The following statement was emailed to the Paulick Report today regarding the comments yesterday from board member Satish Sanan.
Statement from Breeders’ Cup Chairman, Bill Farish
The Breeders’ Cup board is extremely disappointed with recent statements from board member Satish Sanan with regard to host sites and those views in no way reflect the official position of Breeders’ Cup, LTD. The Breeders’ Cup has longstanding and valued partnerships with Churchill Downs and the New York Racing Association. No final decisions have been made on host sites beyond 2010 and as we indicated in December the board is looking at a permanent host location as a potential option as part of our ongoing strategic planning initiative. We extend our sincere apology to Churchill Downs and the State of Kentucky. We look forward to our return to Louisville and Churchill Downs for the 2010 Breeders’ Cup World Championships.
Statement from Breeders’ Cup Board Member, Satish Sanan
I mischaracterized the Breeders’ Cup’s relationship with Churchill Downs and other host sites in a recent radio interview. I regret my poor choice of words. As part of the Breeders’ Cup strategic planning process, the board continues to evaluate future host sites and other core business issues.
For the original story on Sanan’s comments, click here.
By Ray Paulick Jerry Moss has been living a dream since moving to California from his native New York in 1960. In 1962, with trumpeter and band leader Herb Albert, he formed A&M Records and over the next quarter century produced music for a diverse group of recording artists ranging from The Carpenters, Joan Baez, Phils Ochs, and Cheech & Chong to Joe Cocker, Janet Jackson, Oingo Boingo, The Tubes and The Police—and that’s only a very small list. He and Alpert were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2006. His life as a Thoroughbred owner has been pretty groovy, too, especially in recent years. Moss and his wife Ann won the Kentucky Derby with Giacomo in 2005, and Zenyatta has carried them to consecutive Eclipse Awards as champion older mare during an unbeaten career that hit a high note at Santa Anita last November when she became the first distaffer to win the Breeders’ Cup Classic. She is currently preparing for an April 9 showdown against Horse of the Year Rachel Alexandra in the $5-million Apple Blossom Invitational at Oaklawn Park. Moss also serves on the California Horse Racing Board, having been appointed by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2004. He was the only member of that panel not to vote in favor of the synthetic track mandate when it was proposed in 2006. Moss abstained, believing more research and study was needed before such a significant change was enacted. He, along with Zenyatta’s trainer, John Shirreffs, have become critics of the synthetic surfaces. Moss spoke with the Paulick Report about the synthetic track controversy and a variety of other subjects. Let’s go back to 2006 when the push was made for synthetic tracks. What was your position? I frankly wasn’t prepared for the speed at which this was enacted. I thought we needed more data and felt we shouldn’t be rushing off to do this, causing tracks to spend $40 million based on one season at Turfway Park. Yet if you were in the room that day–and the truth is every vendor, Polytrack, Cushion Track, Tapeta, they all had people show up and do demonstrations—that meeting was hell bent on doing this. There were only five commissioners present, and the overall support from TOC and CTT (Thoroughbred Owners of California and California Thoroughbred Trainers), and particularly from two trainers, Richard Mandella and Howard Zucker, was rampant. The room was rocking to do this. First I made a statement that we should all study it enough to pick one surface and be consistent and no one took that seriously. We could have managed it better with maintenance. We took this vote, and I was hoping someone would stand up and say, ‘You can’t do this.’ I said, ‘I abstain, I think we need more time.’ We had been fortunate enough to win the Kentucky Derby the previous year with Giacomo, and I felt these tracks would make it so much more difficult for the owner of a California horse to achieve the dream, to win the Derby. Sometimes you can train on Polytrack and do well, but it’s hard to race on it and transfer the same form to dirt. The nature of the tracks changes every day. We run on three different synthetic tracks in Southern California and a fourth, quite different track, is at Golden Gate (near San Francisco), and every one of them changes every day. It’s been very hard for trainers to build up the strength of horses on these tracks. With John Sadler now president of CTT, an open poll of trainers came up with a 70% vote to reinstall dirt. I hope we live up to that. I think it’s a big, divisive thing that’s happened. We have enough divisiveness. If Santa Anita takes the lead and installs a dirt track, it would become the center of racing again in the U.S. People will still complain about the track. Everybody complains about the condition of the track, every trainer. At least with a dirt track you’ve got people with years of experience in maintaining it. With this stuff, nobody knows anything. We were told we wouldn’t need water and that couldn’t be further from the truth. We were told there would be lower maintenance costs. Our horse Tiago had a huge piece of rubber in his nose. It took us weeks and months to get this gook out of his mouth. The fibers melted from the heat. What are some of the other challenges the industry faces in California? Getting our product across to the consumer. I’m pleased that the CHRB is really concentrating on the mini-satellites. We’ve had a bill put forth in the state legislature that seemed to allow a greater number of them to commence operations, but there’s a restriction they had to be 20 miles away from an existing track or wagering site. In all this time, only one mini-satellite got set up—at a card club in Gardena, and they’re doing really well. It showed people still have an appetite for our game. A friend of mine owns movie theaters and wants to incorporate bet facilities in movie theaters. I think it’s a great idea, yet nobody seems to be jumping up and down about it. The thing that really gets me down about our game is we have so many wise men who are so negative. I feel that’s what’s plaguing our industry. Not enough guys who want to put their money up and take a shot. The