A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE
The views of the writer do not necessarily represent those of the Paulick Report.
In a press conference four days before Curlin’s Jockey Club Gold Cup victory, Jackson’s reluctance didn’t appear diminished:
“One race doesn’t determine a champion. You guys are sold on what the Breeders’ Cup has been saying about what the Classic does worldwide for the reputation of a horse. But you have to look at the overall performance of a horse over the year. … But the one race, the Breeders’ Cup, should not a champion determine. “They used the Gold Cup as a prep for the Breeders’ Cup last year. This year is pretty tight and had they not changed the surface, we’d have been happy to show up to the Breeders’ Cup. But they only had less than four weeks to get prepared this time. So it’s not an entirely novel thing to go to the Breeders’ Cup for us, we’ve been there and done that. … And the Clark (at Churchill Downs in November) might be a great way to finish the season for both Big Brown and Curlin.Why am I holding Jackson’s feet to the fire? Because I agree with him that the racing industry desperately needs oversight by a central governing authority. While I don’t fancy him a friend of the horseplayer, I respect his having been instrumental in achieving reform regarding the sale of Thoroughbreds. His willingness to race Curlin as a 4-year-old — and to initially resist the BC decision to switch surfaces — suggested he was a man of principle willing to sacrifice the dollar to revitalize the sport.
An effective industry governing board will require persons of demonstrated integrity.The BC as originally implemented was an inspiration. When the “Showcase of Champions” became the crowner of champions based on a single performance against competitors they had never previously faced– under conditions which may have compromised the chances of some contestants — it lost its luster. Last year’s farce known as BC Friday has become this year’s folly labeled Filly Friday, which has fueled unprecedented negative fan reaction including a boycott-threatening on-line petition.
Handle has declined from its peak in 2003 and attendance continues to defy promotion. Yet industry leadership refuses to listen to its customers who aren’t professional players. Racing fans have always wanted to see the best face the best as often as possible, to confirm champions who have repeatedly demonstrated their superiority over their closest competition, and to be able to compare championship performances between generations of both horses and fans.
Today, they crave full, competitive, sound fields to bet on without chemically enhanced performances. They seek a level playing field on which to compete in the pari-mutuel pools for as long as their skills permit and not be sent to the sidelines prematurely by unconscionably high takeout from which only whales get relief. They long to be able to bet on-line on any race at any track through any ADW and watch the race live no matter how remote their location or what infirmities prevent them from being in attendance.
But nothing will change if fans keep opening their wallets to play while owners, tracks and ADWs ignore their existence, much less their importance. The only thing current industry leadership including the BC understands is lack of receipts. The first step in taking corrective action is to not expose one’s BC bankroll until Saturday; saving time, energy, and money while sending a message that needs to be heard.
We’re hearing a lot recently about what a good thing it is to be a maverick. Jackson seemed worthy of that title as a supporter, ironically, of tradition; and restoring the BC’s more appropriate role in championship racing. By running in the Turf instead of the Classic, Curlin’s master would not only maintain his personal credibility, but would also assume a leadership role in righting racing’s course.
Finishing second in his lone turf start — sandwiched between two previous BC Turf winners — Curlin’s defeat in the Man o’ War appeared to be more a function of riders than horses. Curlin could redeem himself against the returning Red Rocks and add to his Horse of the Year resume in the process. The best part would be that Curlin’s fans would be able to bet him with the confidence they would be getting a competitive as well as sporting effort from both horse and owner.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick
Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.
Tags: advance deposit wagering, ADW, Big Brown, Breeders' Cup, breeders' cup classic, breeders' cup turf, churchill downs, clark handicap, Curlin, indulto, jess jackson, jockey club gold cup, pari-mutuel handle, Paulick Report, Ray Paulick, santa anita park, synthetic surface
October 10th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
It is a shock to find myself defending anything done by Breeders’ Cup - a typically insular fiefdom in the Thoroughbred world. What would Indulto and like critics do when the praiseworthy objective is to give each distinct type of horse a chance to win a Breeders’ Cup.
Remember, horses are nominated as foals; should they be denied opportunity because they develop into a type not catered to 25 years ago?
If you don’t want to deny them the chance, would you want a 16-race card on one day?
Despite the overwhelming popularity of turf racing, would you want only races run on dirt?
The issue of synthetics versus dirt should not be an issue at all. Throughout history trainers have made decisions between the dirt surface at one track versus another track; the tight track versus sweeping turns; fast versus slop, and so on, etc, etc,. So what is wrong with deciding whether or not to run on dirt, synthetics or turf? It has long been said a great horse can win on any surface. There is nothing sinfully wrong in deciding to duck a possible defeat on a particular surface.
Nobody can say with certainty what horse will win a race. Surface or dozens of other things determine the result. That is what makes horseracing an exciting challenge.
