BREEDERS’ CUP: WHY CHANGE IS NEEDED
Some people have asked me why I think it is so important for there to be a change in leadership, starting with the 13-member board of Directors, at the Breeders’ Cup. There currently are six board seats up for election, with electronic voting currently taking place from July 1-8 among the 48-person board of Members and Trustees (along with two ex-presidents and two current officers of the organization). The Members and Trustees hold their annual meeting on July 9, where the electronic votes and those cast in person will be tabulated. Ten individuals are running for the six seats, and there is marked difference in their philosophies.There are numerous reasons for there to be a change, not the least of which is that it is simply time for someone else to run the organization. The Breeders’ Cup for too long has been in the clutches of a handful of people who have run it, for better or worse, as a private club.
But it’s much more than that. Some of the recent decisions made by management and approved by the 13-member board of Directors have been roundly criticized, and deservedly so. Among them are the decision to hold back-to-back Breeders’ Cups at Santa Anita on a synthetic main track that many horsemen dislike; the ticket-pricing mistake at the 2008 Breeders’ Cup; the short-lived decision to suspend the Breeders’ Cup stakes supplement program; and the oddly configured and regionally uneven structure of the “Win and You’re In†qualifying races.
Let’s look at “Win and You’re In†first. Daily Racing Form publisher Steven Crist, in calling the series “illogical and imbalanced,†pointed out what appears to be a significant anti-New York bias. In an interview with Breeders’ Cup marketing executive Peter Land, Crist gave Land just enough rope to hang himself with his explanation. Land, Crist wrote, said Saratoga was left out of the “Win and You’re In†series because the Breeders’ Cup decided to “invest in the fall rather than the summer.†But that didn’t explain why Del Mar, whose meet overlaps Saratoga’s, had eight stakes labeled “Win and You’re In†while Saratoga had zero.
As Crist wrote, “When the industry’s leaders wonder why racing often is not considered a big-league professional sport, they need look no farther than the patently unfair and incomplete ‘Win and You’re In’ schedule to see why.â€
In addition, there is bad blood between executives of the Breeders’ Cup and the New York Racing Association, and because of that some thought has been given to excluding Belmont Park as a future host site of the championships. It last served as host in 2005.There’s no place for this kind of pettiness in a sport that is struggling, and for the Breeders’ Cup board to allow this feud to continue is inexcusable.
That’s fine, but what on earth were they thinking when they set those prices? (And, yes, I know, there was a meltdown in the economy in September, just a little over a month before the Breeders’ Cup. But it was clear before then ticket sales were slow in reaction to the high prices.)
The philosophy of selecting host sites has been an important subject of a Breeders’ Cup Strategic Planning Committee that has been meeting for the past several months. There is one camp that feels the event should rotate evenly among California, Kentucky and New York, and another that wants to see Kentucky on an every-other-year rotation with the two coasts. There also may be those who want to establish a permanent site (with some suggesting an expansion of Keeneland would be tied to that decision to make the Lexington track a permanent host). Yet no one (other than some Californians perhaps) seems to like the idea of back-to-back Breeders’ Cups at Santa Anita Park on the Pro-Ride synthetic main track. But that’s what we have, and there already are repercussions, with Jess Jackson saying there is no way he will run Preakness-winning filly Rachel Alexandra in this year’s Breeders’ Cup.
Who thought that was a good idea?
Finally, much has been written and said about the move last December to eliminate the stakes supplements that have been part of the Breeders’ Cup since its inception. The outrage that led to a reversal of the decision seemed not so much based on eliminating the program, but on the timing and manner of how the decision was made—namely, in a vacuum.
It’s this “we know what’s best for you†philosophy and the kicking and screaming against transparency (board meetings without published agendas, minutes or attendance records for those meetings that are not made available, promises of complete election results but delivery of only partial vote counts) that may have led so many Breeders’ Cup nominators to vote against incumbents and associates of the “old guard†or “status quo†candidates in the recent election of Members and Trustees.
