AMERICAN GRADED STAKES STANDINGS brought to you by Keeneland: OWNING THE ECLIPSE
By Ray Paulick
Eclipse Award voters seem to have developed multiple personalities over the years when it comes to their annual selection of the outstanding owner of Thoroughbred racehorses in North America. How else can you explain that the award goes to a one-horse stable some years (Dot-Sam Stable, owner of John Henry in 1981; Carolyn Hine, owner of Skip Away in 1997); to large-scale operations that rack up stakes victories and money (John Franks, 1983-84, 1993-94; Mr. and Mrs. Eugene Klein, 1985-98; Frank Stronach, 1998-2000, 2008; Kenneth and Sarah Ramsay, 2004); and even to massive claiming stables (Richard Englander 2001-02; Michael Gill, 2005)?
When I think of outstanding owners in this game, I think of people like the late Bob Lewis and his wife Beverly, who brought sportsmanship, competitiveness, decency and fun to horse racing, and, just as importantly, competed at the sport’s highest level. Of course, the Lewises were never voted an Eclipse Award as outstanding owner. What an injustice!
The problem with the outstanding owner vote, and other categories in Eclipse Award competition, is that there are no rules. For horses, voters aren’t given guidelines as to whether races outside of North America should be considered, and there is no minimum number of starts required on this continent (as Canada, for example, requires for its Sovereign Awards) to qualify. Thus, we have a number of Eclipse Award champions, fairly or unfairly, who raced overseas throughout the year, and made just one start (usually in a Breeders’ Cup race) before being voted an Eclipse Award. Some voters have a bias against those one-race wonders and will never vote for them. Others may automatically vote a Breeders’ Cup winners as a divisional champion.
Would guidelines in these equine categories help? Perhaps.
But I think they are really needed and long overdue in the outstanding owner competition (along with the other human awards for breeder, trainer, jockey and apprentice jockey), and the time has come for the three groups that present the Eclipse Awards—the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, Daily Racing Form and National Turf Writers Association—to establish some guidelines to ensure the awards recognize outstanding achievement and excellence in the sport.
How do you measure outstanding achievement and excellence? It’s easy, through the American Graded Stakes program, an objective statistical ranking (Grade 1, 2, 3) of the top 500 races run in the United States. (To keep the Eclipse Awards "North American" and inclusive of Canada, that country’s separate graded stakes program can also be used.)
Should the award automatically go to the individual with the most graded stakes victories? No. Opportunity (the number of starts or overall size of stable) should be a consideration. Some owners have enjoyed enormous success with a small stable, and they could be overshadowed by a large operation that wins more graded stakes because it has more starters. However, nobody should be given an Eclipse Award for outstanding performance if at least some of those performances didn’t take place at the highest level of the sport.
Simply put, no owner, breeder, trainer, jockey or apprentice jockey should be eligible for an Eclipse Award without winning at least one graded stakes. These are the races that have been used for more than 30 years to rank the top level of the sport. We can argue and debate the merits of some of the grades the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association committee assigns to certain races, but this program has withstood the test of time, and it is now time to put it to use for something as important as the Eclipse Awards.
Along with some Eclipse Award guidelines that require success in graded stakes, the NTRA should distribute to voters detailed information about performance in graded stakes by owners, breeders, trainers, jockeys and apprentice jockeys. That’s one of the reasons the Paulick Report launched this weekly series, American Graded Stakes Standings brought to you by Keeneland. We think it’s important, and I know we are not alone. Our information, while unique, is not complete, and the NTRA should use its association with Equibase to compile more detailed information for voters that includes starts, and 1-2-3 finishes in American Graded Stakes races.
Last year, when Frank Stronach was voted the Eclipse Award as outstanding owner, Bill Finley, writing for espn.com, said the voters “blew it” and “exposed their ignorance” by not giving the award to IEAH stable. His column is worth reading (click here to view it). While not knocking Stronach’s year, Finley pointed out how much better a 2008 IEAH had in graded stakes performances, winning 11 Grade 1 races with eight different horses owned by various partnerships. Stronach won three Grade 1 races with Ginger Punch, the previous year’s champion older filly or mare.
If voting were held today, I’m afraid Michael Gill might get his second Eclipse Award, since he is atop the list of leading owners by money won, which over the years seems to have more influence on voters than any other information they receive in their voting packet.
In my mind, someone like Gill has no business winning an Eclipse Award. While he may be good for the tracks where he runs his claiming horses (he has over 1,800 starts this year, so he makes racing secretaries happy by helping fill races), Gill has not won a single graded stakes race in 2009. In 2005, when he won the Eclipse Award as outstanding owner, Gill won one graded race, the Grade 2 Gallant Bloom Handicap with Upateedle. Under my suggested guidelines, he would have qualified that year, but he certainly would not have gotten my vote. (I have not had an Eclipse Award vote since I resigned from the National Turf Writers Association in 2002, but that’s a story for another day).
In 2009, Sheikh Mohammed is the clear leader in American Graded Stakes wins through his Darley Stable (eight winners, 12 AGS wins) and Godolphin Racing (five AGS winners, five wins). But Zayat Stables is also having a good year with six AGS winners that have won 11 AGS races, as is West Point Thoroughbreds (four AGS winners of six races) and George Strawbridge’s Augustin Stable (three AGS winners, eight races).
Let’s hope, if the NTRA and the others who present the Eclipse Awards fail to develop long-overdue guidelines for voters, then the voters will take it upon themselves to do some homework, to look beyond the top of the money-winning chart, and recognize excellence at the highest end of the game. That’s what champions should be about.
