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.
Today, the Paulick Report received a puzzling email from PETA claiming that the upcoming Apple Blossom featuring Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta would be a ‘grueling match race’. They went on to compare the April 9th race to the infamous breakdowns of Ruffian and Go For Wand.
It appears that someone needs a dictionary or at least a cursory knowledge of what a match race actually is. Of course, the Apple Blossom will have a much larger field than the two super fillies and not once was the idea of a match race even discussed. It makes one think of the Happy Days episode when The Fonz jumped a shark, causing the hit show to lose credibility overnight. On second thought, that’s implying that PETA had any credibility to lose.
This morning, PETA fired off letters to Jerry Moss and Jess Jackson imploring them not to enter their fillies—Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra, respectively—in what is essentially a grueling "match race" scheduled for April 9 during the Apple Blossom Invitational at Oaklawn Park in Hot Springs, Ark. In the letters, PETA points out that in an industry that causes the deaths of more than 1,000 thoroughbreds on the tracks every year, match races and other extreme duels have proved to be particularly deadly for famous fillies, including Ruffian and Go For Wand, who were both fatally injured on the track.
"Forcing horses to race to the point at which their bodies can’t handle the stress is cruel enough, but pitting Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra against each other in a race that could easily claim one—or even both—of their lives takes that cruelty to new heights," says PETA Vice President Kathy Guillermo. "These two fillies have bestowed enough fame and prestige on their owners to last a lifetime, and their ‘reward’ shouldn’t be to have to run the toughest race of their lives."
PETA’s letter to Jerry Moss follows. PETA’s similar letter to Jess Jackson is available upon request.
Dear Mr. Moss,
I am writing on behalf of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and our 2 million members and supporters to urge you not to enter Zenyatta in the Apple Blossom Invitational. This race is being touted as a duel between Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra. History shows that these types of match races are dangerous to fillies. As I’m sure you remember, Ruffian suffered a catastrophic breakdown in her match race with Foolish Pleasure and was euthanized. Go For Wand, in a race that was essentially a match race with Hall of Fame filly Bayakoa, fractured her leg at the Breeders’ Cup Distaff. The tragic deaths of these great fillies in front of national audiences sent shockwaves throughout the industry and the country.
Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra have already secured their places in racing history as champion fillies. They have nothing to prove. Pitting these competitive fillies against each other would be risking their lives just for spectacle. Why jeopardize their safety by forcing them into the toughest race of their careers, pushing them to their limits and beyond? And the risks are compounded by the fact that the race is scheduled in April—too early in the season to subject these fillies to such intense physical demands.
More than 1,000 thoroughbred horses break down and are subsequently euthanized on tracks in the U.S. every year. May I have your assurance that you won’t risk adding Zenyatta to this statistic?
By Ray Paulick
The good news on this Friday is that Oaklawn Park owner Charles Cella appears to have pulled it off, getting commitments from the owners of 2009 Horse of the Year Rachel Alexandra and undefeated two-time champion Zenyatta to contest the Apple Blossom Invitational, which is being moved from April 3 to April 9 at the Hot Springs, Ark., track and will carry a $5 million purse if both compete.
But that’s just one race, and it is hoped the two champion distaffers will face each other a number of times before the year is over. How can racing, an often dysfunctional industry, pull off this even bigger challenge?
I have a proposed solution to this challenge, whether the Apple Blossom dream match comes to fruition or not.
Remember when Barack Obama was campaigning for president and promising to deliver on health care reform, in part by avoiding backroom deals and pledging transparency? He said the negotiations for legislation could be televised on CSPAN. Well, we’re 13 months into Obama’s presidency, and that promise was broken. It was business as usual in the nation’s capital as legislators, lobbyists and the Obama administration went back and forth on health care, winding up with separate bills in the House and Senate that are unlikely to be reconciled with enough support to be voted into law. He should have stuck to his promise.
