Posts Tagged ‘personal ensign’

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.