Tags: American Graded Stakes Standings, Augustin Stable, Beverly Lewis, bill finley, bob lewis, Carolyn Hine, daily racing form, darley stable, Dot-Sam Stable, eclipse awards, Eugene Klein, Frank Stronach, george strawbridge, godolphin racing, IEAH, John Franks, John Henry, Keeneland, Kenneth Ramsay, Michael Gill, national turf writers association, NTRA, Richard Englander, Sarah Ramsay, sheikh mohammed, Skip Away, west point thoroughbreds, zayat stables
October 8th, 2009 at 7:35 am
When earnings are factored into any formula related to selecting outstanding owner or breeder, I believe that the dominant statistic should be average earnings per runner for owners and average earnings per foal for breeders. The frequent practice of simply throwing the award at the person with the most horses and the most earnings has caused some great achievements to go unrecognized while rewarding relative mediocrity.
I agree with you that selections for the “human” award shoulds be made by a panel of informed professionals.
In any event, I believe that your call for voting “rules” is spot on, if the objective is to pick the most deserving horse or person in each category. Sadly, the absence of criteria, or a definition of the meaning of each award, reflects the shabby management that often characterizes our industry in every sector.
October 8th, 2009 at 8:01 am
AMEN!
October 8th, 2009 at 9:42 am
What I like about this article is that it addresses an issue but also offers solutions. This is what I like about the Paulick Report. Nicely done.
The NTRA needs to address this for its members , fans and their self. Show us you care NTRA, we know you are reading this. Even if you are confident of your current system let us know why.
Thanks
October 8th, 2009 at 9:45 am
I think it is just as impressive to lead the earnings list with 1,800 claiming starts than it is to get lucky with a few super horses. A lot more work also. Of course, in modern America, luck is held in higher esteem than work.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Phil…I respect your opinion but wonder what aspect of Michael Gill’s record is that impressive, other than the number of starts.
Of the top 15 leading owners by money won, no one has a lower winning percentage or 1-2-3 in the money percentage than Gill. His earnings per starts is by far the lowest ($3,002), compared with some of the others: $12,029 for Zayat, $15,535 for Darley, $21,007 for Evans, $10,620 for Melnyk, $16,274 for Augustin, $29,946 for Juddmonte, and $53,094 for Godolphin (blended with Darley, it’s an average of $20,762).
When you look at some of these operations, especially those that breed to race, I think it’s little bit more than luck to wind up with as you say “a few super horses.”
Sorry, but you haven’t convinced me. If anything, this closer look at Gill makes me stand that much more firm that he has no business even being considered for an Eclipse Award as outstanding owner.
October 8th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Merely the scope, Ray, merely the scope. I’m not making a case for Gill, but I don’t think his accomplishments should be dismissed so cavalierly. To manage that many horses, at that level, is an achievemnet that should be noted. I would like to see his bottom line. It would be interesting to see if he is profitable at that level.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:07 am
My first reaction to Faith’s comment “why should the NTRA respond to an on-line article?â€
But the industry is truly in crisis mode and we are aware of them all. Number one being customer confidence in the system and leaders. I agree with Faith, I would like to hear from the NTRA, not just this time but many more times in the near future.
October 8th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Has the question, “Who cares?”, been raised before this? I believe so.
Under the present system, where criteria are absent, how can it have validity? In this situation it seems fair to ask those outside the inner circle: Who cares?
October 8th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Who cares: Nominees / maybe voters / many fans / hopefully leaders. DOLT
October 8th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Britt M.
I do not repond to anonymous writers. If I know your name, I shall try to help you overcome your inability to read.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:24 pm
Eclipse Awards should be far more than recognizing fat earnings, especially when they are achieved by heartlessly claiming, grinding and tossing hundreds of used-up horses. Voters could shelve a statue when they cannot find a better person than Mike Gill to give it to.
In a perfect world, quality, high moral values including compassion toward one’s horses and a superior safety record would heavily influence Eclipse Award voting. Those who breed to race and those who secure the humane handling of their retired horses should be especially rewarded.
October 8th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
I forgot to mention that post #11 is my answer to Ray’s question:
“How do you measure outstanding achievement and excellence?’”
October 8th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
I agree that owner award should go to who does the most for horses. Giving the award to the top money person is the same as judging the leading sire by total progeny earnings. He may not have the best average or median earnings or any consistent quality in his progeny but he can sometimes be no.1 if he has lots more offspring racing than some other stallions. Mare owners a lot of times look at who is on top and do not bother to see if some other horse with lower total earnings is actually a better.sire so I guess it is too much to expect people to spend time looking further down the list for the owner who is really the best.
October 8th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Point taken! but just how big is your inner circle?
October 8th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Ray, more data than you’ve suggested needs to be made available to the voters.
First, the horses in the owners’ stable need to be noted as to how they were acquired. It’s more difficult to breed a graded stakes horse than to buy a yearling which becomes a graded stakes horse. And it’s far more difficult to do either than it is to buy a ready-made horse.
I don’t besmirch Mr. Jackson, for example, for owning Rachel Alexandra, but spotting that talent didn’t require someone who didn’t fall off the turnip truck yesterday, but was still on the turnip truck. That said, Mr. Jackson should certainly receive all due consideration for his management of the filly.
Second, with all the various partnerships out there, the owners need to be credited more accurately than they’ve been credited. Again using Mr. Jackson as an example, his partnership with Curlin should be credited not to the partnership, but each partner, by percentage owned. So while you point out that IEAH should’ve been credited with 11 stakes wins by 8 horses, for all we know, the percentage actually owned by IEAH may’ve totaled less than the 3 for Stronach.
A very interesting stat would be ROI, but that will be more difficult to ascertain. Figures would have to be put on homebreds, and private purchase prices would have to be known. An enterprising reporter could take the top 10 owners and possibly gather this information, though.
The voters need to be given this complete data, and then reach their decisions.