Posts Tagged ‘National Thoroughbred Racing Association’

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.

Copyright © 2010, The Paulick Report

Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in the Paulick Report.



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

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.

Sorry, Jess, but I’m calling your bluff.

Copyright © 2010, The Paulick Report

Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in the Paulick Report.



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

By Ray Paulick
A potential April 3 matchup at Oaklawn Park between Horse of the Year Rachel Alexandra and unbeaten, two-time champion Zenyatta may be the best news racing fans have heard in a long time. Oaklawn Park owner Charles Cella announced the Grade 1 Apple Blossom Handicap would have its purse bumped from $500,000 to $5 million if both horses run, and the race would be lengthened from 1 1/16 miles to nine furlongs. It would change from a handicap to an invitational if both participated. If either fails to enter, the Apple Blossom would revert back to a $500,000 race.

Left unaddressed in the press release from Oaklawn Park was whether any network television plans for the race have been formulated beyond TVG and HRTV. April 3 is a busy day on the racing and sports calendar.

NBC will be televising two important races for 3-year-olds late that afternoon, the Wood Memorial from Aqueduct and Santa Anita Derby from Santa Anita Park in Southern California. Would NBC try to squeeze the Apple Blossom into the same broadcast, and would Oaklawn Park agree to share such a marquee event with two prep races for the Kentucky Derby?

The NBC deal was done with Churchill Downs, not the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, which formerly was responsible for much of the horse racing industry’s television exposure, primarily on the ESPN family of networks. The NTRA, while no longer in the television business and Oaklawn Park no longer a member of the NTRA, have assured the Paulick Report they will aggressively work with all parties to promote this event. According to Keith Chamblin, “The NTRA has and will continue to do everything it possibly can to maximize the promotion and television exposure of a showdown between Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta.”

Post time for the Apple Blossom could be a tricky decision, too. If the race is run after 6 p.m. Eastern Daylight Savings Time (Arkansas is in the Central time zone), it could go head to head with the first of two Final Four games in the men’s NCAA basketball tournament from Indianaapolis, which will be televised on CBS that evening. If it is run between 4:30-5:30 p.m. Eastern, it could butt heads with the Wood Memorial and Santa Anita Derby.

Needless to say, with the Final Four games scheduled that night, horse racing will have a difficult time getting much coverage in the mainstream press around the country. But if Oaklawn Park can pull it off, it will be a huge day for the Arkansas racetrack, and existing fans of the sport will have got what they wanted.

Copyright © 2010, The Paulick Report

Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in the Paulick Report.



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

By Ray Paulick
When the committee that doles out Eclipse Awards of Merit or Special Eclipse Awards announced the other day that Thoroughbred Retirement Foundation founder and longtime chairman Monique Koehler would be a recipient of a Special Eclipse Award next month, my first thought was, “What took so long?”

But then I remembered this is an industry predicated on past performances, and the past performances suggest that recognition of people and organizations dedicated to the health and welfare of retired racehorses comes reluctantly and over time.

I first became aware of the TRF more than 20 years ago, some five years after Koehler started the organization in 1982. I was working for a Thoroughbred publication and was asked to come up with a list of potential story ideas to be used for upcoming features. I called some friends in different parts of the country looking for ideas and one of them told me about this fascinating operation based at an upstate New York prison that took in retired racehorses and stabled them at the prison, where inmates would care for them. It was a proverbial win-win situation: good for the horses, good for the rehabilitation of the inmates.

When I suggested to the editor that a feature on the TRF be considered, I thought for sure I’d get two thumbs up. I was stunned when he told me, “Oh, we can’t do that. We don’t want people to find out what really happens to all those horses when they’re done racing.”

It was my first exposure to one of the sport’s dirty little secrets, that ex-racehorses often wind up in a slaughterhouse somewhere, destined for a dinner plate overseas, or perhaps as food for a dog or other animal. Turns out the glue factory was more than a cliché.

Monique and the TRF’s longtime executive director, Diana Pikulski, have fought hard for the organization’s mission to be recognized, much less accepted, in the Thoroughbred media and by the industry they have done so much to help. As the TRF grew, admitting more horses into a prison program that expanded to other states and to satellite farms, the struggle became an economic one of how to feed and care for the thousands of Thoroughbreds retired from the racetrack each year.

Gradually, they picked up important advocates, like the late John Hettinger, whose money, influence and outspoken passion for the cause advanced the TRF and its mission. Many similar organizations popped up around the country, but the TRF to this day remains the largest national charity devoted to helping retired Thoroughbred racehorses.