Jess Jackson, the majority owner of Rachel Alexandra, has been an advocate for transparency in many aspects of Thoroughbred racing in the few years he has been active as an owner. But Jackson, in a press release issued on Wednesday night in which he said Rachel Alexandra would not compete in the Apple Blossom on its original date of April 3, admitted that he had been secretly working behind the scenes with the National Thoroughbred Racing Association to come up with a series of races between his filly and Zenyatta. Those talks were taking place without consulting with Jerry and Ann Moss, the owners of Zenyatta, trainer John Sherriffs or his wife Dottie Ingordo, the racing manager for the Mosses.
Jackson, according to sources, has been pushing for three races, with purses ranging from $3 million to $5 million for each race. I thought Jackson was keeping Rachel Alexandra in training for the benefit of the sport, not for the good of his bank account. In my opinion, this is not the way to get a deal done that’s in the best interests of the industry.
So here’s the proposal.
Instead of backroom deals, let’s negotiate this racing series in the light of day. More specifically, on racing’s version of CSPAN—either TVG or HRTV. The two racing networks can bid for the right to televise the negotiations. Of course, we’d want the races to be televised on more widely distributed networks.
We’ll need a tough facilitator with some experience in racing, and I’ve got the perfect candidate: Tom Meeker, the former CEO of Churchill Downs. Meeker is a former U.S. Marine lieutenant colonel who did three tours of duty in the Vietnamese conflict. He’s a no-nonsense leader who speaks his mind. Meeker has just returned from Haiti, where he assisted in logistics for a surgical team sent into the earthquake ravaged nation by Thoroughbred owner and breeder Earle Mack, a philanthropist, businessman and former U.S. Ambassador to Finland for President George W. Bush. Come to think of it, if Meeker can’t serve as facilitator, perhaps Mack could. The lives he helped save in Haiti would call him a miracle worker.
Racetracks and associations interested in luring Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta would be required to put together detailed written proposals for a race that include the two champions, along with their plans to promote it. Each proposal would be accompanied by a non-refundable deposit of $50,000.
The money from the rights to televise the negotiations, along with those non-refundable deposits from tracks would all go to a racing charity chosen by the connections of the horse that does best in the head-to-head matchups. (Update: this proposal is not for match races of just two horses,)
The facilitator would lay out all the proposals to Jackson and the Mosses and their respective advisers (limit of three, please). He would then put on a pair of brass knuckles, lock the doors, and not let anyone out of the room until an agreement is reached on where and when they will try to meet—all while the cameras were rolling.
Racing has a rare opportunity to make something very special happen in 2010. Please, let’s not allow this one to slip through our hands.
Following conversations with Jess Jackson and Jerry Moss, the Grade I $5,000,000 Apple Blossom Invitational is back on, Oaklawn President Charles J. Cella announced Thursday. The race, which was increased to a total purse of $5,000,000 provided both Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta start, will now be held Friday, April 9, the day before the Grade I $1,000,000 Arkansas Derby, Oaklawn’s traditional closing day.
“The most important day in Arkansas sports history has now become the most important two days in Arkansas sports history,” Cella said. “This is truly a race for the ages.”
Cella reported that he began discussions Wednesday night with both Jackson and Zenyatta owner Jerry Moss, immediately upon hearing that the original date of April 3 was not feasible, and that those discussions continued Thursday morning.
“I understand the concerns of all competitors in needing a prep race and properly preparing for a race of this magnitude, especially in light of the weather we’ve been experiencing recently around the country,” Cella said. “Both parties want this to happen when their champions are at their absolute peak. This date makes that possible.”
UPDATES
Statement by Jess Jackson on Apple Blossom Invitational
“We are delighted that the race is on for April 9 and want to
especially thank Charles Cella and Oaklawn for moving the date.”
Statement by Jerry Moss on Apple Blossom Invitational
"Charlie Cella is a great guy and worked very hard to make this race happen and we are thrilled that it is going to work out. We were planning to go, we wanted to support him and are really pleased to have a chance to run over a good racetrack."