dream keeps getting dimmer. There are some new thoughts blossoming. Our new CHRB chairman (Keith Brackpool) has some good ideas, some practical ideas. He’s thinking positively. What needs to happen to reverse the trend? Leadership. Are there national solutions to racing’s challenges? I firmly believe you need a national presence. We need to figure a way to do this. We’ve got these little fiefdoms, powerful in their regions. There’s no national medication policy; it’s like the Cincinnati Reds playing on different drugs than the New York Mets. It’s just not right. Different rules apply to different places. There’s got to be some national policy. It’s been tried. Business has to operate with one negotiator. It’s also gotten to be too hard for the public to get to see these races, like the Derby preps last weekend. These were some big races, but they weren’t on ESPN and were hardly reported in the papers. The Kentucky Derby still gets a good (television) rating, and the Breeders’ Cup is a big event. People do tune in on big days. But look at something like NASCAR. They are all over the place. Your expertise is in entertainment, and you’ve seen a lot of changes in the music business in terms of distribution and technology. What has the music industry done differently in the face of those changes, as opposed to how the racing industry has reacted? The internet has taken its toll on the sale of records. A large segment of the population started exchanging files and getting music for free. But artists are still making music and the emphasis for making money for these artists is through new sources—personal appearances. Artists in this for the long haul have to keep performing, attach themselves to an audience, people who show up for them, and buy their products. It is possible to be a success in the music industry. Television is more important than before. If you’re talented you’ve got to get your message to the people—and promote it. What are the chances state government can help in California? California breeding has gone way down. California homebreds used to make up a much bigger percentage of the races. State government has done very little in the time I’ve been on the CHRB. It’s very disappointing what the legislature or governor have done for the industry–so far it’s been dismal. But the state is in trouble. I understand where Arnold (Gov. Schwarzenegger) is having to reduce money for breast cancer diagnosis. How can he do something for a rich man’s game like horse racing while reducing the number of teachers in our schools. Clearly, we need some help. But positive thinking and a unified approach to the legislature and governor would certainly benefit. We’ve got to think more positively. People have to let go of some things. We have to move on. We gave up the stage coach a long time–and we moved on. You mentioned how musicians are now emphasizing personal appearances more today. Can racing ever recapture some of the on-track business it lost to simulcasting and advance-depoisit wagering? My belief is that people’s habits have changed. I don’t know if people have that much leisure time these days. In the 1980s when on-track business was strong, you still had the same number of sports–basketball, baseball, NFL, lots of different stuff. Today everybody has to work harder, our economy is still in trouble. To come out and hang out for the whole afternoon is hard for people, their attention spans have changed. That’s why you’ve got to make TV a little easier for them. Are we better off with ADW, even though it’s had a negative effect on on-track business? Yes I’d have to say so. At least it’s brought in the opportunity of a new generation that understands the internet effectively enough to place a wager. I bet on TVG now and then. I think it’s a handy tool. And I’m happy that BetFair owns TVG. Gaming professionals understand racing. They understand gaming. I think they do a pretty good job on TVG—they try to be entertaining. It would have been very easy to send Zenyatta off to Kentucky to be bred after her second Eclipse Award. What factors went into your decision to keep her in training? The initial decision to retire her was purely mine. After the Breeders’ Cup Classic I said what else can I ask her to do? I didn’t talk to my wife, to anybody on the team, I just said I think we’ve got to retire her. We went to visit her at the barn and this was a horse that obviously was liking her job. She’s been there four years now, and we were, what, going to send her to Kentucky? Before the Eclipse Awards, my wife and I said if John thinks she can go another year and she’s happy, let’s do it. She loves the show, she loves the people. The Classic didn’t take that much out of her. John and Dottie (racing manager Dottie Ingordo, Shirreffs’ wife) said, ‘Yeah, she can be pretty good next year.’ The decision to retire her was an emotional one on my part and the decision to keep her in training was more of a reasonable one. She’s a star. How can racing seize the opportunity to promote the Apple Blossom and any other races involving Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra? I believe Mr. (Charles) Cella is a great showman. He’s almost in a class by himself. Back in 1927, someone said, ‘Mr. O’Brien the most amazing thing has happened; a man has flown across the Atlantic Ocean all by himself.’ O’Brien says, ‘That’s fantastic, but let me know when a committee does it. That would be amazing.’ The point is an individual can accomplish anything. Charlie was able to pull this off and you’ve got to give him credit for it. Whatever devise he wants to promote this race is absolutely fine, and I believe he’ll come out of it making money.
By Ray Paulick
A Paulick Report reader commenting under the pseudonym of “another young owner” made the following observation in connection with yesterday’s article that surveyed top executive salaries at 18 industry non-profit associations: “Over $3.75 million a year and our industry has never been worse off… we have some great leaders!”
Actually, the aggregate of the 18 salaries was $3,911,096 and didn’t include bonuses, retirement plan contributions or other benefits.
But the point made by “another young owner” was not lost on me. When you consider that executive salary should only be a small fraction of an organization’s expenditures and that there are many more associations and businesses not included in our survey, it makes you wonder: What exactly are we getting for all that money?
