Archive for the ‘National Thoroughbred Racing Association’ Category

By Ray Paulick
Alex Waldrop is a good soldier who reminds me of Hiroo Onoda, the World War II legend who in 1944 was sent to Lubang island in the Philippines and told by his Japanese superiors to wage guerrilla warfare against the allied forces and to never give up. Along with a few others who survived a 1945 invasion by American soldiers, Onoda conducted operations from a base in the mountains of the island, even after leaflets were dropped saying the war had ended. Letters from loved ones begged Onoda to come home, but even after his fellow holdouts left him or died, Onoda carried out the orders given him.

It wasn’t until his one-time commanding officer flew to Lubang in 1974 that Onoda gave up the fight.

Waldrop, in his capacity as CEO of the National Thoroughbred Racing Associations, hasn’t fought as long as Hiroo Onoda did, but someone needs to tell him the war is over. The NTRA has about the same relevance and power as the Japanese Imperial Army did after the end of World War II.

It’s not Waldrop’s fault. He came into an untenable situation in December 2006 when the unraveling of the NTRA and Breeders’ Cup relationship was complete and the NTRA was left with little money and even less authority to carry out a mission to be the “league office” for horse racing. An organization that began in 1998 with high hopes and lofty goals of organizing and marketing a dysfunctional business that lacked structure, coordination and a strong central authority — the hallmarks of success for other sports — was, by 2006, a pale shadow of its former self.

What survived of the NTRA after its divorce from the Breeders’ Cup in 2006 was an understaffed press office and an industry lobbying effort in Washington, D.C., and not much more. Illusions of marketing grandeur or meaningful changes in how the sport was structured were gone like the budget the NTRA once had.

Eighteen months into Waldrop’s tenure at the NTRA, the Thoroughbred industry had a serious implosion. The filly Eight Belles died after the finish of the Kentucky Derby with millions watching on television in horror. Compounding the problem, Rick Dutrow, the trainer of Derby winner Big Brown, revealed one of our sport’s dirty little secrets, that anabolic steroids were in rampant use and, shockingly to many people, were perfectly legal. The public outcry was enormous, and the NTRA was ill-equipped to deal with it, because it lacked the authority to speak for the industry over which it had little control.

When hints of a Congressional inquiry surfaced, there was a scramble to react. The industry did what it always does: form committees and make recommendations. Foremost among those was a decision by Waldrop and the NTRA board of directors to create a new entity, the Safety and Integrity Alliance, which drafted an ambitious code of standards on a variety of safety and welfare issues for horses and jockeys. It was and is an admirable document, however meaningless it mostly likely will turn out to be.

Tracks that comply with the code of standards will be accredited by the alliance, sort of a “good horsekeeping seal of approval” that a track owner can frame and hang on his wall. And what about tracks that don’t comply? Well, they’ll have a little extra wall space. That’s the carrot and stick that Waldrop is armed with.

It goes back to something said during the Congressional inquiry held last June, when members of the House of Representatives repeatedly pointed out to Thoroughbred industry leaders how important it was for them to get their act together and establish a meaningful central authority unless they wanted the federal government to do it for them. After Alan Marzelli, the president of the Jockey Club, testified about some of the safety recommendations his organization was making to the industry, he was asked how the Jockey Club intended to have its recommendations adopted.

Marzelli’s response: “We believe in the power of persuasion.”

The power of persuasion (aka, committee recommendations) is what has kept this industry from realizing its potential as a major league sport. The harmless carrot and stick that Waldrop now carries in his briefcase is about as powerful as the army that Hiroo Onoda commanded on Lubana island for all those years after World War II.

Onoda survived, which I’m afraid is about all Waldrop and the NTRA and the rest of the racing industry can do with our current structure (or lack thereof). Maybe, just maybe, if enough tracks comply with the Safety and Integrity Alliance’s code of standards, we can stop the bleeding that’s been going on for some time, long before Eight Belles took her last breath or Rick Dutrow uttered his last insult. But stopping the bleeding is not a cure for what ails us.

