs to show they are in a state of positive flux trying to improve conditions. If they don't it will be just another tragically flubbed situation.

The last thing I'll add here is that I think the biggest crime resulting from this situation is the damage PETA's statements are meant to cause Gabriel Saez. How can one not feel for him? Twenty years old, first Derby, a well ridden race and then... I'm sure no one feels as badly as he does. To try to crucify him, to me, illustrates inhumane treatment by PETA. They could make their point without whipping him so much after the wire! I read a comment somewhere where the writer suggested he (Saez) should sue them for libel. I'm sure he'll act with more class than that (he already has) but they deserve worse. Shame on them!

It's a Shame

It's so unfortunate how much negativism is occurring because of Eight Belles breakdown. I know those of us who are fans don't enjoy seeing them happen (breakdowns), but I suppose we accept them more easily than the non-fan. Acceptance is not the same as callousness. We are not immune to the tragedy, nor the emotions or empathy that any human would feel under such circumstances. I am also surprised at how much criticism is being thrown around about the handling of the tragedy and not just at the industry in general. It's been aimed at everyone and thing from NBC to Donna Brothers to Larry Jones. Richard Sanomir and William Rhoden's articles in the NYT are certainly making the rounds. Alan Left at the Gate mentioned Rhoden's article yesterday and I more or less expected that was the last I would see of it. So you can imagine how surprised I was when I went to visit another of my favorite blogs - The Frontal Cortex, not horse related (usually) - and I was again faced with Rhoden's article. Jonah Lehrer writes a terrific blog and he has a great book out, Proust Was A Neuroscientist, and I urge you all to give it a visit. However, I obviously disagree with his opinion (he is in agreement with Rhoden) on this issue. Yesterday, I didn't comment directly on Rhoden's comments at Allan's blog because I didn't really think them worth response. But, today, encountering the article again, in a completely different context and arena, I felt more compelled. So rather than repeat myself here's the link: The Frontal Cortex.

**For convenience I have added the text below -with some spelling corrections-on 5/12/08. But please do visit Jonah's site, it is very good.The Frontal Cortex.

Jonah, I don't agree with you or Rhoden at all. I think that it would be an enlightening experience for you to work at a track for a while and then see if you still feel the same way. You obviously have diligently applied yourself in the areas of your choosing. I'm certain your experiences in those areas have informed your opinions; from your time and experience in the lab to that of the kitchen. It's very easy to criticize the worst part of anything, it's the worst part of it! But I have experienced more heart and soul in the race industry than anywhere else. Risk is inherent in almost everything. There is more in horseracing; some activities do present greater risk than others. No one in the industry wants injuries to occur nor are they immune to the tragedy. They are an unfortunate reality that is part of the business. The more an activity is performed the more every possible outcome will occur. But make no mistake, the horses are very well trained and cared for athletes, especially those running at the level of the Kentucky Derby. The argument that these horses are forced to do this I can't address. No one can really know what their thoughts are, but I do know many seem to love and thrive on the competition. Rhoden's comparison of racing to bullfighting is just absurd. As to the question of why is H.Racing given a pass? I think the question is phrased so there can't be a proper response. It implies guilt. Again, I urge you to go work at the track for a bit. While there are good and bad (people, systems and intentions) in every aspect in life, I certainly have not seen any hint of ill intent by anyone I have encountered in the industry; there is no guilt that I have seen. Again this is not to say the industry does not have serious issues they need to deal with. Perhaps as an industry there is some guilt in not dealing with those issues as one body, but that is off point here. Horseracing does have wonderful tradition and it does generate lots and lots of revenue for state and local governments. Since when are they bad things? I can't talk to the issue of dog racing I have no knowledge or experience of it. I like many others have heard the hearsay, I don't know the facts. In his article Rhoden also wrongly attributes intention to Larry Jones' (Eight Belles trainer) comments when he writes "But even through the grief, Jones instinctively toed the industry line about racing." I think it's irresponsible reporting. It should have properly been attributed that in his (Rhoden's) opinion that was what Jones' was doing. Again a sentence phrased so as to imply guilt. Just irresponsible (and this is in The NYT). Jones has been in the sport a long time. We all are familiar with the downside of whatever profession we work in and Jones obviously was dealing with a highly emotional and difficult situation. Rhoden's portrayal of Jones would make any reader think that Jones' grief was less than sincere. It also makes it seem that Jones' response was defensive as if he believed he needed to defend the industry he has dedicated his life to. In my opinion, if Jones was defensive I believe that Rhoden likely made him feel that way if indeed he actually was the one interviewing him. Racing is a wonderful sport that has inherent in its nature, the risk of very tragic events. It is very unfortunate that one of those occurrences had to part of the Kentucky Derby.

Big Brown

It is exciting when you know you are seeing something special. Anyone watching Big Brown's performance in the Kentucky Derby had to be excited. He was lucky enough to get the perfect trip and the perfect ride from Desormeaux, but that was as much a result of design and talent than anything else. There are times when I am happy to be wrong and this is one of them. I didn't think he could win this race, having had only three prior starts and breaking from post 20. He hadn't been tested against the best three year olds. But yesterday I think he could have run the race in the 20 path all the way around and won.

Seeing Big Brown after the race,walking along as cool and calm as if he were walking the shed row, for me, was the most amazing sight of all. It was as if he hadn't even ran. One has to think that the mile and a half Belmont distance won't present any problem for him. But that is putting the cart before the horse.

Colonel John and Pyro gave each other a pretty good bump at the start and never got to be a factor in the race. Big Brown will still have to overcome some race circumstances, like those bumps at the start. He has not yet had to contend with any problems but to get the grail he more than likely will. But, today it's much easier to see why Richard Dutrow has been so confident. Very good horses rarely get themselves in trouble and perhaps that is why he has avoided any problems thus far. Until the Derby the two best horses he had beaten were Smooth Air and Tomcito. Both nice horses but certainly not two that would have been rated with the top of their class. But now he's beaten the class and we can't wait for the Preakness. Let's hope that his foot problems are behind him and that we get to see this colt have his chance to make history.

Great horses make everyone around them great. Their stories are often the result of strange circumstances and twists of fate. In racing attrition seems to work in reverse. Instead of eliminating one's chances, if one is competent enough and perseveres there is enough luck that some usually finds everyone. For an owner, trainer or jockey to get a Kentucky Derby winner not only do they have to be good, they also have to be looked upon by Lady Luck. Then there are those who have come close to having that lightning strike and we feel for them when it doesn't. This year, as last year, with Curlin and Helen Pitts, one has to wonder what Patrick Reynolds is feeling? And how nice a story would it have been if Bernie Stutts had won with Smooth Air? I'm sure the gods of racing have their reasons.

I've read suggestions that this year's crop of three year olds is a weak one. I think perhaps this year's crop, as a whole, hasn't had the race experience of past years, but I don't believe the horses that lined up for the Derby are a particularly weak group. They were just beaten by a superior horse. I wrote in my Derby Picks entry that I didn't think Big Brown was a Curlin. Well, I can't wait to find out if I've erred on that account as well. It's a long way to the Classic but Big Brown promises to make it an exciting ride!

134 Kentucky Derby 134

Wow-ouch! Thoroughbred racing is like no other sport on earth. It exhilarates and it hurts; it exalts and it humbles. It makes us brave and it makes us cry. Most of all it demands that we cannot escape our humanness. Through it we experience life and death. If one was able to watch the 134th Kentucky Derby and not shed tears for Eight Belles then you are not alive. If one was able to watch the 134th Kentucky Derby and not be absolutely astonished and awed by a colt named Big Brown then you are not alive. Eight Belles broke down after the wire, breaking both front ankles and had to be euthanized on the track. Eight Belles, like every single thoroughbred who breaks down, whether they be a $1500 claimer or a filly running second to a colt in the Kentucky Derby, give their life for what they were born to do, what they love to do; run as fast as they can for as far as they are able. That is what humbles us: brilliance, focus, ability and success. I think we experienced true greatness today both in Big Brown and in Eight Belles.

Life is fragile. We know that for something to live something else must give its' life. That is simply the law of existing. Seldom is it played out on a stage as dramatic as an event with the magnitude of the Kentucky Derby. But today it was. Today, we saw another undefeated Kentucky Derby winner. He adds his name to a short list of, Barbaro, Smarty Jones, Seattle Slew, Majestic Prince, Morvich and ironically, the filly named Regret. He won like few have. He left all but the lone filly far behind, accelerating away from the herd as though he had entered the race at the top of the stretch. After it had ended there was no sign of exertion, no lather, no flared nostrils, just a buck to toss his jockey, Kent Desormeaux, to the ground as if to grab the spotlight for himself. It seems that Big Brown has enough of a class edge over his peers that he has to be considered the best chance since 1978 to go on and win the first triple crown since Affirmed. Perhaps we are witness to the emergence of one of the greatest horses of all time. But nothing comes for free. For everything great there is great sacrifice. Unfortunately, that sacrifice manifest itself in the loss of the exceptional filly, Eight Belles. If Big Brown does go on to make history the loss of Eight Belles will not mar that accomplishment. His accomplishment would assure that she is forever remembered. So let's hope Big Brown goes on to become worthy of her loss. Let's revel in the ultimate emotional and physical exhibition of thoroughbred horse racing. Let's exalt in the victory of Big Brown and mourn with the connections of Eight Belles. I love this sport.