Do we really benefit from and need a TRA and an NTRA, a TOBA, an HBPA and a THA, a TOC and a CTT, a Jockey Club and a Jockeys’ Guild? For the ultimate absurdity consider that we used to have two national organizations for racing regulatory bodies—neither of which really had the authority to do anything.
Perhaps when racing was healthy—a regional or local sport that didn’t participate in interstate commerce–there was little need to consolidate some of these redundant organizations. But today, as revenues are in serious decline among racetracks, horse owners, breeders and in virtually every other industry sector, the status quo will not work.
But don’t take it from me. Owner and breeder Satish Sanan, a no-nonsense businessman who has closely examined racing’s organizationally littered landscape, believes the industry will continue in a downward spiral unless it commits to changing its structure.
Sanan, a weekly guest on Steve Byk’s satellite radio show, “At the Races,” has been speaking out in his regular “Our Industry” segment about the need for a new structure. (Click here to listen.) Yesterday, in reaction to the Paulick Report’s salary survey, Sanan said: “If you look at the so-called alphabet soup organizations from TOBA to NTRA to horsemen’s associations, the THA, and the (Thoroughbred) Owners of California, you can add all that crap up, and collectively we are spending millions of dollars. Each one is doing one or two good functions, but not seriously impacting the growth of the industry. It goes back to, do we need this kind of structure and what the hell is it doing for our industry? We need a single structure and in that structure we have got to find a way to generate more revenue, put more money back into the business, hire the best talent.
“When the NFL and NBA created leagues, they brought people in, paid them millions of dollars, and put governance and structure in place and marketed the hell out of their sport and nobody complains about that because they bring in hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. Unfortunately, there is not an organization with the exception of maybe individual racetracks that are customer focused, customer centric, customer-service centric.”
Sanan said Breeders’ Cup–where he is on the board of directors and has led a strategic planning committee that is set to announce its final recommendations at a board meeting on Thursday—is the only association on the horsemen’s side of the industry that has focused on revenue growth. “I do not know of another organization that is tasked with growing the business,” he told Byk.
“The leadership of our industry should be thinking like a think tank and working together, talking about how do we transform this business, how do we go back to how this business used to be, how do we attract new owners, keep the existing owners, keep the existing horseplayers, have them bet more and make it more attractive to them and market the sport so we can attract new ones. I’m at a loss as to whose job it is and who thinks about these things on a daily, weekly, monthly basis. Can you name somebody? I (expletive deleted) can’t.”
Byk couldn’t either.
“We have got to streamline our industry,” Sanan continued. “There should be one horsemen’s organization, not 15. Period. There should be one panel that focuses on nothing but all the issues that are integrity-related: safety, medication, tote and wagering, and build confidence so we can attract new people. We need the best of minds with the most creative and innovative marketing programs to attract new horseplayers, new fans and market the hell out of the sport. Shoot, if this was my company I would be doing it.”
And that begs another question: Whose company is it? Who will take the lead here? Which organization will dissolve or be willing to merge with someone else. Which alphabet soup executive will focus more time on doing what’s right for the greater good of the industry instead of fighting to maintain whatever small chunk of turf he controls? Many of these executives are bright people, but the absence of a common-sense structure and industry-wide collaboration is a lethal combination.
There are too many chefs cooking our alphabet soup, and no one is buying it.
By Ray Paulick
Jess Jackson could have waited until Friday night at 9 o’clock or so to send out a press release anouncing his regrets for not pointing Rachel Alexandra to the April 3 Apple Blossom at Oaklawn Park. Oaklawn owner Charles Cella had proposed increasing the Apple Blossom’s purse to $5 million if Jackson’s 2009 Horse of the Year and the unbeaten two-time champion mare Zenyatta were both in the starting lineup for the race.
That’s what the president of Toyota did—schedule a press conference for 9 p.m. on a Friday night–to respond to mounting public outrage over safety problems with cars produced by the world’s leading automotive manufacturer. Spin doctors always advise their clients to put bad news out late on a Friday to get the lowest possible publicity and media coverage.
But not Jess Jackson. He had the courage to send out a press release at the end of the business day on a Wednesday, when most racetracks East of the Mississippi were closed due to blizzard conditions. His press release was very clever, too, utilizing an old-fashioned smokescreen—a grand proposal for a three-race series between the two distaffers—to obscure the fact Rachel Alexandra would skip the Apple Blossom. To make matters worse, he made trainer Steve Asmussen the fall guy who had to deliver the bad news: ““Out of respect for the level of competition and the importance of this race, I have told Mr. Jackson it was not in the best interest of the horse to race on April 3,” Asmussen was quoted as saying in the press release. “Getting to this level of fitness after a six-month layoff takes time. If all goes according to schedule, and we do not have any further weather delays, the earliest we could have a prep race would be the middle of March. It is then not fair to Rachel to ask her to race again three weeks later.”
I could be wrong, but I think that’s the most Jackson has allowed Asmussen to say since the California winemaker bought Rachel Alexandra after her victory in the Kentucky Oaks last spring.
But the confusing part of the release was Jackson’s statement that the proposed racing series between Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta has been “in the works for several weeks.” If that’s the case, why did Jackson indicate even the slightest bit of interest when Cella proposed the Apple Blossom purse increase?