What we have isn’t working. What we need are fewer organizations and fewer committees, more followers and fewer (but stronger) leaders. Why, someone pointed out to me the other day, do we need separate organizations like the NTRA, the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, the Jockey Club, the Breeders’ Cup, the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, the Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association and so many others? He answered his own question: because none of those groups is willing to cede authority and lose whatever little fiefdom they control.

Waldrop keeps fighting, seemingly against all odds. When racing’s obvious problems were brought up twice recently in the New York Times, first by sports columnist William Rhoden and then by turf writer Joe Drape, Waldrop fired back in a blog at the NTRA’s web site, defending the Safety and Integrity Alliance and pointing out progress that had been made since the death of Eight Belles. He even tried to incite an angry mob to join his army and attack the messengers at the New York Times for the audacity of their observations.

It was rather pitiful. I’m not sure that Waldrop, like Hiroo Onoda, is much more than an army of one.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Support the Paulick Report. Click here to make a donation today.

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.

By Ray Paulick

Random notes while waiting for the ice to melt …

The devastating snow and ice storm that hit Kentucky earlier this week has created serious economic hardships on Thoroughbred farms, many of which are without electricity and have suffered major damage, just as the foaling season is hitting full swing and the breeding season about to begin. Let’s hope organizations like the American Horse Council, the NTRA, Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association and the Kentucky Equine Education Project are in contact with government officials to seek relief, now that Gov. Steve Beshear has asked the Obama administration to declare a federal emergency.

Horse farms are already under extreme economic pressure because of the plunge in bloodstock prices, and this latest problem is only making things worse for them. It’s at times like these that these alphabet soup organizations can actually do some good.

DID FRANK STRONACH’S ONE-VOTE MARGIN over IEAH Stables in the Eclipse Awards outstanding owner category come by virtue of several racing secretaries who work for him? I have a great deal of respect for Stronach’s racing and breeding operation, which has produced solid numbers for many years now, but I just can’t fathom how 2008 was an Eclipse Award-winning year for him.  Ahmed Zayat’s stable earned slightly more money but only ranked sixth in the number of first-place votes. IEAH had a far superior year in terms of Grade 1 winners. George Strawbridge’s Augustin Stable had a better year when the number of starters was taken into consideration, as did the racing stables associated with Sheikh Mohammed. Here is the year-end ownership standings by money.

Apart from the National Turf Writers Association, which has historically published how its members vote, there is no disclosure from Daily Racing Form or the National Thoroughbred Racing Association about who votes – never mind who each individual votes for. But the NTRA should insist that racing secretaries or any other voters who work for racetracks owned by Stronach’s Magna Entertainment not be allowed to vote in categories where there is a potential conflict of interest. That would include the leading owner and leading breeder categories. The awards are too important to permit any conflicts of interest or suspicions of impropriety.

In the owner and breeder categories (the latter of which was for years determined by a committee vote), there seems to be little imagination or thought put in by voters, who more often than not look at which owner and breeder is at the top of the money list that is supplied with the ballot. If the people who vote for Academy Awards were that lazy, then “Paul Blart: Mall Cop” would win the Oscar for best picture this year.

Opportunity (the number of starters) should play a role in voting for outstanding achievement by an owner or breeder. Twice in the last eight years, a breeder who produced two individual champions in the same year from a small band of broodmares (Virginia Kraft Payson, with Farda Amiga and Vindication in 2002, and Aaron and Marie Jones, with Speightstown and Ashado in 2004) did not even get enough votes to be among the three finalists! That’s insulting to the thousands of Thoroughbred breeders who either can’t afford to or don’t choose to maintain massive numbers of broodmares.  (Click here to see what I wrote about this issue a few years ago at Bloodhorse.)