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 Southern California-based trainer Bob Hess crystallized the often toxic debate over synthetic tracks as well as anyone I’ve talked with on the subject: “My horses are happy on it, and they’re lasting a lot longer,” said Hess, a 44-year-old, second generation horseman and a graduate of Stanford University. “My clients are getting more bang for their buck. But without gamblers, we are nothing: there are no purses and no owners. The reality is the gamblers hate this shit. They have no confidence in it. From what they tell me, it’s inconsistent and changes from track to track. Most gamblers tend to play speed, and if you play speed out here, you’re screwed.”
Maybe that’s why Sheikh Mohammed has installed a Tapeta Footings synthetic surface at the lavish Meydan racecourse that is due to open in Dubai later this month and will host the Dubai World Cup program in March. He apparently believes, after extensive testing, that it’s safer for his and other people’s horses. And, since gambling isn’t permitted in Dubai, the sheikh won’t be bombarded with emails and phone calls from unhappy horseplayers who may have had to reinvent how they handicap a race.
SYNTHETIC TEST TUBE
That certainly hasn’t been the case in California, which, for better or worse, has been the test tube for synthetic racetracks, even though the surfaces also are installed at Keeneland and Turfway Park in Kentucky, Woodbine in Canada, Arlington Park in Illinois, and Presque Isle Downs in Pennsylvania.
Ron Charles, the Santa Anita Park president who on Monday strongly hinted that the beleaguered synthetic track will be ripped out and replaced with conventional dirt at the end of the current meeting, called synthetics one of the most polarizing issues he’s ever seen in racing. The tracks have created a great divide among trainers, owners, track executives and regulators, and critics in the press and in online forums and blogs have made synthetics their perpetual punching bag and a principal reason for the industry’s troubles.
Santa Anita, along with Hollywood Park, Del Mar and Golden Gate Fields, was required by a California Horse Racing Board mandate to install synthetic surfaces by Jan. 1, 2008. However, recently elected CHRB chairman Keith Brackpool was quoted in published reports as saying the CHRB would no longer hold any track to the synthetic mandate, one that was championed by former board chairman Richard Shapiro in reaction to reports of an unacceptably high rate of injuries and fatalities occurring on dirt.
One thing the CHRB didn’t do was require all California tracks to install the same surface, a move supported at the time by Jerry Moss, a member of the CHRB and co-owner with wife Ann of unbeaten champion mare Zenyatta. John Shirreffs, Zenyatta’s trainer, is one of the most vocal critics of the synthetic tracks.
When the mandate was approved by Shapiro and the other CHRB members (Jerry Moss abstained in the voting; in the original version of this article, the Paulick Report incorrectly stated that Moss voted in support of the mandate), Hollywood Park and Santa Anita opted to install Cushion Track, manufactured by an Australian company. Del Mar went with Polytrack, a company owned in part by the Keeneland Association, and Golden Gate Fields opted for Tapeta Footings, a surface created by synthetic track pioneer and former trainer Michael Dickinson.
Santa Anita has experienced the most problems—not with safety of the horses—but with drainage. The all-weather aspects of the surfaces were hampered by drainage problems almost immediately during the winter of 2007-08, during the winter of 2009, again last fall, and most recently this week when the track was closed to training and racing on Monday after heavy rains hit California. (Golden Gate Fields, meanwhile, with its Tapeta surface, didn’t miss a beat during the recent storms that hit both Northern and Southern California.) The surface was altered in 2009 with polymers from another Australian surface known as Pro-Ride. It since has played host to two Breeders’ Cups in 2008 and 2009 without incident.
Sources said Ron Charles had his hands tied when he went shopping for synthetic surfaces for Santa Anita. Track owner Frank Stronach is said to have told him not to go with Polytrack because it was owned by the “old boy’s club” at Keeneland. Others confided to the Paulick Report that corners were cut in the installation process, especially in the selection of the sand that was used in the all-weather surface.
Santa Anita isn’t the only track that’s had problems. Hollywood Park and Del Mar’s synthetic tracks have been criticized by horsemen and jockeys, but adjustments in maintenance alleviated some of the concerns. Some trainers who were early critics took a c’est la vie approach, figuring that criticizing the synthetic surfaces was akin to complaining about the weather: that it wasn’t going to change anything.
