Posts Tagged ‘affirmed’

The Paulick Report is pleased to once again offer the pedigree insights of Edwin Anthony in the weeks leading up to the Kentucky Derby. Ed has lifelong experience in the Thoroughbred industry, has practical experience planning matings for his family’s stable and formerly as a pedigree adviser to Three Chimneys Farm. His perspective is straightforward and refreshingly opinionated, and I advise anyone interested in Thoroughbred pedigrees to pick up a copy of his book, “The American Thoroughbred (Volume One)”—available for purchase here.

In this first of a series of articles, he looks at the pedigree of Fasig-Tipton Fountain of Youth winner Eskendereya. – Ray Paulick

ESKENDEREYA (Giant’s Causeway—Aldebaran Light, by Seattle Slew)
By Edwin Anthony
I wrote a series of eight pedigree profiles for horses on the “Triple Crown trail” starting about this time last year, and recent Fountain of Youth (G2) winner Eskendereya will serve as the first horse in our series this season. It’s interesting to look back at the horses we profiled last year (Friesan Fire, Quality Road, Pioneerof the Nile, Dunkirk, I Want Revenge, Papa Clem, Chocolate Candy, Rachel Alexandra) to see how they fared.

Quality Road is obviously a top horse (he missed the Triple Crown with quarter cracks), while Dunkirk and Pioneerof the Nile were each able to place in one classic race, and I wrote a token piece about Rachel Alexandra because she looked like a very special filly, even though she had not won anything more than a G2 race at that stage.  Only a fortune teller could have predicted Rachel Alexandra’s Horse of the Year campaign after changing hands or the rapid ascension of Birdstone (sire of longshot classic winners Mine That Bird and Summer Bird) as a major classic influence.

Even though I have studied Thoroughbred pedigrees for going on 25 years, no one can get around the folly of bad luck, injuries in training, or the fact that many horses look dominant going nine furlongs (a mile-and-an-eighth) but simply aren’t up to the demanding task of running classic distances at a competitive speed.

That’s the mystery of stamina and genetics that we’re constantly trying to figure out.  Of course, even a horse that is capable of competing at classic distances still needs to put out the effort, and sometimes horses have off-days just like people.

If nothing else, we strive to learn about the strengths and limitations of the stallions and ancestors under discussion and hope to come out smarter on the other side.  At the very least, we want to learn what strategies are working in pedigrees, even if some of them aren’t up to the classic standard.  Who are the soundest horses, where is the stamina coming from, and what ancestors are best to inbreed to?  These are the answers we’re looking for.

Pedigree analysts (like myself) try to identify patterns in graded stakes results as a way of predicting the future.  Given that the Storm Cat line has been a poor source of classic winners, then you probably wouldn’t want to lean heavily on Storm Cat’s sons (or stallions out of Storm Cat mares) in your stallion recommendations for breeders that want to breed for the classics.  The Storm Cat line hasn’t had a winner of a Triple Crown race since Tabasco Cat in 1994, although Bluegrass Cat was second in the Kentucky Derby, Belmont, and Travers in 2006.  You should note that Bluegrass Cat is out of a mare by classic influence A.P. Indy and his dam is heavily inbred to the foundation mare La Troienne, including being from the Numbered Account (champion 2YO filly by Buckpasser) branch of that important family.

So, while the Storm Cat line is dominant in 2-year-old racing and in races contested at distances of 9 furlongs or shorter, it does not appear capable of producing classic types, unless there is a LOT of help on the dam side of the equation.  Of course, when you start to speak in these kinds of absolutes, a special horse can come along and provide us with the exception to the rule.

Storm Cat’s son Giant’s Causeway was a tough campaigner in Europe out of a good racemare by Rahy, with a second dam by English Derby winner and classic influence Roberto.  He was undeniably consistent and high class, winning a series of Group 1 races at more than a mile. In his final start, he gave classic distance specialist Tiznow a real run for his money in the Breeders’ Cup Classic, that being his only start on dirt.  So, Giant’s Causeway was sound, very fast, and capable of competing with top horses at the American classic distance of 10 furlongs (a mile-and-a-quarter).  This makes him an exception among sons of Storm Cat, as most of his sons that have found any measure of success at stud were much better at a mile or less and have passed on this penchant for speed among their progeny.

Giant’s Causeway has already sired Grade 1 winners in America over 10 furlongs like Heatseeker (Santa Anita Handicap), Frost Giant (Suburban), and Red Giant (NWR, Clement L. Hirsch Memorial Turf Championship), so you can see that if there is a son of Storm Cat capable of siring an American classic winner, then Giant’s Causeway is probably the one.

The runaway win by Eskendereya (by Giant’s Causeway) in the Fountain of Youth (G2) was more than visually impressive.  You could see that the horse really relished the opportunity to go two turns, and he is now 3 for 3 on the dirt, his only losses coming in his first start (a maiden event on turf at Saratoga) and a poor effort in the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile (G1), contested over the synthetic surface at Santa Anita.  He was reported to have a troubled trip in that race as well.

I have often thought that a true classic type horse is able to simply get into a steady gallop and carve out “12’s,” which is to say that he can consistently complete each furlong of a race in 12 seconds.  It becomes increasingly difficult to do with each furlong, as the muscles begin to tire, and Secretariat’s world record time of 2:24 in the 1973 Belmont (over 12 furlongs) is the best example of a horse being able to accomplish this feat over such a distance.  It’s not about an explosive move or “turn of foot” with classic horses; it’s steady horsepower over a distance.  Classic horses “stay” (as the Europeans like to say), while horses more suited to shorter distances simply run out of gas, unable to maintain a steady stream of “12’s” on the toteboard teletimer.

This is exactly what Eskendereya did to the field in the Fountain of Youth (G2)—he galloped them into submission.  After taking over after a half-mile in a soft 47.92, he completed six furlongs in 1:12.41, a mile in 1:36.54, with a final time for nine furlongs of 1:48.87, echoing the many 12-second furlongs before the last one.  So, like several other sons of Giant’s Causeway, Eskendereya looks capable of running a distance of ground as far as 10 furlongs at a competitive rate of speed.  Let’s look at the bottom side of his pedigree to check for more stamina.

Eskendereya’s damsire, Seattle Slew, won the Triple Crown and has been a very successful classic influence, with descendants like A.P. Indy (Belmont, Breeders’ Cup Classic), Bernardini (Preakness, Travers), Cigar (Breeders’ Cup Classic, Dubai World Cup), Lemon Drop Kid (Belmont, Travers), Mineshaft (Jockey Club Gold Cup, Suburban), and Slew o’ Gold (Jockey Club Gold Cup twice) serving as notable examples.

Alydar (second in all 3 Triple Crown races to Affirmed) is the sire of Eskendereya’s second dam, and beyond the fact that he sired two Kentucky Derby winners (Alysheba and Strike the Gold) and a Belmont winner (Easy Goer), Horse of the Year Point Given (Preakness, Belmont, Travers) was produced by a mare by champion Turkoman, he being a son of Alydar.

We know that inbreeding to the family of Almahmoud (second dam of both Halo and Northern Dancer) has been quite successful, and Giant’s Causeway is a very good example of this, as Storm Cat is a grandson of Northern Dancer and Rahy (his damsire) is out of a mare by Halo.  The pedigree of Eskendereya shows why a six-generation computer program is a good investment, as his third dam carries intensive inbreeding to the Almahmoud family as well.  His third dam is by Northern Dancer himself (giving Eskendereya “balanced” inbreeding to Northern Dancer—through a son and a daughter), and while his fourth dam was sired by the stout stamina influence Ribot (winner of the 12-furlong “Arc” twice) his fifth dam is actually the mare Cosmah, she being the dam of Halo and a daughter of Almahmoud. Thus, Eskendereya is not only inbred to Northern Dancer through  a son and a daughter, he is inbred to Halo’s dam, Cosmah, 6 x 5 and carries four total crosses of Almahmoud.

As the ancestors Northern Dancer, Halo, and their granddam Almahmoud get further back in pedigrees, this reinforcement strategy of crossing horses inbred to Almahmoud should continue to find success and revive their influence in classic pedigrees.  My parents bred and raced Preakness winner Pine Bluff (inbred 4 x 4 to Almahmoud), and I have noticed him working well with reinforcement of Almahmoud’s genes, crossing successfully with stallions like More Than Ready (by Southern Halo—closely inbred to Almahmoud), Menifee (by Harlan—closely inbred to Almahmoud), and Jules (from the Northern Dancer family and carrying Halo in his pedigree).  So, it seems to be a strategy that is paying dividends with stallions and mares already carrying inbreeding to Almahmoud.

Given the fact that Giant’s Causeway has already proven capable of siring runners that excel at classic distances, and the fact that Eskendereya carries a number of other classic influences in his pedigree (Seattle Slew, Alydar, Ribot, and intensive inbreeding to the influential Almahmoud family), I’d say that his classic prospects look very bright indeed.  His clear preference for dirt racing and ability to string together one 12 second furlong after another only boosts his stock, in my opinion.  If Eskenereya can arrive in Louisville with a solid Florida Derby (G1) effort under his belt, he should be a very strong contender.
 
Edwin Anthony was the staff pedigree consultant at Three Chimneys Farm for six years and has penned dozens of articles on pedigree research.  He also published The American Thoroughbred (Volume I) in 2008, which can be ordered via the banner ad link on this web page or on his web site at www.thoroughbredadvisor.com.

Now that guest writer Jeff Shapes has convinced Paulick Report readers that Zenyatta deserves not just Horse of the Year but Horse of the Decade honors, we thought we would interject another voice on the Horse of the Year debate. This one is from Aron Wellman, a 32-year-old California attorney who joined Barry Irwin’s crew at Team Valor International after enjoying success in forming his own racing partnerships. Wellman doesn’t take a position on the Rachel Alexandra vs. Zenyatta debate, but agrees with the recent decision of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association and National Turf Writers Association to disallow co-Horse of the Year votes, a move endorsed by Daily Racing Form publisher Steve Crist and many fans.

Take our poll in the left-hand column of the Paulick Report home page and let us know whether you think there should be one Horse of the Year or co-recipients for 2009.

Incidentally, Ray has returned from Japan, but the slacker insisted on taking part of today off to “recover” from the trip. My question: does Santa Claus need time off when he travels around the world on Christmas Eve? I don’t think so. Not that I’m comparing him with Mr. Claus.

Ray promises (threatens?) to write one more piece about his Japanese adventure when he wakes up from his slumber. - Bradford Cummings
 

By Aron Wellman
The Horse of the Year debate is in full force.

There are those who stand in Zenyatta’s corner and there are those who are in Rachel Alexandra’s corner.

And then, there are those who believe that the honor should be shared between Zenyatta and Rachel.
 
Who I think should be awarded the honor of distinction is irrelevant.  That’s not what this letter is about.
 
What I do think is relevant is the debate itself and how it relates to the current state of our industry.
 
At a time when our industry is faced with unprecedented challenges and the very real threat of extinction hovers over us, the temptation to sell out is fierce.  Staying true is hard to do.  Man-made racetracks, kinder whips, slot machine bailouts; these are all ideas people have come up with and instituted in an effort to redefine horse racing and make it a more acceptable sport to a public that has virtually ignored us for decades.
 
We all want our industry to survive.  But at what cost?  Haven’t we taken this P.C. thing a little too far?  Shouldn’t we be looking at ourselves in the mirror and ask ourselves whether we’ve gone too soft?
 
My father told me a long time ago, "This is not a game made for men who wear short pants."
 
Yet, it seems like every day I open up the trades, our industry is resculpting its very being to cater to people who wear short pants.
 
Without getting into the validity of whether synthetic racetracks are safer, or newly designed whips are gentler on a horse, or whether slot machines at a racetrack will save the day, I ask you this:
 
How many people do you know bought a horse, wagered on a race or attended the racetrack because of a shift to a synthetic surface or because jockeys were using softer whips?
 
How many people do you know who went to a racetrack intending to play slot machines and ended up betting on a horse race?
 
How, you ask, does this have anything to do with the Zenyatta versus Rachel debate?
 
The Zenyatta versus Rachel debate epitomizes the very essence of what the sport of thoroughbred horse racing is all about.  We are a different breed.  The debate is what separates us from other sports and what attracts people to our racetracks, the betting windows and inspires people to breed and race thoroughbreds.  Soft stances have not translated into progress.  They have only contributed to the downward cycle we find ourselves in.
 
Horse racing is not a game of luck where you pull a handle and hope the slots align.  It’s not black and white like a batting average, scoring average, passer rating or how fast a race is run or the height a person jumps.  The debate is why people gamble on horses in our country through a parimutuel system.  Everyone wants to be smarter than the next guy.
 
Awarding co-Horse of the Year to these two great fillies is a cop-out.  Furthermore, it would just be another instance whereby our industry sells-out in an effort to appease a public wearing short pants and who we hope will come to our racetracks, bet on our races and buy our horses.  Why else would we even consider awarding co-Horses of the Year? 
 
Co-Horse of the Year?  That’s like saying we should go back and alter the finish line for any great race that ever took place.  Let’s extinguish great rivalries like Affirmed and Alydar, Sunday Silence and Easy Goer, Ferdinand and Alysheba, Personal Ensign and Winning Colors and call all the tremendous battles those horses ever fought dead-heats because it would just be so much better if neither of those horses had to "lose."
 
The saying, "That horse ran too good to lose," echoes throughout grandstands and backstretches frequently.  The saying would be applicable no matter what the result of the race for Horse of the Year.  Despite its’ veracity, it remains a figure of speech and our sport accepts the notion.  Those who can’t, wilt under the pressure that our sport’s participants are faced with every second of every day.
 
I cannot imagine anybody in the thoroughbred horse racing industry being keen on their child participating in a youth sports league that doesn’t keep score, a new phenomenon penetrating society in an effort to avoid hurting a young, impressionable child’s feelings.  By awarding co-Horses of the Year, we are basically throwing away the scorecard and abandoning the very mystique that attracts people to our sport.  We keep score, technically, on paper, and perhaps more importantly, in the hearts and minds of our faithful, which only contributes to the intrigue of a debate like the one our industry is experiencing now between Zenyatta and Rachel.
 
Softening up policy is causing us to lose more patrons, fans and owners, not attract them.  This theory that there should be no loser contradicts the very principal upon which horse racing was founded.  Those who succeed in our sport, love our sport and support our sport focus on winning, not the fear of losing.  The type of person who is drawn to racing is not the type of person who would lobby for co-Horses of the Year.  The type of person drawn to our sport has thick enough skin to accept the fact that one of these fillies will be crowned over the other and invite the debate to persist from now until eternity.  That’s what our sport is all about.
 
Enough is enough with our sport conforming to the desires of individuals who do not possess the make-up to withstand the rigors of our tough game.  The time has come for us to stick to our guns and stay true.  Finding our backbone again will resuscitate supporters we have lost along the way and it will attract the kind of person we’re looking for.
 
So, I argue, take a side.  Choose a corner.  Let the best woman prevail.  The sport will be the biggest winner.

Although I don’t necessarily buy her conclusion that Rachel Alexandra “must” be elected Horse of the Year for 2009, I can’t disagree with Natalie Voss that we have two very exciting and deserving candidates for the sport’s top honor. Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra are to many in Natalie’s generation what Secretariat, Ruffian, Affirmed or Seattle Slew were to mine, or Seabiscuit was to a previous generation of racing fans.

A University of Kentucky Equine Communications student, Natalie joined the Paulick Report earlier this year as an intern. This, her first published piece for us, reflects both her enthusiasm for Thoroughbred racing as well as her burgeoning knowledge of the sport. But most importantly, as we look to expand our audience in the future, it is imperative that we listen to the voices of the next generation. — Ray Paulick

By Natalie Voss
Right before this year’s Breeders’ Cup, the Paulick Report posted a handful of editorials and news articles taking the view that Zenyatta could not beat the males in the Breeder’s Cup Classic. The Europeans were too tough, it was too big a test for her first try against boys, Summer Bird was a sleeper sitting on a big performance: the reasons were various and valid. I’ll admit that if you had asked me, I would have pointed out all these things, particularly because although Zenyatta has a tremendous lifetime record of victories, she hadn’t blown away any of the fields she’d beaten.

On these points I’ll admit I was proven conclusively wrong. For perhaps the first time in her career, Zenyatta was forced to overcome adversity and did so with ease. The loading debacle before the race, her slow start and spotting 12 lengths to the leaders early made me shout in disappointment ”She’s done” as the field moved down the backstretch. I gave my television set a round of applause right along with the Southern California crowd when we realized she had fought through to the lead coming to the wire. It was a truly incredible race.

But now the party is over, and we are left to all put our two cents in on which horse will be forever associated with this season by carrying the title “Horse of the Year 2009,” and here are mine: as incredible as Zenyatta’s win was this weekend, the title still must go to Rachel Alexandra.

There have been, and will continue to be a flurry of editorials on the Paulick Report and elsewhere from various handicapping experts and journalists voicing their (sadly, ultimately irrelevant) opinions on which of the two fillies should go home with this honor. Mine may perhaps be less relevant than any of them, as I am just starting out in the racing industry, a mere college intern for the Paulick Report, but for what it’s worth here are my assertions:

– Zenyatta has faced and beaten stakes company males once. Rachel has done it three times, with many (although not all) of the horses she beat also appearing in the Breeders’ Cup Classic. Both fillies ran against and defeated many top fillies and mares this year. In short: they have faced almost all of the same opponents.

– Considering the above, Zenyatta does just enough work to win, weighing in with an average margin of victory of two lengths. That is what a winning racehorse is supposed to do–just enough to get the job done. But a champion is a horse who smashes their competition impressively, particularly in the face of adversity. Rachel’s 20 length margin over her peers in the Oaks, her crushing six-length margin in the Haskell, and even her hard-fought length victory in the Preakness, so soon after the Oaks and despite her dislike of the Pimlico surface, all make her victories more impressive than Zenyatta’s.

– Zenyatta had a relatively easy season, in my opinion, only running five times this year while Rachel has run nine times, each time facing harder competition and setting five stakes records along the way. Zenyatta set one.

– Rachel’s exciting victories made a splash in the sports world at large, which the racing industry so desperately needs. Granted the attention of the “non-equine world” is not a great indicator of what events in racing are most relevant, but name me a horse that has captured more (positive) attention from casual fans this year, or even within the last ten years. We need a horse like her. And now that we have one, we need to reward her for what she’s done for the industry: she’s given us a great athlete to point to when people ask us to explain why this sport is great.

Whoever wins the award will be deserving. The most remarkable aspect of the debate to me is that, for the first time in my young memory we are choosing between two females for Horse of the Year. Looking back at the list of past winners, I have always become immediately jealous of other generations that they have lived to see such greats as Secretariat, Affirmed and Ruffian, while as a loyal fan since 1995 the greatest season I can boast witnessing is Silver Charm’s in 1997. Now I think finally, we are all privileged to have seen something truly, timelessly great for the first time in years and that is a pair of horses who should both be remembered through history for their accomplishments…and perhaps that is the greatest reward of all.

I yearn for Hollywood Park yesterday.

Times change, though I often wish they didn’t. The death knell for Hollywood Park came when Churchill Downs Inc. sold the track, three years ago last Tuesday to the Bay Meadows Land Co. Then CDI president Tom Meeker said California “has forsaken racing and its needs.” If things were grim for the sport in California then, how do you think it looks now, with Bay Meadows also bought and closed for development by the same Bay Meadows Land Co., and Golden Gate Fields and Santa Anita Park in the middle of owner Magna Entertainment’s bankruptcy proceedings.

But Hollywood Park yesterday was the place that solidified my love of the sport. My first racetrack experiences were in Chicago in the mid-1970s, but it wasn’t until I moved to Southern California in the spring of 1979 that I got to see the best of what racing offered.

That was the year Affirmed carried 132 pounds to victory in the Gold Cup, covering the mile and a quarter in an incredible 1:58 2/5 while pushed the whole way by the Italian champion Sirlad. It was the year a hotshot California-bred named Flying Paster, winner of the Hollywood Derby, would carry the hopes of West Coast racing fans to the Kentucky Derby, where he would be crushed by Spectacular Bid, a colt who would come West a year later and continue to dominate that same rival.

Legends like Shoemaker, Pincay, McCarron, Hawley, and McHargue populated the jockeys room, Trainer Charlie Whittingham dominated the big races, and the stands were packed to the gills every weekend. Little did I know then that the 24,930 average daily attendance from the 77-day meeting of 1979 was down considerably from just a few years earlier, when Hollywood averaged over 30,000. Santa Anita Park was getting the upper hand under the marketing innovations of Alan Balch.

Not to be outdone, track owner Marje Everett pulled out all the stops in 1980 to reverse the “sagging” business figures. On Sunday, May 4, 1980, the day after Genuine Risk beat the California-bred Rumbo in the Kentucky Derby, Hollywood Park tried something new–a “giveaway” for every paid admission, of a canvas tote bag. 

I was one of the 80,348 on hand that day, though I didn’t even know about the tote bag giveaway. I had come to see the ongoing rivalry between ex-claimer Wishing Well (who went on to produce Horse of the Year Sunday Silence) and Country Queen in the Gamely Handicap. I’ll never forget the traffic jam on Century Boulevard trying to get into Hollywood Park that day, or the lines for concessions and betting. I managed to snag one of the tote bags, and, somehow, 29 years later I still have it. Though it’s a bit the worse for wear, the bag is a reminder for me of the glory days of the sport.

That same year, Hollywood Park introduced Pick Six wagering (they even gave away a Pick Six beach towel in the image of a $100 bill….signed by “Secretary of the Treasury Vernon O. Underwood”) , and the racing was highlighted by incredible performances from Spectacular Bid in the Mervyn LeRoy and Californian Stakes (I kept my free “Bid and The Shoe” T-shirt for years until it mysteriously shrunk and no longer fit me). Average attendance soared to 31,150 in 1980.

Hollywood Park is where I stood in awe alongside my friend and former Daily Racing Form colleague Jay Hovdey, watching a 2-year-old daughter of Seattle Slew, named Landaluce, power her way to victory in the 1982 Lassie Stakes, a race since renamed in her honor. She drew off down the stretch of the six-furlong event to win by an implausible 21 lengths, covering the distance in 1:08 flat for an up-and-coming trainer named D. Wayne Lukas. It’s the track where the first Breeders’ Cup was held in 1984, when Everett pulled a few favors with her Hollywood pals and made it a star-studded event for people and horses. It’s been a huge part of racing history since its opening in 1938. Click here for a trip through Hollywood Park’s history in the introduction to the track’s media guide.

I could go on with the memories of this track, just as I could listen all day long to the deadly accurate and gravelly voiced race calls of the late Harry Henson. It’s not the same as it used to be—few places are—and since moving to Kentucky in 1988 I don’t get there as often as I’d like to.

I loved Hollywood Park, its horses, its people and its energy, but mostly for how it made me feel about racing.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in 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