The NTRA needs to address this, either by eliminating the vote and simply giving the awards for leading owner and breeder to whoever wins the most money, or by changing the system of selecting the outstanding individuals in these two categories. I don’t think enough voters understand the importance of this category or what “outstanding” means when it comes to owning or breeding Thoroughbreds.

SPEAKING OF THE NTRA, what is its future? The organization is a shell of its former self, when it had widespread industry support and a mission to improve the economics of racing and breeding through increased pari-mutuel handle, marketing and greater exposure on television. Following its split from the Breeders’ Cup, the NTRA has lost much of its economic clout and influence, as it no longer has the annual championships to promote to the general public or to race sponsors that were tied in to group purchasing (i.e., John Deere, NetJets, Dodge), which only a few years ago produced upwards of $100 million a year in sales. Following the NTRA-Breeders’ Cup “divorce,” group purchasing through NTRA Advantage has dropped significantly.

Today, the NTRA seems to be playing more defense than offense, reacting to crises (i.e., the death of Eight Belles in the Kentucky Derby, Congressional inquiries, totalizator problems) but not really having the resources to go on the offensive in any areas, including marketing and promotion.

Complicating matters (and this isn’t new) is the ongoing struggle to maintain membership in the NTRA. Churchill Downs Inc., which is tabbed to pay approximately $400,000 in dues for its various tracks in 2009, hasn’t recommitted to membership. A source says Churchill might considering paying $200,000 in dues.  An NTRA official told the Paulick Report he hopes Churchill executives see value in the NTRA’s legislative activities, the “Racing to the Kentucky Derby” television series on ESPN, NTRA Advantage purchasing, the National Handicapping Championship, and the Safety and Integrity Alliance. The interesting thing about the latter, I’ve been told by sources, is that Churchill Downs CEO Bob Evans is the one who insisted the NTRA do something about the safety issues that led to the creation of the Safety and Integrity Alliance.

Magna apparently hasn’t committed to renewing its NTRA membership, either. If the NTRA loses the two largest track ownership companies, it will be further weakened, perhaps terminally.

CORPORATE SPONSORSHIPS ARE A CHALLENGE in the current economic climate, whether it’s the PGA Tour, NASCAR or horse racing. But it was, nevertheless, a surprise to see Bessemer Trust drop its sponsorship with the Breeders’ Cup. I would think the wealth management firm formerly chaired by Ogden Mills (Dinny) Phipps and now run by his cousin, Stuart Janney Jr., is encountering the same economic challenges that many financial institutions are (though Bessemer’s investment strategy is believed to be conservative).  

Janney responded to an email with the following comments: “I would say our reasons for dropping out are as follows. First, we have been a sponsor for some time, which means many of our clients have been entertained at a Breeders’ Cup event and having them back again is possibly less appealing than providing a different venue. Second, the two-day format works better for others than it does for us. Third, we have never been able to really derive full value from the TV ads as our target audience is very narrowly focused. Fourth, as we look at other sponsorships and ways to thank our clients or meet prospects, it helps in tighter times to have this money available. We believe our involvement with the Breeders’ Cup has been beneficial to Bessemer and the staff at the Breeders’ Cup has been a pleasure to work with.”

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary.

By Ray Paulick

“It’s hard to get half the people in this industry to agree on what day it is,” a Central Kentucky breeder said to me a couple of weeks ago, shortly after the Breeders’ Cup announced suspension of the stakes supplement program for 2009. “I can’t believe 83% of the people voting in your poll agreed that the Breeders’ Cup board made the wrong decision.”

The day after the results of the Daily Paulick Poll were reported (83% opposed the decision by the board of directors not to use cash reserves to fund the program, 10% supported it and 7% were unsure), the Breeders’ Cup reversed field, reinstating the stakes supplements – at least for 2009. Breeders’ Cup president Greg Avioli said he did not “anticipate the fervor of the response” to the original decision to suspend the program. Apparently, the poll results reflected the response Avioli and board members received in the way of telephone calls and emails from nominators to the Breeders’ Cup from around the country.