However, late last year, the California Thoroughbred Trainers board of directors came under fire from a rival group of trainers who formed an organization called California Horsemen for Change, which wanted, among other things, to have the synthetic tracks replaced with dirt. CTT, under president Jim Cassidy, has been supportive of synthetics. The California Horsemen for Change threatened to petition to become the representative organization for trainers, a move that convinced the current CTT board to resign en masse, paving the way for new elections (which have just been completed). According to a source, the newly formed CTT board will be dominated by a slate of candidates backed by California Horsemen for Change, though the CTT has not yet made the election results public.
Supporters of the surfaces say many of the critics have short memories, reminding them that their protests over track conditions in part led to the CHRB’s mandate for synthetics. A return to exactly the same thing in place before synthetics is not going to make anyone happy. There needs to be serious work on a track’s base, cushion and drainage, no matter what type of material lays on top.
STATISTICS SUGGEST SYNTHETICS ARE SAFER The criticism of the synthetic tracks by horsemen flies in the face of statistics showing they are safer than the dirt surfaces that preceded them, at least as far as fatalities are concerned. What hasn’t been proven or disproven in statistical research is the common belief by many trainers that horses are sustaining more hind end or soft-tissue injuries on synthetics than they were on dirt.
In addition, a growing number of jockeys are saying that synthetic surfaces are more dangerous than dirt if they are involved in spills. Two jockeys, Rene Douglas and Michael Straight, suffered severe spinal injuries on Arlington’s Polytrack this summer, and Julia Brimo suffered a spinal injury in a spill at Keeneland in this fall.
According to statistics compiled by the CHRB’s equine medical director, Dr. Rick Arthur, the number of equine fatalities per 1,000 starts has declined significantly at every track in California. Santa Anita Park, for example, had 2.81 fatalities per 1,000 starts in the four years prior to the synthetic installation; that number has fallen to 1.64 per 1,000 since the conversion. (Hollywood Park has gone from 2.87 to 1.57/1,000; Del Mar from 2.47 to 1.65/1,000; Golden Gate Fields from 3.90 to 1.84/1,000). Click here to see the complete set of statistics.
One Southern California trainer who supports the synthetic tracks said it’s his understanding Santa Anita has had 30,000 recorded workouts without an ambulance run. He said in the days of a sealed dirt track and the aftermath of sealing the track, it was difficult to even plan workouts because there were so many breakdowns during morning training hours.
Del Mar, which has studied results over its Polytrack surface extensively, has statistics showing an overall reduction in the number of post-race injuries, in addition to a reduction in fatalities. Click here to see Del Mar’s statistical report.
“We think we have achieved a measurable increase in safety,” said Craig Fravel, Del Mar’s executive vice president. “Has it done everything we had hoped it would do from the beginning? It probably has not lived up to that. Would we do it again? Yes. I don’t think we’ve done as good a job as we should have done in making the case for the tracks in this tradition-bound industry. But we are confident we did the right thing.”
Many horseplayers insist they are betting less on California tracks since the synthetics were installed. Craig Dado, Del Mar’s director of marketing, isn’t convinced. “There’s nothing we can point to that says the fans are betting less,” said Dado.
In fact, when synthetics were installed, they almost resulted in increased handle at some tracks, due to larger field size. But then came an economic crisis and a recession that saw wagering volume falling at most tracks around the country and fewer owners to fill races with horses.
“There has been criticism that the synthetic tracks are unpredictable,” said Fravel. “But winning favorites at Del Mar have been at 30-31%. There are a lot of differences: they are not as speed favoring as the old California tracks and some people have had to throw out their traditional handicapping methods. It creates issues for people. If they were winning money before and they aren’t now, I consider their angst. There are a lot of people who don’t like these tracks because they are different. But empirical analysis, an intelligent, thoughtful approach, has been lacking. I know handicappers who love the synthetics, partly because they are contrarians. Gamblers all over the world have been betting on that kind of racing for many years and doing so happily. Asking for people to do something different isn’t easy.”
Back to Hess’s belief, that synthetics are better for the horses but not as good for the handicappers, Fravel stood his ground. “We are going to make that choice in favor of what’s best for the horses,” he insisted. “At the same time, it’s incumbent on us to put out better information to make the handicapping issues less significant. I don’t think these are mutually exclusive. “
By Ray Paulick Just down the road from the Four Seasons Beverly Wilshire Hotel, site of tonight’s Eclipse Awards dinner, is beautiful downtown Burbank and the world-famous studio where the “Tonight Show Starring Johnny Carson” was produced for many wonderful years after Carson and his entourage moved West from New York City. (I’ll bet NBC executives wish Johnny were still around today, given the problems the network is currently experiencing with the “Tonight Show” franchise.)
One of the most famous “Tonight Show” characters was Carnac the Magnificent, the all-knowing soothsayer and divine psychic who provided answers to questions contained in "hermetically sealed envelopes kept in a mayonnaise jar on Funk & Wagnalls porch since noon that day."
I’m no Carnac, and I’m far from magnificent, but I do know where Funk & Wagnalls live. So, after peering into the mayonnaise jar, here are my fearless predictions for tonight’s Eclipse Awards:
SLAM-DUNK WINNERS - Lookin At Lucky, 2-year-old male
- Summer Bird, 3-year-old male
- Rachel Alexandra, 3-year-old female
- Zenyatta, older female
- Informed Decision, female sprinter
- Gio Ponti, turf male
- Goldikova, turf female
- Mixed Up, steeplechase
- Steve Asmussen, outstanding trainer
I suppose it’s a bit of a risk to say that Gio Ponti is a slam dunk in the male turf category, given the fact the defending champion and two-time Breeders’ Cup Turf winner Conduit will get considerable support, especially from those who voted for Gio Ponti in the wide-open older male (all surfaces) category. But I think Gio Ponti’s four Grade 1 victories at Santa Anita, Arlington and Belmont Park will get him the necessary votes to defeat Conduit.
PRETTY, KINDA SURE WINNERS
- She Be Wild, 2-year-old female
- Kodiak Kowboy, male sprinter
- Juddmonte Farms, breeder
I think the best performance of 2009 by a 2-year-old of either sex came from Blind Luck in her explosive victory in the Grade 1 Hollywood Starlet Stakes on Dec. 20, but the National Thoroughbred Racing Association staff was in such a rush to start their Christmas holiday they didn’t include this race (or the Grade 1 CashCall Futurity for colts) in the past performances distributed in the mail to voters. Too bad. Blind Luck had previously finished third after a troubled trip in the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile Fillies, beaten three-quarters of a length by the likely champion, the once-beaten She Be Wild.
Kodiak Kowboy and Zensational each won three Grade 1 races in 2009, though two factors are going against Zensational: 1) the suspicion is that he beat up on the same horses in all three races; and 2) he was not really a factor in the Breeders’ Cup Sprint, his biggest test of the year. Kodiak Kowboy was forced to miss the Sprint after getting sick before the race, but he bounced back with a strong win in the Cigar Mile Handicap later in November. But is a one-turn mile really a sprint?
I’m going against my best judgment in picking Juddmonte, since it is the most deserving candidate among the three finalists as outstanding breeder. Voters usually don’t get this one right, but I’m counting on this year being an aberration.
TOSS-UP CATEGORIES
- Gio Ponti, older male
- Mr. and Mrs. Jerry Moss, outstanding owner
- Ramon Dominguez, outstanding jockey
- Luis Saez, outstanding apprentice jockey
Where is Carnac when I need him?
Eclipse Award voters don’t like giving the older male championship to turf horses or sprinters, but I think the addition of synthetic surfaces over the last few years has blurred the distinction somewhat. Gio Ponti clearly had the best year of the three finalists (Einstein and Kodiak Kowboy are the others), but I think he is still thought of as a turf horse, so there is a built-in resistance against him by some voters. But Einstein’s two victories were turf and synthetics, so he’s not a “dirt” horse, either, and Kodiak Kowboy’s wins were all at a mile or less. If there was ever a year to not give out the award in this division, this might be it.