Critics, including, ironically, the American Association of Equine Practitioners, an organization also devoted to the health and welfare of horses, have pooh-poohed the TRF and similar organizations, saying their efforts to save horses represent a drop in the bucket when compared to the total number of unwanted Thoroughbreds. But should the fact that not all Thoroughbreds can be saved from slaughter or neglect prevent rescue and retirement organizations from saving those they can, and often placing them in second careers as performance or pleasure horses?

I don’t think so, and I believe the AAEP has been on the wrong side of this issue for many years. (Disclosure: I served on the AAEP board of directors in a non-veterinary “industry seat” for three years where I tried to be an advocate for rescue/retirement groups. I currently am a member of the TRF board.)

The efforts of Koehler, Pikulski, Hettinger, web publisher and horseman Alex Brown and many others have raised awareness to this issue, and some of racing’s largest institutions now recognize that supporting racehorse retirement is not only the right thing to do, but the smart thing to do for the industry’s tarnished image among the general public.

Along the way, trainers like Nick Zito, Todd Pletcher, Gary Contessa and the late John Russell stepped forward as advocates, along with owners and breeders like Gary Biszantz, Madeline Auerbach and the late Trudy McCaffery (there are many more who have stepped up). Numerous breeders and stallion farms have supported fundraisers through the donation of stallion seasons.

Richard Fields, the majority owner of Suffolk Downs, showed tremendous leadership when instituting a policy at the New England racetrack banning trainers who dump horses into auctions where the animals usually are destined for slaughter. Churchill Downs and Magna Entertainment developed policies and positions of support for racehorse retirement, and most recently the New York Racing Association adopted a policy and pledged funds to assist the retirement of horses. The Jockey Club has taken a strong position of support, and that was a most significant development.

There are holdouts, including the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, whose silence and lack of leadership on the issue is a sore spot with many people. But as Monique Koehler knows more than anyone else, these things take time.

So rather than criticizing the committee that took more than a quarter of a century to recognize Monique Koehler for starting a national movement that represents so much that is good about the people in this industry, I say “thank you” to the organizations that voted her this award: the Daily Racing Form, National Turf Writers Association and even the NTRA.

More importantly, if they could talk, the thousands of horses that have been or will be saved as a result of Monique’s tireless dedication and advocacy would say thank you as well.

The best way you can thank Monique is by supporting the TRF through a donation. Click here to learn more about the organization and here to make a donation.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

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

Liberation Farm celebrates the many horsemen and horsewomen who strive each day to make things better for horses and those who work with them.  To learn more about Liberation Farm, click here.

By Ray Paulick
Ten years ago many of the grand poobahs of American racing gathered in Tucson, Ariz., for the University of Arizona Racetrack Industry Program’s 25th annual Symposium on Racing. There was great anticipation of the event, in large part to get an update on the fledgling National Thoroughbred Racing Association’s efforts to organize a “league office” and provide national leadership for an industry that had none in areas like marketing and television. The NTRA had commenced operations a year earlier, in 1998.

There’s something about this game that brings out the knockers (no, Tiger, not that kind), and the NTRA was under intense criticism at the outset in many different quarters from people who thought a) their chief executives didn’t know enough about horse racing; b) they were paid too much money; c) the “Go Baby Go” catchphrase developed by New York advertising agency Merkley Newman Harty was mindless; d) their first-year marketing campaign featuring Lori Petty (aka “Tank Girl”) was horrible; and e) horse racing’s television ratings and the economics of the industry weren’t getting any better and the NTRA had already been in a business a whole year!

Oh, for the good old days!

Pari-mutuel handle in North America during the NTRA’s first year in 1998 hit an all-time record, of $13.8 billion, and it increased for the next five years, peaking at $15.9 billion in 2003. At the end of 2009, total handle in North America will be less than what was generated in 1998.

In 1999, when chief executive Tim Smith delivered a state of the NTRA address at the Symposium on Racing he spoke about increased television exposure, including a new series, NTRA Champions on Fox, and additional programming on the ESPN family of companies that would bring the total number of hours of televised racing on network and cable (excluding TVG) to 137, an increase in 40% over two years.

Nearly $30 million was spent on national and local advertising using NTRA-branded material in 1999. Inserts promoting major racing events were placed in Sports Illustrated and USA Today. There were NTRA “fan guides,” racetrack customer service training coordinated by NTRA, new events like the NTRA All-Star Jockeys Challenge, in-depth market research and increased lobbying in Washington, D.C.