Also, why is Jackson suddenly relying on the National Thoroughbred Racing Association to put something together? The NTRA owns no racetracks, has no authority over tracks, stakes schedules or race conditions, and doesn’t even have any juice left with television networks.
If anything, Jackson should be asking the Breeders’ Cup—not the NTRA–for assistance in putting the series together and promoting it, since racing fans hope the two fillies will remain sound throughout 2010 and eventually go head-to-head in either the Breeders’ Cup Classic or Ladies’ Classic this fall at Churchill Downs. A series of races betweem the two leading up to the Breeders’ Cup would be in that organization’s best interests, and the Breeders’ Cup does have stronger ties to ESPN for broadcast opportunities.
Finally, if the proposal by Jackson was genuine, why on earth were Jerry and Ann Moss not even mentioned in the press release. As Zenyatta’s owners, I think they might want to have some say in this proposed series.
By Ray Paulick
No market segment will go unscathed when an industry has the kind of downturn the Thoroughbred bloodstock business experienced over the last 18 months. The 2009 yearling market took a $150-million hit in gross revenue, falling from $438 million in 2008 to $280 million last year, a 36% decline and the lowest since 1996. A yearling’s average price of $44,900 was the lowest since 2002.
Similarly, total revenue generated in 2009 sales of 2-year-olds in training–$118 million—fell by 33% to its lowest point since 1996. The 2009 average of $48,972 was the lowest since 2003. The good news is that the median, middle-market number remained steady at $20,000. The number of 2-year-olds sold in 2009, 2,412, along with the 3,363 offered was the lowest in those two categories in more than 20 years.
Mike Mulligan, the president of the National Association of Two-Year-Old Consignors (NATC) and operator with wife Britt of Leprechaun Racing in Ocala, Fla., said sellers of 2-year-olds have made adjustments coming into 2010. He also believes, not surprisingly, that the 2-year-old market should be the place Thoroughbred owners turn to when they are looking for horses with the potential to win at the highest level and cites a number of statistics supporting that contention (click here to see the NATC’s scorecard of stakes winners).
For Mulligan, 2009 was a difficult year personally, and not just because of the downturn in the bloodstock market. Last March, shortly after selling a $275,000 yearling purchase for $1.1 million at the Fasig-Tipton Calder sale, Mulligan blacked out and fell, suffering a serious head injury. He required four surgeries during the year, the most recent in December. “I was injured pretty badly and it was very distractive and scary,” Mulligan said. “But I was able to travel to all the yearling sales and we are in business as usual. My wits are about me, and I want everyone to know that everything is OK. We got so much support from people in the industry, from my partnership base and friends, and that was very gratifying.”
Mulligan spoke with the Paulick Report about the upcoming 2-year-old sale season that begins next week with the OBS selected sale of 2-year-olds on Feb. 16. Other major 2-year-old sales include Fasig-Tipton’s Calder sale March 2; the OBS March sale March 16-17; Barretts selected sale March 22; Keeneland’s sale April 5; and the OBS April sale April 19-22.
What are the most critical factors that will drive the 2010 market for 2-year-olds?
I think it’s the success, particularly the success of the 2009 graduates at every level of the game. I’ve been doing the advertising for the NATC for nearly a decade now, and the statistics are very favorable for 2-year-olds, versus other ways to acquire a horse. If anyone new to the game was using an analyst to evaluate these statistics, I feel confident he would point them to the 2-year-old sales.
Obviously there will be fewer horses in the 2-year-old market because of the global economy and 2-year-old consignors not having a spectacular year in 2009, which means their spending at yearling sales was reduced. I know I spent less last year, looking more for that horse that fell through the cracks at a yearling sale.
What is the outlook for this sale season?
I feel cautiously optimistic. We have already seen the hit from the economy and the stock market. There will still be a vast number of buyers that go to 2-year-old sales and trainers that like to buy horses are still going to be there.
How has the banking crisis and tightening of credit affected pinhooking?
It certainly has affected things. Credit tightening has cut people back. It would have to hurt some people and it always has a trickle down effect. What happened in the Thoroughbred market is like what happened in the real estate market years ago. I had a friend who had been flipping houses and doing well, then all of a sudden that market collapsed. The banking crisis caused mares to be sold at a bad time, horses were sold as weanlings instead of as yearlings, yearlings were sold instead of going to the track.
How has the market changed over time?
Years ago there was more of a middle market, where one guy might buy 10 horses for $80,000 or $90,000 each. Today, that same guy might get two or three horses for $250,000 each. When I first raced horses, winning a maiden race, even on a weekday, that was the greatest feeling ever. But now there is more of a Kentucky Derby mentality, where people are looking for that special horse, that big horse. But there are plenty of horses that don’t sell or bring small money that end up being really nice horses. It’s something I’ve seen while reviewing graded stakes winners over the last 10 years, the number of nice horses that come out of these 2-year-olds sales for very little money and are ready to run.
Pinhooking partnerships have been an attractive investment for quite a few people. Are we getting to the point where we have too many people working on the assembly line, either as breeders or pinhooking investors, and not enough people to buy the end product?
I think that’s very true. We all know racing has some challenges to overcome over the next couple of years to deepen the fan base. Many big racing enthusiasts end up getting into other aspects of the industry, including horse ownership. We need more customers that want to buy racehorses. Racing is supposed to be a sport. I’ve never told anybody, ‘Lets go race these horses and we’ll make a bunch of money.’ Look at yachting. How much do some people spend on yachts to win a boat race. It’s more of a sport than a financial endeavor. Racing needs to be looked upon from that standpoint, and we haven’t done a good job promoting that aspect of participation.
Florida’s foal crop has fallen sharply the last two years and a number of stallions have left the state. Why has that happened, and how will it affect 2-year-old sales?
It’s going to have an impact on the market, but I really feel a lot of the mares not bred over the last couple of years were not elite mares putting out attractive horses in the yearling market or that ended up at 2-year-old sales. I think the middle to high end mares that can contribute, those mares are still being bred.
What other factors have led to the decline in the number of 2-year-olds in training being offered?
Yearling buyers have learned from 2-year-old consignors about what horses will make the grade. I feel there is more and more competition on the better, more athletic horses at yearling sales–more end users are buying the horses that pinhookers might have been on before. You are trying to buy ‘X’ number of horses, and the competition is there from fellow pinhookers and end users. Ten or 12 years ago you could buy a good physical horse by an off sire, but now it’s not so easy. If they are an athlete they are going to be pursued that much more today at the yearling sales.
Are buyers getting tougher in their vetting of horses?
If I’m given a choice between a yearling that vets perfectly, scopes perfectly and has what I think is limited ability versus a horse with a couple of minor problems but has what could be huge ability, I’ll take the horse with the minor problems. When buyers see a special horse they are inclined to overlook minor issues. None of us can afford to overlook major physical problems.
What difference has the synthetic track had on the OBS sales?
I think it has created a level playing field to some extent. Horses are not able separate themselves as much from a time standpoint, and it’s a much safer track. Turnbacks (horses returned by buyers after the sale because of bone issues) have significantly decreased since we put in the synthetic track. They come out of their breezes more sound.
There have been two other changes in the last couple of years that in my mind have helped us continue to produce good products. First, we’ve gone to one breeze show. The second breeze show on rare occasions may have helped a horse that was sick or not able to perform during the first breeze. But realistically there weren’t that many horses that moved up on a second breeze. Most of the buyers had made their minds up by the time the first breeze show was over. The NATC and the sales companies agreed it would be best to go to one breeze.
Second, we restricted whip use, not allowing a horse to be whipped once they start breezing and not allowing the horse to be whipped past the wire in the gallop out. A buyer gets a truer picture, and the results of these two things were outstanding this year, in terms of horses that went from 2-year-old sales to be champions, Grade 1 winners and performing well in the Breeders’ Cup.
Why was the National Association of Two-Year-Old Consignors formed?
When we first created it in 2000, there was some drug testing issues implemented by sale companies, and a group of consignors said we needed a voice so that the guidelines and testing were appropriate and best for the horses. We collectively grouped together to have a voice with the sale companies, we work collectively in advertising 2-year-old sales in the trade publications that say this is who we are and talking about the success of 2-year-old sale graduates. Over the years we have been encouraged consignors to make horses eligible for NATC Futurities..
Has it succeeded in its mission?
We’ve done well. We have educated buyers who have come to the sale just because of our advertising, and we’ve done well with the Futurity, something that’s more for the middle horse going to a regional market in the East Coast.
We are trying to do what’s best for the horse and to sell a good product. If you sell a lot of expensive horses that haven’t produced, you’re going to lose your buyer base. That hasn’t been the case. The results on the racetrack speak for themselves.
We are pleased to introduce a new weekly feature today, the Paulick Report Forum brought to you by Breeders’ Cup. Every Wednesday, we’ll talk with a Thoroughbred industry player about the game we all love, trying to get a better understanding of where we’ve been and where we may be headed. One thing I’ve learned throughout my years in this industry is that nothing comes easy. We are a sport and a business fraught with divisiveness, incoherence and confusion. But at the same time we are blessed to have many participants with great intelligence, insights and dedication. In short, we never know where the next good idea may come from.
We hope you will read each week’s Forum, offer your thoughts on the subject being discussed, and suggest to us other areas where we can advance the discussions that need to take place to get our industry moving in the right direction once again. Thanks to the Breeders’ Cup for their sponsorship of this process.
It surprised me when Christophe Clement said that he has spent half of his 44 years in the United States. Maybe it’s the heavy French accent he still retains, or simply the blur of the years going by so quickly. But the third-generation horseman has made America his permanent home since 1991. He’d spent a couple of years here in the 1980s, working for Taylor Made Farm and trainer Shug McGaughey, before returning to Europe, where he served for four years as assistant to Luca Cumani in Newmarket, England. Earlier in his life, he had apprenticed for the master horseman Alec Head in Chantilly.
Clement, coming off an outstanding year when Gio Ponti won two Eclipse Awards for the Ryan family’s Castleton Lyons as turf male and older male champion, is preparing the 5-year-old son of Tale of the Cat for a possible run at the $10-million Dubai World Cup. He’s looking at a prep race at Tampa Bay Downs on turf in February prior to taking on the world’s best over the Tapeta Footings surface at the new Meydan racetrack in Dubai. Gio Ponti is coming off a second-place finish to Zenyatta in the Breeders’ Cup Classic over the Pro-Ride synthetic track at Santa Anita.
In this, our first Paulick Report Forum brought to you by Breeders’ Cup, Clement provided some insights about the sport of Thoroughbred racing and how it’s changed during his lifetime.
What is it about international racing that is important to you?
First of all, with the Dubai race I can give you 10 million reasons. If it was a million-dollar race, I wouldn’t be going. I would be going instead to the Santa Anita Handicap. In the case of the Dubai World Cup, the purse has a lot to do with it.
But international racing is important. I’m just a trainer, but if I was a breeder or an owner, I would say it is very important for the breed to know which horse is the best and which sires are better. I saw an article in the TDN that said, as recently as 20 years ago, 80% of the world’s leading stallions stood in the United States. Today that number is 50%. The United States does not permeate world breeding the way it was 20 years ago.
From a personal standpoint, I don’t get as many fillies or mares sent from Europe to race here and then be bred to American stallions. Their owners are keeping them in Europe.
Why the shift?
A couple of things. First there is medication. People refuse to talk about it, but a lot of people in Europe still don’t want to breed to U.S. sires because those horses raced on medication. A lot of Europeans do not understand why we continue to allow medication while the rest of the world is doing OK without it.
That’s one of the factors. It is an issue for some people. There are two things I would like to see changed. I am convinced Grade 1 races should not be handicaps. It’s not healthy to use weight to try and beat the best horses. Allowance conditions are fine. This is something Bobby Frankel and I talked about, and Bobby was against handicaps in Grade 1s. I also believe there should be no medication in Grade 1s because we use these races to improve the breed.
So why do we continue to permit it?
I don’t know. Every track is different. There is no federal authority. No racing commissioner. The Graded Stakes Committee took grades away from Pennsylvania because they failed to do the proper testing, but there is limited means to enforce national rules. I’m just a trainer. These are some of my thoughts. I’m trying to win a race tomorrow.
You said there were two major reasons for the shift in stallion power away from the U.S.
Right. Secondly, the two groups, the Maktoums and Coolmore, have given European breeders access to some very good stallions because they are retaining some of the best racehorses. Twenty or 30 years ago the world’s best horses came to Gainesway—horses like Lyphard, Riverman, and Blushing Groom. This year, apparently no American farms bid for Sea the Stars. 20 years ago an American farm would have. Aside from Giant’s Causeway and Kingmambo, it’s been quite a while since an exciting European horse came to the United States as a sire. The top milers in Europe are no longer coming here, either.
What training methods have you adapted from your European background?
I am more American than European. I’m 44 and have spent more time in this country than anywhere else. But I’ll say this. When Sir Michael Stoute or Andre Fabre wake up in the morning they have a choice of tracks on which to train their horses. Here it’s the main track or the training track. Those guys have a much wider choice for their horses.
We should have access to all surfaces: dirt, turf and Polytrack. If you have a good dirt track, like in New York, a good turf course, and a good Polytrack surface to race or train over on days when it’s very wet, it would be very popular. But the problem is who pays? It would be very expensive. In an ideal world, that’s the way it would be. A dirt track should be safe if maintained the right way. Turf is safe, and off the turf races could be run on a Polytrack.
You recently cut back on the number of horses you have in California. Is it because of the problems with Santa Anita’s surface?
It’s Mother Nature. I’m not against Santa Anita. They did everything they could. Wherever you are, you have to deal with Mother Nature. It’s been very wet out there. One reason Gio Ponti came back East is I found that the flight to Dubai will be easier from Florida than California.
In the United States all trainers think they are track superintendents, but the track superintendents know their job. There is no ideal surface 365 days a year. Bob Baffert was really negative on Polytrack, but he’s such a smart guy and a good trainer he’s really adapted. He’s doing great on that surface.
What can American trainers learn from others around the world?
When you work for the people I’ve worked for, you learn that change is not always negative. People in racing don’t like change. Change is not always a bad thing. We should be more open minded about change. A typical thing is the synthetic tracks: trainers should be more open minded. Of course it will not be perfect from day one, but it is ridiculous to be so against it, just as it is ridiculous to be against dirt racing. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. The Kentucky Derby is on dirt and should remain on dirt, and the Belmont Stakes is on dirt and should remain on dirt. But we shouldn’t exclude Polytrack from our racing because it represents change.
Finally, how do you feel about Rachel Alexandra’s owner Jess Jackson’s recent comments that the field for the 2009 Breeders’ Cup Classic was not nearly as good as the 2008 race when his Curlin was defeated?
I think it’s just another reason that he should have participated in the race.
In an article from the UK’s The Guardian, Greg Wood looks at the future of racing in Dubai and despite a recent financial problem for the Middle Eastern country, poses the idea that the Sheikh’s newest Meydan race course could be the site of a new world championship. He makes the claim that American racing moving back to dirt no longer makes the Breeders’ Cup a viable championship for horses in other parts of the world.
By Ray Paulick
“I’ve been doing this since 1979, and I just can’t get a fair shake.” So says Michael Gill, North America’s leading owner by money and races won on four different occasions who finds himself in a familiar position–at the center of controversy, after Penn National jockeys voted Saturday night not to ride in races if Gill’s horses are entered.
The jockeys took the initiative following the fifth race at Penn National, when a Gill-trained horse, Laughing Moon, blew a suspensory and fell after the finish, causing another horse to go down. Gill had a runner entered in the sixth race, but that horse was scratched. Gill-owned horses entered later this week also have been scratched, and Penn National officials said Monday they temporarily have banned his horses from the entry box, according to bloodhorse.com. Jockeys complained that an unusually high number of horses owned by Gill have either broken down or suffered injuries in Penn National races in the last few months, putting riders at risk. One of Gill’s horses broke down on Thursday night, and Laughing Moon became the 15th runner since October to break down, pull up during the race, be eased, or return lame following the finish.
Penn National officials said seven of Gill’s horses broke down in 2009, a figure that Gill disputes. But even if that number is correct, he said, he believes his percentage of breakdowns is in line or lower than that of other stables that compete at the Pennsylvania track.
I was unable to reach Gill over the weekend prior to publication of Monday’s Paulick Report article on the Penn National incident, but I contacted him Monday at his Mortgage Specialists office in New Hampshire. Needless to say, he wasn’t happy with the actions of the jockeys or with the unwelcome publicity, and in a 30-minute, emotional interview touched on a wide range of subjects. Among the revelations from the 54-year-old Gill were:
- He has fired Darrel Delahoussaye, the trainer of Laughing Moon. “They (Penn National) put a gun to my head, and someone had to take the bullet,” he said. “I feel bad about this. But if I lose the (49) stalls at Penn National, I’m out of business.”
- Some time last year, Gill hired former Oaklawn Park and Louisiana Downs leading trainer Cole Norman. Norman was released from prison in January 2009 after serving time for negligent homicide, for his role in a fatal car crash in which he was under the influence of prescription pain killers. Norman works at Gill’s Elk Creek Ranch in Oxford, Pa., which is used as a training center for horses that race at Penn National, Philadelphia Park, Laurel, Mountaineer Park and Charles Town. “He’s a good trainer,” said Gill.
- Though he said he has lost tens of millions of dollars over the years, Gill claims he didn’t “put one penny of my money into the business last year. I can go to the IRS and say this is a business, it isn’t a hobby.” Gill said he is in a five-year audit with the Internal Revenue Service over whether or not his racing stable is a legitimate business.
- Apart from the horses that broke down at Penn National in 2009, Gill claims he had only one other horse break down in a race. “I ran 2,247 horses last year,” he said. “If a guy had 100 starts and one horse breaks down, is that unacceptable? We’re running in the middle of winter on muddy tracks.
- Gill denies “running sore horses,” and said he didn’t have a single bad test in 2009. “And was anything found in any of my horses after they broke down? Nothing.” I asked Gill about widespread rumors that shock-wave therapy is used at Elk Creek Ranch on horses close to a race. “I never use shock-wave therapy. Never have had a machine. Never, ever used it once, and believe me, plenty of guys have tried to sell me the machines. I don’t believe in them.” He also said he would “open the farm to anyone to inspect it. They can go over every horse I have.”
- He attributes much of the stable’s success to the fact he gives all of his horses medication for Equine Protozoal Myeloencephalitis, or EPM, a neurological disease. “A good 80% of horses have EPM,” he said. He also has throat surgeries, or myectomies, performed on many of the horses he claims because “with EPM, one side of the flap (in the epiglottis) is gone, and the other half doubles in size. Then it closes up. The surgery helps them breathe.”
- His stable, at one time consisting of 450 horses in 2009, was reduced to 220 and he is in the process of reducing it to 120. “I’m still downsizing,” he said. Furthermore, Gill claims that “all of the horses go to retirement programs.” He wasn’t specific as to where they go. “I give good homes to them,” he said. “I’ve given away 20 horses in the last 30 days for $1.”
- Gill didn’t say he planned to take legal action against Penn National, the jockey colony or the Jockeys’ Guild, but said “Do you know when people organize against one person, that’s a significant lawsuit. Does anybody understand that? I’m tired of suing racetracks—and winning, by the way, every effing time.” He said the jockeys took the action–reported to be a unanimous vote—because “it’s a very closed community at Penn National; a lot of good old boys. I went in there and won all these races, and I’m winning with only two jockeys.”
- Though he lives and works far away in New Hampshire, Gill said he keeps tabs on the stable both at the training farm and the track. “There’s not a race that goes off that I don’t see,” he said. “I have cameras in the barn that go right to my office. I turn around and see every race. I do what I can to be able to run both businesses.”
Why, I asked Gill, is he still in the business, if he thinks he is so mistreated and so misunderstood? “I love the competition. I love the animal. I am a competitor. I am that $5,000 broke down racehorse. I’m a raw competitor with bad knees and sore neck. What better place to compete than in horse racing, and I don’t even gamble on these horses.”
Gill continues to be denied stalls at many tracks, and doesn’t understand why he isn’t appreciated for his involvement in the game and for “showing the industry that you can make money doing this. Of course, if people find out they don’t have to buy a $1-million yearling to make money, do you think they’ll spend money at those sales?”
I suggested to him that people spending that kind of money are looking to win big races during the Triple Crown or at the Breeders’ Cup, not $5,000 claiming races in the dead of winter. “That’s the lottery mentality,” he said.