This wasn’t the first time judgments ran strong on an issue on which readers of the Paulick Report were asked to vote. The polls are not scientific, but the results are quite interesting and we are flattered by the daily response. This much we’ve learned: You’ve got opinions.

The most recent results, in fact, represent the strongest sentiment of any of the 40 polls we have conducted since just before the Breeders’ Cup World Championships in late October. (Click here to see archives of all the Daily Paulick Poll results.) We asked, “Does the National Thoroughbred Racing Association provide a strong central organization to move racing forward in the future?” The results have been stunning, with 94% saying “no” and only 6% answering “yes.”

In some ways, the question about the NTRA mirrored the results of earlier polls regarding the state of the industry and thoughts about some of the organizations that lead it. In mid-November, we asked, “In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the Thoroughbred industry in the United States at this time.” The question was parallel to the right track/wrong track question the Gallup organization periodically asks of American citizens about the state of the nation.

According to our poll, 91% answered “dissatisfied,” suggesting the industry is currently on the wrong track. Of the remainder, 4% said they were satisfied and 5% were unsure. One e-mailer suggested that the 4% who said they were satisfied must not have understood the question.

Along those same lines, in early December we asked, “Are you confident the individuals in charge of the most prominent racing and breeding organizations in the United States are adequately addressing the problems the industry is currently facing?” That resulted in an 85% no confidence vote, with 10% saying they are confident in our industry leaders and 5% unsure.

 

By Ray Paulick

“How do you corral 30,000 horses, having taken them off the range where they lived, and just say ‘night night’?” asked Madeleine Pickens, the animal-loving wife of billionaire T. Boone Pickens and better known in Thoroughbred racing circles as the former Madeleine Paulson, who with her late husband, Allen Paulson, developed one of the most successful Thoroughbred breeding and racing operations of the 1980s and ‘90s. Allen Paulson died in 2000, and she remarried in 2005.

In recent years, Madeleine Pickens has spent sleepless nights agonizing over the plight of the American West’s wild mustangs, which have been rounded up and held in pens in increasing numbers over the last eight years by cowboys hired by the federal government’s Bureau of Land Management after complaints from cattlemen that the horses were depleting grazing areas. As federal funding for the wild horses was squeezed and the number of people interested in adopting them declined, BLM officials were faced with an unpleasant option: allow the horses to be sent to slaughterhouses or perform mass euthanasia.

The story of these wild horses – “America’s animal” she calls them – hit Madeleine Pickens’ radar screen at a time when she was putting considerable personal resources of time and money into efforts to end the slaughter of all horses. She studied the issue, then hired a polling company to gauge public opinion on the slaughter of horses for human consumption, finding out that seven in 10 Americans oppose the practice. She then paid for anti-slaughter advertisements in the New York Times, lobbied members of Congress and worked with other groups and individuals. Ultimately, however, those efforts ended in frustration because, she said, the pro-slaughter lobby, assisted by the cattle industry, was simply too entrenched with Washington, D.C., powerbrokers. Anti-slaughter bills passed by the U.S House of Representatives were stopped in the Senate. And she was outraged that so many Thoroughbred industry leaders failed to help.

“I would lay in bed, crying, and say, ‘How can we stop this? What can I do?” she told the Paulick Report. “I’m not a religious person, but a spiritual one, and I swear to God that I prayed for an answer.”

One night, she said, the answer came to her. “Why not buy a ranch and give every horse a home?”

Pickens’ plan for a horse sanctuary would be similar to how cattlemen got access to millions of acres of federal land, she said. “This is how the cattlemen got going,” she said. “They got the BLM land attached to their ranches with sweetheart deals. They pay a very low lease for it, and most aren’t even using the land now.”