I encourage those who were newly elected, along with existing Members and Trustees who believe a change in leadership would benefit the Breeders’ Cup, to vote for the following candidates in the board of Directors election: Tom Ludt of Vinery, Clem Murphy of Coolmore/Ashford, Richard Santulli of Jayeff “B†Stables, John Sikura of Hill ‘n’ Dale, Oliver Tait of Darley, and Duncan Taylor of Taylor Made Farm and Sales Agency. It’s my belief they represent positive change for the future of the Breeders’ Cup.
Let me repeat what I wrote about these six candidates last week. They are very strong candidates who bring a diverse set of skills and industry and/or outside business experience. Santulli and Sikura were rebuffed in last year’s election, which outraged many breeders who recognize both men for their intellect and commitment to this industry. Santulli has an extraordinary reputation in the business world, and Sikura is widely respected as a man with, as the saying goes, “skin in the game,” and a no-nonsense approach to getting things done. Murphy and Tait represent the two largest farms with the greatest global vision and would be a great asset to the board of Directors as the Breedrs’ Cup seeks to expand internationally. Ludt has demonstrated independence and a common-sense approach to analysis and problem solving in various industry leadership positions, and Taylor is one of the brightest marketing people in the Thoroughbred industry today who has a compassion and drive to see the industry reconnect with the public.
Reynolds Bell, G. Watts Humphrey Jr, and Robert Manfuso, who are running for reelection, have been a part of the leadership that’s been involved in some of the questionable decisions of the recent past. It’s time for them to be replaced. The fourth candidate running for reelection, Don Robinson, only recently joined the board after the resignation of B. Wayne Hughes. I have heard nothing but good things about Robinson and how he conducts his business at Winter Quarter Farms. He was, however, appointed to the board by Bill Farish, the Breeders’ Cup chairman who is said to dole out committee chairmanships and other appointments with the expectation that those he favors remain loyal to him when push comes to shove.
And there’s some pushing and shoving going on right now in the scramble for those six open board seats.Â
Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report
Support the Paulick Report. Make a donation today.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick
Tags: Bill Farish, Breeders' Cup, Breeders' Cup board of directors, breeders' cup board of members and trustees, breeders' cup election, Clem Murphy, Don Robinson, duncan taylor, g. watts humphrey jr., John Sikura, Oliver Tait, Paulick Report, Ray Paulick, reynolds bell, richard santulli, robert manfuso, tom ludt, william farish jr.
July 6th, 2009 at 9:20 am
There are a lot of good points here but there are some serious misconceptions applied to our sport/industry that would be unthinkable in most U.S. corporations. We blur any distinction between the demands and capabilities of those necessary to run our respective organizations. We do not distinguish between the talents and capabilities of the individuals appointed to play executive roles that are completely foreign to their training, experience or understanding, yet we want to hold them accountable when they fail.
For example the operation of a racecourse is as foreign to a breeder as the breeding industry is to some racetrack operators. We assume that the title of “horsemen” encompasses a knowledge of all categories of racing and breeding. In most cases it does not, yet we see the appointment of well meaning friends, sons and daughters to high positions in our most important organizations. In other words, appoint them and let them practice operating in key positions requiring special skills and understanding of what the industry is about and where it should be trying to go. It becomes a “toy” for the most favored in an atmosphere that reeks of peril. These designer appointments have taken their toll and become conspicuously identified by the recipients of their actions and most recently by the public. The tower of babble that has been built over the past 15 years consisting of “million dollar men”; gaming executives; lawyers and political hacks have thoroughly decimated horseracing and its institutions. The custodial clash of BC appointments over what was/is the most important period of opportunity for horseracing is a terrible example of a kingdom gone awry. The refusal to identify, direct and employ the appropriate expertise to lead and influence the true attributes of our game, at this time, are unforgivable!
July 6th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Just on the issue of “Win and you’re In” shows that change is necessary….these races should be marketed for TV, with events slated over the calendar year that flow from week to week. It just makes great business sense, which is probably the biggest problem in moving forward with a logical plan.