He turned the tables and asked me a question: “Why don’t you like me?” I said I thought he was arrogant and used his horses as a means to an end. “You’re mistaking arrogance with competitiveness,” he said. It was clearly an argument I wasn’t going to win.
“Look,” he said. “I came from a seminary, had no money, didn’t go to college. I worked harder than everybody else to get what I have. I started my mortgage company in a one-bedroom apartment, and my living room was my office. I loved horse racing and turned around and invested my money. I go to work every day and haven’t had a vacation for as long as I remember.
“I just don’t understand: What have I done that’s so wrong?”
As you may know, our intern, Natalie Voss of the University of Kentucky Equine Program, submitted a piece a few weeks back throwing her hat in the ring for Rachel Alexandra as Horse of the Year. It was a strong piece and one of hundreds that have or will be written on the subject. But when I read the following piece about her perception of the media wars between the two camps, I was impressed by her analysis of a subsection of this larger argument. I don’t necessarily agree with her, but of course that’s not the point.
On a side note, this was submitted to us last week but because of the shorthanded nature of the Paulick Report, I regrettably didn’t have time to look at it until yesterday. I bring this up to give her credit for noticing the potential return of Zenyatta before others in the mainstream press.
By Natalie Voss
As 2009 comes to a close, the Eclipse Award ballots are finding their way to voters and once again the Rachel vs. Zenyatta Horse of the Year debate is lighting up blogs and message boards in the Thoroughbred world. I’ve already voiced my opinion on which filly I would like to see win the award although I believe both are deserving of the honor. However, the more interesting part of reading the headlines is not the same old debate but instead the media campaigns both horses’ supporters and connections have been running post-Breeder’s Cup.
Outside of my opinion of her qualifications as Horse of the Year, I think Zenyatta’s camp has been more guilty of electioneering than Rachel’s (although they eventually picked up on the concept also). While it’s reasonable that California should honor a champion who has brought them extra attendance and handle with a retirement ceremony attended by Gov. Schwarzenegger at Hollywood Park, the subsequent announcement that the Lady’s Secret Stakes would be re-named for her rubbed many the wrong way. Stripping Lady’s Secret of that honor in order to make more headlines was completely unnecessary.
Also reasonable is the assertion that her official workout several weeks later was done just “to take the edge off”. (We’ll ignore the fact that there was no cause to have a supposedly casual work officially timed and published.)
Things really started getting ridiculous when it was announced around the same time that Zenyatta would parade yet again, on the opening day of Santa Anita despite her retirement. Sure, it was a great opportunity for fans to see her again, but what motive did her owners have for delaying her trip to Kentucky for a repeat her ceremony at Hollywood?
She also made news with the auction of Moneighs to benefit retired racehorses (a great cause but awfully convenient timing). Because of all these photo opps and press releases, Zenyatta’s connections received the Big Sport of Turfdom Award for “their efforts to work with media and track publicists”. And indeed they did make an effort.
Rachel’s group was slower on the uptake; although she made news for her workout and shipping schedule, as an active racehorse this would have been carefully tracked regardless of the approaching Eclipse ballots. Jess Jackson did come forward to the press in early December about his attempts to set up a match race with Zenyatta (which put a lid on the Mosses’ attempts to publicly compare the two fillies). The Fair Grounds stepped up soon after, hinting that such an opportunity could come again in early 2010 in the New Oreleans Ladies. Rachel also got her name in the papers for charity with an announcement that $20,000 was donated to the V Foundation for Cancer in her name.
In my opinion, such obvious campaigning on the part of each filly’s connections and the California tracks cheapens their accomplishments. It will demean the accomplishments of whichever horse wins the Horse of the Year title. Perhaps worse, it will make it easy for outsiders to look at the highest honor in our sport and say that like so many other things in the horse world, it was all about politics.
Yet, the Mosses and Jackson are perhaps demonstrating that it is possible to use the national media for good rather than further bloodying the evil face it has given the sport. This may not have been their intent as each campaign their champion filly, but I can only hope that somewhere Alex Waldrop and all NTRA employees, the self-declared marketing gateway of the Thoroughbred industry, are taking notes.
It is about time that someone among the horse racing higher-ups recognized the enormous marketing potential that lies in all our equine and human atheletes’ accomplishments year after year. After all, how many of us didn’t grow up in a training barn but became immersed in racing when we saw a horse like Zenyatta parade at Hollywood, or Rachel jogging in the fog at the Fair Grounds? If you build the energy, the stories, the excitement after a year like this one, the fans will come.
Sounds like good material for the NTRA’s New Year’s Resolution, doesn’t it?
Due to three recorded workouts in the last six weeks, there is speculation that Breeders’ Cup Classic champion and Horse of the Year finalist Zenyatta may not be retiring after all. Asked for an answer as to why she is still working out in trainer John Shirreffs barn, Shirreffs told the Daily Racing Form, "That decision is Mr. Moss’s and he hasn’t said anything other than what he said after the Breeders’ Cup."
I don’t know Mr. Shirreffs but from my years in politics, this sounds like a classic non-denial to me. Not saying that Zenyatta is coming back, but I also wouldn’t rule it out.