So what, exactly, is Indulto’s complaint?
October 10th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
My feeling is a truly great horse can and will win on any surface at any track, their ability to do that is what makes them a great horse.
I do agree though that the now two day event of the Breeders’ Cup is an overkill situation and they need to return to the original format. If all those additional races were really needed then the graded stakes committee would see fit to give them graded status and there would be a variety of graded prep races leading up to the Breeders’ Cup to suit “all” the races. What the addition of the new races has done has just led to more confusion as to which race to run a horse in, just wait until pre-entries I’m sure there will be a multitude of cross entries this year.
In addition, the two day event with admission/seat pricing more than double what it was at the same locale a mere 5 years ago, the Breeders’ Cup is forcing the everyday fan of the sport to choose one day over the other to attend or just spend less money when it comes to betting. Before long the $2 bettors will be more likely to stay home instead of viewing the event live.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:03 pm
I assume Mr. Redmond would be overjoyed if the expansion-focused BC brain trust were to announce a plan to eventually conduct synthetic surface races as additions to their growing roster rather than as substitutions. That would allow them to eventually schedule a single 3-day event segregated by surface rather than by gender. On the other hand, by sufficiently spacing single days scheduled for each surface, a superb champion and/or sire prospect could compete on each card; and multiple venues could host every year. It would be interesting to see if enough sound, competitive stock would be available to fill all the preps for such a program without the synthetic divisions diluting both the dirt and turf divisions.
The preceding speculation is intended to demonstrate the absurdity of BC expansion that is vertical rather than horizontal. Instead of increasing the number of divisions, they should increase the number of races within each division. Better use of three well-spaced cards would be to implement a “triple crown” for each division (DTC) culminating in the BC. A variable point system based on finishes in selected G1 and G2 races throughout the year could determine eligibility for the first leg of the new series as well as any replacements in the final two. Bonuses could be awarded to in-the-money finishers in the last two legs based on their cumulative point total in prior legs.
The drawback to this approach is that the BC has already devalued every major stakes in every division between Belmont Day and BC Saturday. There are many reasons for racing’s loss of fans and attendance as well as stagnation of handle, but the fact that public attention is focused on racing only three days (four when the Derby and Preakness winners are the same) a year is a major one. The BC is trying to increment that count, but besides ignoring the fact that most fans don’t get Fridays off from work to play the horses, BC expansion comes at the expense of racetracks throughout the nation.
The tracks could take back their fans and handle by cooperatively scheduling their existing graded stakes to create several Cup days held 4-6 weeks apart at 3-4 venues simultaneously; including the first two DTC days. Each venue would draw a crowd and share horizontal wager pools. Do we really want a repeat of September 27 where the Jockey Club Gold Cup, the Goodwood, and the Hawthorne Gold Cup all cannibalized each other and nine of eleven G1 races were run under less than optimal track conditions?
The need for a BC F&M Sprint on either dirt or turf is debatable. The Juvenile Turf makes sense, but as females have won the BC Mile on turf, the Juvenile Filly Turf may prove extraneous. The Dirt Mile and Dirt Marathons could be interesting races, but their starters are virtually by definition a cut below the classic contestants. Twelve races permitting two Pick Sixes is the practical maximum for a single day.
October 11th, 2008 at 10:57 am
indulto is 100 percent correct. give young farish some more time and maybe he will add a third day. and 8 more races. friday for the girls,saturday for the boys and sunday for the state breds. what a freakin joke.
.
October 11th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Wow, talk about further complicating the BC - “several Cup days held 4-6 weeks apart at 3-4 venues simultaneously”?? Why do you think the big days are so big? Because there are so few of them. Sept. 27 was a very exciting day with not a boring moment between races. For many, waiting all day for the one big race gets tiresome and a day with so many fantastic important preps to watch keeps fans glued all day. Filly Friday will do the same and work does not keep fans away on Kentucky Oaks day.
Many have overreacted to the synthetic surfaces. There has always been a great deal of difference between dirt surfaces at different tracks and we just had to deal with them. The consistency of sythetics under weather conditions makes them more predictable for bettors and safer at all times for horses and jockeys. Time will prove that more horses than not keep the same form on both dirt and synthetic, which cannot be said for dirt surfaces that turn to slop. Horses in the mid-west have been shuttling between the different surfaces for a few years now and most of them seem to be doing just fine on both. To cite a few horses who threw in bad races on synthetic is not useful, and ignores the fact that horses throw in bad races all the time when surface is not the issue. Do we not admire the most the horses who run well on multiple surfaces? Tiznow was such a horse and his offspring are proving themselves the same.
October 11th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Indulto’s assumption of what would bring me joy is unfounded. The point I made was, if they are going to cater for surfaces it will take many races. I did not suggest a race for all surfaces. The races should not favor one surface over another. Let the horses run on whatever the chosen track can provide. The dirttrack apostles are the group crying the most.