Thoroughbred racing, for a brief period, was playing offense, an unfamiliar strategy for this industry. Sure, a few years earlier, the Thoroughbred Racing Associations of North America (a trade association of tracks, not to be confused with the NTRA) hired an outsider, sports marketing executive Brian McGrath, to come in and play the role of “commissioner,” but his tenure was over almost as soon as it began.

Why is it this industry so often says it needs outside expertise, then bludgeons whoever is brought in under that guise because “he doesn’t understand racing”?

Today, while its top executives are back at the Arizona Symposium on Racing, all the NTRA can do is play defense, a glorified game of whack-a-mole. There’s no talk about growing the sport and its business anymore but of how to stop the bleeding. Racehorse injuries and fatalities here. Tote credibility problems there. Threats from Washington, D.C.  There is no such thing as NTRA marketing or television anymore. The organization’s skeleton staff in Kentucky and New York is stretched to the bone, and its budget has been continuously reduced, now standing at about $10 million, a fraction of what it was 10 years ago.

What happened?

The organization’s fate was sealed when Frank Stronach, not long after he started buying racetracks, declared he didn’t need the NTRA for his Magna Entertainment to succeed (how’s that working out?). Stronach petulantly threatened to drop out of the NTRA and joined with other short-sighted track-owning malcontents that forced NTRA executives to spend most of their energy keeping the coalition from crumbling. That’s not a formula for success.

Any chance of building the NTRA into some semblance of a “league office” finally ended when the Breeders’ Cup, which signed a joint operating agreement with the NTRA in 2001, ended its relationship five years later.

I’m not even sure why we have an NTRA any more. Its area of interest almost completely overlaps with the aforementioned TRA, with the lone exception of lobbying federal politicians to maintain tax breaks for horse owners (something, incidentally, the racetrack organization TRA should care about, since it needs horse owners to race at their tracks).

At that 1999 Arizona racing symposium, Smith introduced the NTRA’s second-year ad campaign, one that featured the actor Rip Torn talking to chunks of turf and statues of jockeys like a crazy person. Torn hasn’t had the best of times since then (witness his two arrests for suspicion of drunk driving), and neither has the original Go Baby Go girl, Lori Petty (she had some driving problems, too).

But both Torn and Petty have survived the ups and downs of life, something I can relate to as well. I’m not sure we’ll be saying the same thing of the NTRA, which could be Gone Baby Gone before we know it.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in the Paulick Report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Ray Paulick
Voting for the Eclipse Awards will begin in just over a month, and the biggest debate and perhaps most hotly disputed division will be for Horse of the Year, where early- and mid-season leader Rachel Alexandra and undefeated Breeders’ Cup Classic winner Zenyatta will vie for the most votes from members of the National Turf Writers Association, Daily Racing Form staff, racing secretaries at National Thoroughbred Racing Association tracks and Equibase chartcallers.

I hope voters will spend as much time assessing the relative merits of some of the other categories as they will on Horse of the Year. Specifically, if they take their responsibilities seriously, they will examine as much of the season-ending statistics on leading breeder as possible before casting their votes. As I’ve written before, I don’t think that’s been the case in some years. Too many voters simply look at which breeder has won the most money.

If that’s the criteria, then Frank Stronach’s Adena Springs will win the outstanding breeder award for the sixth consecutive year. But Adena’s breeding program has produced just two American Graded Stakes winners of 2009, a far cry from some of its previous Eclipse Award winning years. Adena Springs-bred horses have won all that money through the size of Stronach’s broodmare band, producing runners that started 3,568 times in North America so far this year, far more than any other operation. The average earnings per start for Adena-bred horses is just $3,286. Those aren’t bad numbers, nor is the 14% win rate, but I don’t think they should qualify Adena for another Eclipse Award.

The award for outstanding breeder shouldn’t be about who has the biggest operation or who wins the most money. Scanning the list of leading breeders of American Graded Stakes winners of 2009, there are 10 entities that have bred at least three AGS winners alone or in partnership. They are Darley and Stonerside, with five each; Juddmonte Farms and Edward Evans, four each; and with three each are Gainsborough Stud, Phipps Stable, Classic Star, Diamond A Racing, William Farish,  and Wertheimer et Frere. Our leaders list only includes Gainsborough and Phipps Stable in the group with three as their AGS winners won a total of five graded stakes, versus four or three for the others.

So if the Eclipse Award for outstanding breeder should go to one of those operations, which one? You can make a case for several, but special attention should be given to Saudi Prince Khalid’s Juddmonte, which has won four previous Eclipse Awards in this category (1995, and 2001-03). Juddmonte is third behind Adena in money won in North America, with $6,771,260, and has done so with only 280 starts, 41 one of which resulted in winners. That works out to an average of $24,183 per start.

Unlike some of the other breeding operations, Juddmonte sends the majority of its homebreds to Europe to begin their careers, and they don’t normally bring the poor performers back to the U.S. once they have established their form. So its North American stable is stocked with quality from the outset.

A large part of Juddmonte’s success is attributable to the consistently top-class work done by Hall of Fame trainer Bobby Frankel, whose death earlier this week was mourned by the Juddmonte family and everyone in racing who knew him.

Another breeder having an outstanding year with his homebreds is Edward P. Evans, whose four AGS winners have won six races (though one of them, Charitable Man, was sold at the Keeneland September yearling sale. Evans has a much more select broodmare band than Juddmonte but has still managed to produce the winners of $4,154,264 from 506 starts (89 winners), putting him eighth in the money rankings. His average earnings per start is $8,210.

There are still some big races to be run, so it’s too early for me to say who I think should win as outstanding breeder. But the hope is when the ballots are sent to voters, the voters will spend some time assessing the overall quality of the horses a breeder produces.

By Ray Paulick
Last week I wrote that if I had a vote in the Eclipse Awards, I’d cast my Horse of the Year ballot for unbeaten Breeders’ Cup Classic winner Zenyatta. Well, I don’t have a vote, and I have no one to blame but myself.

A little more than seven years ago, I resigned from the National Turf Writers Association, one of the voting groups for the Eclipse Awards. The other eligible voters are selected staff members of the Daily Racing Form; chartcallers for Equibase; and racing secretaries at National Thoroughbred Racing Association member tracks. There may be a handful of others, including some Breeders’ Cup employees who have a vote.

I quit the National Turf Writers Association after the 2001 media Eclipse Awards were announced and then-NTWA president Jay Privman of the Daily Racing Form unfairly, in my opinion, questioned the eligibility of a piece written by one of the winners, Laura Hillenbrand. Hillenbrand, author of the best-selling book “Seabiscuit: An American Legend,” had previously won an Eclipse Award in 1998 for an article on Seabiscuit published in American Heritage magazine. Her 2001 award was for an original adaptation from the Seabiscuit book that appeared in Equus magazine.

As I recall, Privman, as NTWA president, sent an email to members criticizing the awarding of a second Eclipse to Hillenbrand and suggesting it was “unseemly” of her to even submit the piece for consideration. It was my understanding he was trying to have her stripped of the award.

I had never met Hillenbrand but admired her work, believing that her treatment of Seabiscuit (which was made into a wildly popular movie) was one of the biggest boosts in positive publicity Thoroughbred racing had received in many, many years. I even wrote that Hillenbrand be given an Eclipse Award of Merit, in part because of her personal circumstances: she was afflicted with chronic fatigue syndrome and often struggled to even sit upright and work on her computer while writing the book.

I was offended by the tone of Privman’s letter to NTWA members and asked several individuals on the board of directors to demand an apology or reprimand Privman for what I felt was an abuse of his office. When they did neither, I quit the organization.

Several years later, I asked an executive at the National Thoroughbred Racing Association if I could qualify to vote under the NTRA’s umbrella. I was told “no,” and remained on the sidelines when it comes to voting for Eclipse Awards, something I did for nearly 20 years.

If I really wanted to vote for the Eclipse Awards, I could put aside my strong disagreement with Privman and the NTWA board and reapply for membership in that organization. I’m just not ready to do that.

But enough about me.

There are many others who should have a vote for Eclipse Awards and do not. They include numerous individuals who cover racing regularly or on a full-time basis for television and radio, including ESPN, TVG and HRTV. They aren’t eligible because they aren’t “turf writers.” This group includes knowledgeable individuals such as Steve Byk of Sirius satellite radio’s “At the Races”; Carolyn Conley, Kurt Hoover and Jeff Siegel (among others) at HRTV; Bob Baedeker, Simon Bray and Todd Schrupp (among others) at TVG. It’s incomprehensible that individuals like these do not have an Eclipse Awards vote. In fact, I think it’s time to bring a public element to Eclipse Award voting in the same manner that Europe’s Cartier Awards have done.

As the ranks of full-time turf writers diminishes, racing should take advantage of the growing list of knowledgeable individuals who make their living covering the sport for non-print media outlets. To ignore this reality is just the latest confirmation that the people who run this sport have their heads buried in a place where the light doesn’t shine.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in the Paulick Report.

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