Pickens has a private foundation in the formative stages, a key to which will be tax credits for donors, she told the Washington Post. She met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, where half of the wild horses are held. Pickens isn’t prepared to say how much she needs to raise for an endowment to make the plan work, but she is confident she will be able to make it happen. She envisions corporate sponsors, campgrounds and cabins for tourists to come and observe the horses. “There is so much support for this right now,” she said. “It’s amazing the number of calls and emails I’ve received from people who want to help or go to work there.” (Click here to see the official Madeleine Pickens Web site.)

She estimated that she will need upwards of a million acres, and is currently in negotiations on three different properties. She took her plan to BLM officials, who leaked the story to the Washington Post, prematurely, in her opinion. “The story got out way too early while I’m working on the land deal,” she said. “The land people may suddenly say, ‘Ohhh, deep pockets,’ and become unreasonable. I’m trying to  be responsible and do the right thing here. I’m very confident that next year this whole thing will be in place.”

Pickens said she felt like someone who’s been trying to walk through quicksand the last couple of years and can’t seem to get out of it. “Nothing was happening, and you can’t believe the idiocy of it all,” she said. “Why do people not get it?”

She grew weary of trying to work for a solution in Congress. “The people in the racehorse industry weren’t on board and we had all those cattlemen against us,” Pickens said. “We really couldn’t win. I give the people who have been fighting this for so long a lot of credit.

“I think this will work because I came up with a private-sector solution rather than trying to put a bill through Washington where politicians could have their way and destroy it. When the bureaucrats do it, it costs too much and doesn’t work. With private individuals, you’re not indebted to every group or compromised by lobbyists.”

Her proposal has been widely applauded, within the BLM and the general public. While her husband, a well-known corporate raider, oilman and philanthropist, has been a highly visible proponent for a plan to make America energy independent, Madeleine Pickens became an overnight celebrity because of her desire to save the horses. The week her plan went public, ABC’s World News Tonight named her “Person of the Week.” Some outside of the horse business remembered her as the heroine (pictured, left) who rescued hundreds of abandoned cats and dogs in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.

“I knew people cared, but I was somewhat stunned at the way this story took off like a wildfire,” she said. “It surprised me, but it really shouldn’t have."

A PLACE FOR EX-RACEHORSES, TOO
Pickens said the ranch will not just be a refuge for wild horses. She wants it to be all inclusive for different breeds, and especially ex-Thoroughbred racehorses that often end up unwanted or sold to killer-buyers who send them off for slaughter in Canada or Mexico. There are no remaining horse slaughterhouses in the United States.

“We’re going to have enough land where I don’t know how we can say no to anything,” she said. “It won’t happen overnight. But I want to give the Thoroughbred industry an opportunity to do something here, and to make people feel that they are being responsible for the animals in their sport. I’m going to ask the industry for their support. It’s going to be difficult for the racing industry to change their way of thinking. With this, I hope they can say they have an exit strategy for their horses.”

Pickens is still angry over the National Thoroughbred Racing Association’s refusal to support recent anti-slaughter legislation in Congress. She was one of a large number of major industry participants to sign a letter written by owner-breeder Josephine Abercrombie to members of Congress stating their support of anti-slaughter legislation and their disapproval of the NTRA’s position. “The NTRA had to compromise themselves with Goodlatte (Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte, former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and now ranking member), who has helped them with gambling legislation but has close ties to the cattle industry,” she said. “By getting behind my proposal, they won’t have to worry about the threat of someone like Goodlatte.”

The Jockey Club is another group that has disappointed Pickens. “They register 35,000 horses a year and they say those horses are worth millions and millions of dollars,” she said. “And they come up with some plan where people can give a few dollars when they register a foal and the Jockey Club says they’ll match up to $200,000 a year. This is the same old b.s. — $200,000 is a peanut. How dare they say this is all they’re going to put into a retirement fund for all the horses who don’t make it. It’s all part of what makes the system not work.