I’ve written about the split personality that Eclipse Award voters have shown in the outstanding owner category, sometimes giving the award to the owner with the most wins and money won and occasionally to the owner with one “big horse.” There is no definition. In my opinion, the outstanding owner of 2009 was the Godolphin/Darley entity of Sheikh Mohammed, but I think I’m in the minority here, and voters are likely to go with the feel-good story of the year and support Zenyatta’s owners, Jerry and Ann Moss.
Handicapping the jockey race is more about handicapping the voters. New Yorkers and East Coasters will vote en masse for Ramon Dominguez, Midwesterners for Julien Leparoux and Californians for Garrett Gomez. Any of the three are deserving, but I’ll give the slight edge to Dominguez. On the apprentice front, I don’t have a clue, and the information provided voters is so useless there should be consideration given to eliminating this category.
AND FINALLY, HORSE OF THE YEAR GOES TO …
People who are looking for brevity in the Horse of the Year acceptance speech are pulling for Zenyatta and the Mosses. Jess Jackson can be expected to give his “state of the industry” speech if Rachel Alexandra wins, and no one there will have the nerve to give him the hook after 10 minutes of lecturing us on what we need to do to turn things around. (But, hey, someone struck up the band when Frank Sinatra went on for too long when getting a lifetime achievement award at the Grammy’s one year, so there’s always hope!)
But back to the issue at hand. Rachel Alexandra will win Horse of the Year because of her historic campaign that had her beating members of her own age and sex by a furlong; taking the Preakness over the Kentucky Derby winner; taking the Haskell Invitational over the Belmont and eventual Travers and Jockey Club Gold Cup winner; and beating older horses in the Woodward. It was a remarkable campaign. I don’t think the vote will be that close, either.
My vote would have gone to Zenyatta, however, despite everything Rachel Alexandra did. I believe in the Breeders’ Cup being the most definitive event in determining champions, and think that what Zenyatta did in beating a world-class field of males at a mile and a quarter in the Classic trumps Rachel Alexandra – barely.
Wouldn’t it be nice if the 2010 Horse of the Year title is settled on the racetrack.
I hope you’ll check back tonight, for my live blog of the Eclipse Awards telecast from Beverly Hills. If you decide not to, as Carnac would say: "May the fleas of a thousand camels nest in your shorts."
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.
Lexington advertising executive Fred Pope has come up with an intriguing proposal for a race between Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta, one that would help explain how racing’s business model for simulcasting is broken and needs fixing. Will any one listen or act on the suggestion? –Ray Paulick
By Fred A. Pope
In an effort to deliver what everyone wants— Rachel Alexandra versus Zenyatta — NYRA recently hooked up with off-track bet taker TVG to supplement the purse of the Beldame Stakes by $400,000.
NYRA was reduced to this weak position because the premier track operator cannot make $400,000 from off-track wagering on the race.
That’s because of the upside-down, off-track revenue model, where casinos and off-track betting companies pay as little as 2% to the host track, while they keep up to 18% of the wager themselves.
If $20 million were wagered off-track on the proposed race, the purse account would have only gotten $300,000. The off-track bet takers would have gotten $3,400,000. That’s right, ten times more money just for taking the bet, than for the racehorse owners putting on the show.
Trying to put on a show for racing has become the Theatre of the Absurd. Host tracks cannot make the fillies’ owners “an offer they can’t refuse”. Perhaps the racehorse owners need to step in with some common sense.
Inside the Box Thinking
You are about to read a outrageous proposal for how the owners of the star attractions, Jess Jackson and Jerry Moss, can focus the sporting world on Thoroughbred racing and deliver the Filly Race of the Century.
When you do a Situation Analysis on racing today, you come to the painful conclusion that the host event gets nothing from off-track wagering on its product and nothing from the television networks for its product. Since the basic objective of providing the owners of the racehorses with a valuable purse, the strategy becomes crystal clear:
If you can make 20% from the wagers made on-track, but only 2% from the wagers made off-track, then you need to see how you can maximize the on-track wagers.