July 6th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Hialeah should be brought back to its former magnificence and made the permanent home of the Breeders’ Cup
July 6th, 2009 at 12:46 pm
As a player (not horse owner or racetrack operator) based in Southern California, I really do take offense to the notion that California-based horses must run in Kentucky or New York to be proven as champions. If dirt racing would be a requirement, then the only KY track meeting the requirements for hosting a Cup would be Churchill Downs. Like that track is a conventional dirt surface (NOT)!! Moving the venues for the Cup is a good idea including returning to Woodbine.
Please remember when Santa Anita was awarded the 2009 Cup, there were no other options. Churchill did not want the loss of $$$, the NYRA was deep within its BK actions and Gulfstream took itself out with its remodel. Not to mention that the T-bred world was feeling the impact of the Barbaro injury and “fake dirt” was the rage.
Then it was the best option. Today in a different light, it may not be but please add some context.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
I question the wisdom of voting for people who stand stallions who have fractured a leg and have sired fragile horses. The horses are the ones the public cares about and they are the ones breeding the fragile horses. They cause horses and horse lovers grief. People who breed for greed instead of soundness are people I would vote against. How about having the track with the least number of breakdowns the previous year be the host track. Those who care most about the horses and their safety should win. MRIs should be required and only horses that passed allowed to run..
July 6th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Save money and time in the decision process and come up with a regular rotating location for the Breeders’ Cup with Santa Anita, Churchill Downs and Belmont. That way fans can make plans and trainers/owners that don’t want to run on synthetic would have the assurance that the following year would be on dirt. Plus fans that are not able to travel to the other locations will know they can count on being able to attend the races at least every third year.
It is kind of confusing that there are lots of great stakes races that are not “win and you’re in” races. Yet I see the point that they should technically only have a certain number of these races for each of the 11 BC races. Look at it this way, many of the winners of the unused graded stakes races end up with enough points to run in the BC anyway. How many winners of the “win and you’re in” races raced in the BC only because of this berth they won and how many of them didn’t run because they were not BC eligible and would have to be supplemented? So like everything else there are good and bad points to this program.
True they have lowered the prices for admission and seats this year at the BC, but I feel sorry for those who opted for the pre-ordering of tickets last year for the ‘09 edition. I know people who prepaid for $300 seats both days and the only refund they received was $30, whoopie! They should have been given the option to change their seat selection in case they wanted to take advantage of the price change.
My biggest complaint is the increased use of signage everywhere you look. I expect it to some degree for both the BC and the sponsors of the race, but where do they draw the line. The sign all away around the paddock rail last year and in the saddling paddock almost like wall paper were a bit much. Then the high signs around the winner’s circle, hope those didn’t block the view of people in over prized seats. Oh and lose the corporate tents in the infield. There seemed to be few people using these areas, and they obstructed the view of fans in the seats as well as the TV cameras.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
I’m against the “Win and You’re In” system. I don’t think it needs fixing, I think it needs to be eliminated.
Whether a horse gets into a Breeders’ Cup race should depend on how he or she does during the course of an entire year, not just one race.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
I agree with Michael C. A horse’s overall record should be evaluated.
Wasn’t Jackson on the TOC Board that applauded the CHRB mandate to install synthetic tracks throughout California? Without proper research management and most horsemen accepted the vendors promises of safety, low maintenance, and consistency. These tracks meet none of the criteria.
It wasn’t until after Curlin was beaten that it became “plastic”.
July 7th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Hello Mr. Paulick & Everyone ; First, I enjoy reading the Paulick report & I’ve learned from reading this report in the past few months. It gives me new things to think about as I go about my daily stable . I think your doing a good job !
I thank-you for also including this blog and this evening I decided to send in a few of my own thoughts concerning the Breeders Cup.
I LOVE THE BREEDERS CUP !
The Breeders Cup ltd. gives even a small breeder as myself, the hopes and chances to compete in a big world- re-known event along with other lucrative purses. Breeders Cup ltd. enhances the status of my stallion and of my foals and brings pride to my family.
The added monies that a Breeders Cup nominee may win is also a great incentive, both as owner -breeder and at the races across the country.
My opinion is that those at Breeders Cup DO work very hard and do the best they can.
I have always been treated with utmost courtesy by all involved at Breeders Cup, and this most deffinitely includes Mr. Greg Avioli, the President.. Mr. Avioli does listen and reply to small breeders/ nominators such as myself. I don’t think it is quite fair to place blame on ONE person involved , (As I have read in your past reports) nor to judge your so-named “private club”..I don’t think that the Breeders Cup is ”In the clutches” of this “Private Club” , but is opperated by those who have the Thoroughbred it’self in mind and who hold the reins during an runaway economy…or should I say ‘propped” economy !
I think that the “WIN & YOUR IN” is an important aspect , in that this gives someone like myself a chance to run….I win..I am IN !!! Not everyone has the funds to travel from race to race in order to acumulate enough points. There is always a “Win & your in” race close enough to enter….the winner could be MY HORSE someday & there we would be, at the World event….now that is exciting to consider & dream about.!!!
AS a smaller farm, I can’t miss the increase in costs & inflation. I don’t see many others in the horse industry begin to lower their prices, like feed, vetting & health care, auction fees , etc etc. but I took quick notice of the Breeders Cup reduction in not only the world event but also the ”Early foal nomination fee”. I THANK-YOU BREEDERS CUP ltd. It does matter & your consideration does help me to go forward.
To opperate on such a grand scale and to meet everyones expectations must be a daunting task.
I , for one, applaud you all for your hard work & I am happy to be a part of the Breeders Cup because I know that you DO care and that you do listen to the many nominators.
The success of the Breeders Cup depends on ALL of us, great and small, as does the entire industry.
You have my continued support. BEST WISHES !!! And Mr. Paulick, thanks for your opinions but even more, I appreciate being given a moment to say what I am thinking as well…. pam
July 7th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Nothing could be as absurd with the “Win and You’re In” concept at Del Mar as awarding a berth in the Breeders’ Cup Sprint at six furlongs to the winner of the $300,000 Grade 1 Pat O’Brien Stakes at seven furlongs and not to the winner of the $300,000 Grade 1 Bing Crosby Stakes at six furlongs…And while you’re dealing with industry inequities, I hope one day you will explore the inner workings of the North American stakes grading committee–a mystery to many. It took until this year for the Clement Hirsch Stakes at Del Mar to be given Grade 1 status despite a long history of female stars winning the race.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:30 am
Ray,
Who is in charge of the portfolio?
“According to the organization’s financial statements for 2008, the Breeders’ Cup had negative cash flow last year of $7.5 million, reducing its cash balance to $1.2 million by year end. In large part, that reduction was caused by a fall-off in the value of its investments, a change that reduced net assets to $28.2 million, down from $40.9 million at the end of 2007. In response, the Breeders’ Cup tapped a $10 million line of credit for $5.9 million to operate this year.”
Net asset value reduction of $12.7 million in one year? “In large part caused by fall-off in value of its investments”?
Interesting enough in 2008 the S&P was off an identical percentage. So who within the BC management is making this call? This is not a pension fund, this is a fund comprised of nomination fees that has a defined annual capital expenditure. This type of investment decision should be questioned under the SEC “suitability” clause. In theory, the decision maker at the BC blindly dropping money into mutual funds, money that is needed to fulfill obligations, is no different than taking a retired person’s savings and doing the same.
A change at the top is needed indeed.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Here is how absurd the BC is. They can’t even figure out what distance a sprint is:
BC Sprint is 6F
BC Sprint Turf is 6 1/2 F
Filly Mare BC Sprint is 7F.
They are effin fools.
July 7th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
So much and so many crying for change, yet so little logic, integrity, will and action.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
The Breeders’ Cup is built on the same kind of solid footing as the Social Security Fund.
Money paid in today is spent today. You ask, “But what if there is a downturn in nominations in 2009, but all the funds are spent - including borrowed money? Those of us who paid nominations last year, and the year before that, may find there isn’t any purse money for which our nominations can compete in 2010. What then?”
Maybe the guys who run Social Security can help Breeders’ Cup guys answer that question.