“In every business it’s leadership, and we’ve had horrible leadership in racing. Will Farish (vice chairman of the Jockey Club and owner of Lane’s End Farm, where Pickens retired Grade I winner Rock Hard Ten to stud) can be a good guy. He’s head of this and head of that, and people look up to him. But here’s a man who won’t go against slaughter. Why? Is it because he’s from Houston, where so many of the cattlemen are from?”

Pickens, who said she has withdrawn from the racing business largely because of its inaction on this issue, said she thinks the Thoroughbred industry can learn a great deal from how her proposal has been embraced by the public.

“Racing people can learn that they have a chance to endear the public to them,” she said. “They get a few gamblers here and there, but they are in trouble because they seem to have lost sight of the animal who is the athlete. They have too many fatalities and too many injuries that happen in public on national television. When that happens, it exposes the fact they have no exit strategy for the horses.

“Again, there is no leadership. Those who have been in it for a long time have done nothing to endear people to the business. Now they have an opportunity like the BLM has to try and resolve one of their problems.”

I asked Pickens why she is doing all this, what is driving her to take on a project so big?

She told me of how she emigrated to the United States from Iraq in 1969 because she wanted “to come to a new world and do something with my new country.”

But then she confessed to another reason, something that haunted her when she first learned about the horrors of slaughter: “Maybe it’s because I’m ashamed that I was in the industry for years and never knew there was a slaughterhouse for so many horses at the end of the day. I’m so ashamed I never knew. And people who know about it and aren’t doing anything, they should be ashamed, too.”

Copyright © 2008, The Paulick Report

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world. 

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick

By Ray Paulick

It was billed as the “Biggest Vegas Qualifier Ever,” but horseplayers who paid $250 to enter Saturday’s TwinSpires.com contest in hopes of getting a berth in the annual National Handicapping Championship might call it the biggest online screw-up since the Churchill Downs-owned wagering platform melted down on Kentucky Derby Day earlier this year.

Midway through Saturday’s 15-race contest, many of the 550 entrants were unable to make their online selections. Instead they got an error message saying “database connection failed; too many connections.” The problem went on for at least five races, and there was no communication from TwinSpires.com to participants. “Obviously, it was not pleasant for the players,” one contestant wrote to the Paulick Report.

Vernon Niven, president of TwinSpires.com and executive vice president of Churchill Downs Inc., told the Paulick Report a decision was made to cancel the contest, refund all entry fees and reschedule the qualifying event as soon as possible. Fifteen berths were scheduled to be awarded for the National Handicapping Championship, to be held in Las Vegas Jan. 23-24. Prize money in that event, sponsored by the National Thoroughbred Racing Association and Daily Racing Form, is expected to be $1 million.

“We had a database failure with the contest engine that overloaded some queues and caused the login process to freeze,” Niven told the Paulick Report. “Not every player was affected but due to the nature of this we had to cancel the contest and will be refunding everyone.”

No wagers were processed incorrectly, according to Niven, although he said the issue also prevented TwinSpires.com telephone operators from placing wagers via telephone. Some TwinSpires customers not involved in the handicapping contest also experienced log-in problems.

“It’s a huge embarrassment for all of us, and we pride ourselves in our contests,” Niven added. “It’s a slap in our players’ faces. We’ll look at who was affected and how they were affected.”

Saturday’s problem, on top of the Derby Day online wagering malfunction, comes from a company that hired a CEO in Bob Evans with a tech-savvy reputation and has a “think tank” division based in California’s Silicon Valley.

“CDI, which promotes itself as racing’s technology company has failed to deliver,” a contest player wrote to the Paulick Report. “I know I’ll be cancelling my account after this and the Derby Day fiasco.”