The only way to avoid a multiplicity of races - if it MUST be avoided - is for BC to write races only by age and distance and let BC decide if each race will be runover dirt/synthetic or turf. Then trainers will decide if their horse has a chance to win on the selected surface.
Obviously then, a meet at Santa Anita could only be synthetic or turf while Belmont would be dirt or turf. As a result, at SA the Juvenile would be both sexes at X distance and BC might decide to run it on turf. They might decide to put the Classic on turf just to show the great horses can win on any surface. A great horse does not need to take his track with him.
As Priscilla Peabody pointed out, Indulto’s proposal would introduce more complications.
Anyway, racing will not be lost or saved by what is decided by BC regarding one or two days racing. What might help would be to cut the “Big Day” purses to no more than a million apiece, then spread the balance around more races all year and give a better cut to breeders who are now short-changed. Trying to keep up with Maktoum/ Dubai with huge purses is pointless unless WE can sell THEM $100 a barrel oil.
October 12th, 2008 at 9:00 am
I have opposed the use of synthetic surfaces for championship events AT THIS TIME because the still unproven contention that they are safer than dirt is being used to justify ignoring the prevailing lack of confidence among bettors in playing them; especially under circumstances involving so many first-time synthetic starters. The fact that no breakdowns occurred during any dirt races at Saratoga this year has further clouded this issue. If and when synthetic surfaces are actually proven safer than dirt, and are deployed to at least the same extent as dirt at G1 venues, I will support the BC’s conducting races on such surfaces.
Venues like Churchill Downs with proven Friday festival success should continue profiting from that capability prior to BC Day, but by imposing such promotions on all host venues, the BC reduces the number of potential hosts and increases the likelihood of Kentucky monopolizing the event.
My reaction to Mr. Redmond’s endorsement of BC expansion was an exercise in evolving fancy, but the final concept simplifies rather than complicates the BC while increasing revenue to G1 stakes venues. Specifically, I advocate 1) returning to a single day at a single host track which varies in successive years, 2) restoring the significance of graded stakes nationwide between Belmont Stakes Day and Breeders’ Cup Day by enabling larger, more competitive fields and incentivizing repeated encounters among top divisional contenders, 3) expanding occurrences of “big days,” i.e., multiple-venue/stakes days to promote interest nationally as well as increase attendance and handle locally, and 4) rewarding consistent cumulative performances to encourage appearances by divisional leaders in multiple geographic areas in order to attract new fans and create rooting interests.
Maybe Ms. Peabody would have enjoyed September 27 even more if the fields for the five G1 races at Belmont had included their divisional counterparts at Oak Tree or vice versa.
By repositioning some of its premier (and sometimes most competitive) contests out of the Ultra Pick Six and other horizontal exotic wagers, the BC does a disservice to its customers. By ignoring their protests, they confirm their disregard for the role of fans in funding the BC’s success. BC Day should be a festival for horseplayers as well as breeders and owners. It should be a day when casual players can compete with professionals in Pick Six pools with a reduced wager minimum — from two dollars to perhaps a half-dollar, or lower.
I think the BC deserves credit for its recent decision to expand the number of races on which it will offer dime superfectas. I very much look forward to playing them … on Saturday.
October 12th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
My final and purely personal comment on the matter:
If Indulto and other gamblers think I breed , nominate to BC, and race horses, so that they can have more/better opportunities to play low-wager Pick Six — we are in two completely different worlds.
October 13th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Unfortunately, Mr. Redmond is correct. Horseplayers and horsemen are too often in different worlds. In the worst case, members of both groups refuse to recognize the other’s contribution to the industry that enables both to gamble simultaneously on separate playing fields; nether of which is level.
Apparently he does not view horseplayers as industry stakeholders with the possible exception of professionals who cash a preponderance of winning Pick Six combinations. The two dollar Pick Six wager minimum is maintained to create carryovers, which indeed drive handle, but also enables big-bankroll players to dominate the wager. However, on days where there can be no carryover — like BC Day – a number of prominent industry columnists have proposed a one dollar minimum.
The vast majority of players bet for entertainment. According to some estimates, we contribute 85-90% of handle. However, it is only the 1% of all players whose high wagering volume is responsible for approximately 10% of handle that receive cash rewards (rebates) which effectively lowers takeout for them while raising it for players who aren’t rebated. Ironically, the “whales’” argument for demanding their “discounts” (and advantage) is that takeout became too high to beat.
Mr. Redmond’s “purely personal comment” shows exactly why the only tool fans have to change the status quo is their will to close their wallets. There may never be a more visible opportunity than Filly Friday to show the industry that fans must have input if racing’s decline is to be reversed.