No off-track wagering and No televised coverage
Sheer madness? Maybe not, it seems to work for the NFL when they haven’t sold out a studium.
To make a statement for all racehorse owners about the upside-down, off-track revenue model that bled $500 million out of purses this year, the owners of these two magnificent fillies have a timely opportunity.
Jess Jackson knows how to market a product and Jerry Moss definitely understands the entertainment business, so let’s explore how these two racehorse owners can achieve for their sport what the industry around them cannot seem to grasp — You either control your product and its distribution, or someone else will control it. You can increase demand for your product by limiting supply.
We are about to revisit the revenue model of 1938, when Seabiscuit was a star.
Let’s Go Retro
Hell, Jess Jackson even saw Seabiscuit race at Santa Anita, so he knows the excitement and electricity that fans feel being on the grounds at a closed sporting event.
There are three tracks big enough to handle the crowd — Belmont, Churchill Downs and Santa Anita (I know the surface problem for Jess, but this is a different consideration).
I would go to those tracks and offer the race, with these conditions. The track would get all admissions, concessions, parking, programs, etc. The track and local purse account would get the on-track takeout from a quality-packed under card of races.
For the big event, the fillies’ owners would agree the race would have no set purse amount, but instead they would get 100% of the takeout from on-track wagers on the race. In effect, the racehorse owners take the risks.
By locking out all off-track wagering and televised coverage, if we can get a crowd of 80,000 and drive the on-track handle to $20 million, the takeout for the purse would be $4 million gross. If we paid back to 6th place, there is a huge incentive for the owners of other good fillies to enter the race and drive the handle higher.
To publicize the race, the two major owners could take the satisfaction of the winner being named Horse-of-the-Year and dedicate their share of the winnings to charities like the Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure and the Race for Education. A ban on cell phones and computers at the track will further boost the on-track handle.
A replay of the race the next day will allow fans to see the great race, but the attraction of a great sporting event would be live attendance.
The tracks would need their racing commissions to pre-approve a non-traditional day, similar to Breeders’ Cup days.
With all the advances in technology and expanded distribution of wagering, the host track should be able to make a lot more money today than they could in 1938. But, because the off-track revenue model fails to pay the host event for its product, the stakeholders of racing are back where they started.
The real “True Blood”
Last July 2008 the industry was “shocked†by a series of articles I wrote on this subject. But, obviously not shocked enough to fix it.
As a result, more than $1 billion has been sucked out of racing this year. The money is lost forever to the tracks, racehorse owners, trainers, jockeys and everyone in between. The lost money has not flowed down to breeders through the sales as reinvestment in racing prospects. The lost money will not be spent at the upcoming September Sales
This past year I have traveled to Arizona for the Racetrack Symposium and throughout the year presented the problem and solution to the heads of every organization in racing and breeding. To date, not one of these organizations have done anything to change the off-track model or push for the corrections to the IHA.
Each month about $100 million is bleeding out of our sport and the rate is accelerating very rapidly through the cannibalization of bets previously made at the tracks and now increasingly made through phone and Internet companies with no connection to racing.
The Future of Racing
If we can get quick passage of the correction to the IHA and the host event starts getting 50% of the takeout from bets made at other tracks; then gets up to 75% from non-racing bet takers, and finally the future of racing is when the host event can start accepting wagers direct from customers for a virtual “on-track” revenue model. We could have 15% of the wagers going to the host event.
Then on big race days, if we have $50 million in off-track handle, the revenue at 15% to the host event would be $7.5 million for the day. That’s how you bring Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta, or Curlin and Big Brown together in races.
That’s when you have the star power to fill the seats and make racing a viable sport again. So that no matter where the bet is madej, or how the bet is made, the majority of the revenue goes to those producing the show.
Once the IHA is corrected, the opportunity for creative, innovative thinking on how racing is packaged and presented will abound, because the host event can make money on the show.
But, until then we will continue in the Theatre of the Absurd, where the off-track bet takers walk off with all of your money and your sport.