“We do pride ourselves on having an outstanding technology team and are working on this as best we can,” Niven said. “We did have problems on Derby Day 2008. That was a different issue – a wagering platform problem. We fixed that issue, as evidenced by Breeders’ Cup Day. This was a different issue. It is one of those things that our guys missed. It was a programming error on our part having to do with database queries that allowed our queues to overflow.

“Our players should not have to worry about that. We are contacting our players to let them know that we apologize and that we will be refunding them within 24 hours.”

Copyright © 2008, The Paulick Report

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world. 

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick

By Ray Paulick

Bob Evans, president and chief executive officer of Churchill Downs Inc., said during a Friday morning press conference at the company’s flagship track in Louisville, Ky., that the CDI board of directors discussed the possibility of reducing the field size of the Kentucky Derby during a regularly scheduled meeting in New Orleans last week.

The Derby’s maximum field size of 20 is under scrutiny in the wake of the death of the filly Eight Belles in last year’s Derby, even though her fatal injuries occurred after the finish and apparently were unrelated to the number of runners or trouble she may have encountered in the race. The Derby traditionally has the largest field of any race in the United States. No Derby starter has fallen during the running of the race since 1970, when Holy Land clipped heels and fell going into the far turn.

By contrast, Breeders’ Cup fields are limited to 14 starters.

Maximum field size of 14 horses and the prohibition of fillies running against males were considerations in an original discussion document circulated by the National Thoroughbred Racing Association to industry leaders who formed what ultimately came to be known as the NTRA Safety and Integrity Alliance.

Field size or sex limitations were not part of the final recommendations of the NTRA Safety and Integrity Alliance Pledge, which can be viewed by clicking here.

Evans said CDI has devoted a great deal of time and resources to examine a wide range of safety issues since the death of Eight Belles and has adopted all of the safety recommendations made by committees formed earlier this year by the Jockey Club and Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association.

The CDI board discussed the reduction of the field size, Evans said, though he gave no indication whether a change will be made. “For now, it’s the way it’s always been,” he said. Nominations to the Triple Crown races, including the Derby, state that the size of the Derby can be “up to 20 horses.”

A reduction in field size might not be greeted favorably by horse owners and trainers who throughout the winter and spring closely follow whether their 3-year-olds are in the leading 20 contenders, based on money earned in graded or group stakes races. Churchill recently announced a marketing agreement with Kempton racecourse in England that will guarantee one spot in the Derby field to the winner of the Kentucky Derby Challenge Stakes, a 1 1/8-mile race on Polytrack, on March 18.

Handle on the Derby would also decline in the event of a reduction in the field size. Evans said Churchill has researched Derby handle in relationship to field size but would not say how much handle might fall. A reduction from 20 to 14 starters would also cost Churchill Downs $300,000 in lost entry and starting fees ($25,000 to enter and $25,000 to start).

Evans discussed the Derby field size and other safety measures following a media briefing announcing that Oaks and Derby ticket prices, with a few exceptions, would be frozen in 2009. “Our slowing economy is having a pronounced effect, and many of our customers have been affected in various ways as well,” Evans said. “Although the Kentucky Derby occupies an elite spot in the world of sports and tickets are typically in high demand, we want to keep our price points at the same level to help our customers in this challenging economic climate.” Click here to read more about the ticket price freeze.

The only exceptions will be scheduled price increases in the 30-year personal seat license program, which are coming off a three-year price freeze; some luxury suites and Marquee Village accommodations; and reserved seats in the infield.

Churchill Downs is also offering the opportunity for on-track customers to buy Derby reserved seats in a sweepstakes running each day from tomorrow (Saturday, Nov. 22) through Nov. 29. Individuals whose names are drawn will be eligible to buy two Derby tickets ranging in price from $88 to $207. (Derby tickets range in price from $88 for infield reserved seats to $693 on millionaire’s row.) One thousand of the tracks 55,000 seats are being offered in the sweepstakes. For more details, click here.

Copyright © 2008, The Paulick Report

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world. 

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick