Posts Tagged ‘seabiscuit’

By Ray Paulick
There has been a lot of talk since Charles Cella shocked the racing world with his $5 million Apple Blossom gambit comparing the proposed Rachel Alexandra - Zenyatta confrontation at Oaklawn Park with the storied match race between Triple Crown hero War Admiral and the great Seabiscuit. Jess Jackson, the owner of Rachel Alexandra, likes to talk about how he saw Seabiscuit race in California during his youth. But does Jackson remember that Seabiscuit was defeated in his final race before the match with War Admiral, just as Rachel Alexandra lost her 2010 debut Saturday at Fair Grounds?

I went to the source on all things Seabiscuit, Laura Hillenbrand, the author of Seabiscuit: An American Legend and asked for her thoughts on yesterday’s performances that went from the agony of defeat for Rachel Alexandra’s camp to the thrill of victory for those backing Zenyatta. Here are Laura Hillenbrand’s thoughts comparing the two rivalries:

There are obvious limits to the parallels one can draw between Seabiscuit-War Admiral and Rachel-Zenyatta.  But what came to mind as I watched Rachel lose, and Zenyatta win, is that past is not always precedent in such meetings.  War Admiral’s last start before the match race was the Jockey Club Gold Cup, and he won it much as Zenyatta won her race–under wraps, in smashing style.  In his last start prior to the match, Seabiscuit was soundly beaten by the soon-to-be champion three-year-old filly, Jacola.  He was carrying 24 pounds more than Jacola, and encountered traffic trouble, but she beat him rather impressively, breaking the track record at Laurel.  Seabiscuit’s loss made War Admiral even more of a favorite in the match race, but Seabiscuit’s trainer, Tom Smith, wasn’t the least bit worried.  The losing effort brought Seabiscuit’s fitness to the place he needed it to be, and he trounced War Admiral a little more than two weeks later.

Zenyatta’s connections were surely hoping to preserve her unbeaten record; for Rachel, a loss would be a much smaller deal, so perhaps they could afford to have her a little less fit, in the service of having her peak in the Apple Blossom.

Times have changed and horses are handled far differently today, but am I crazy in suggesting that there could still be an Apple Blossom between these two with Rachel winning, just as Seabiscuit not only went on to face War Admiral but defeated him soundly?

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
If only Michael Gill had kept his word in 2006 when he said he was getting out of horse racing after being leading owner in North America by money and races won for three consecutive years. A lot of people would be happier and a number of horses might still be alive.

Gill did get out of racing in 2006, the year after he was inexplicably voted an Eclipse Award as outstanding owner. Unfortunately, he got back in the game late in 2008, and he was back on top again as leading owner by both races and money won in 2009.

But wait, doesn’t horse racing need more owners, not fewer of them? Not if they’re like Mike Gill. Not in my book, at least. Gill claims relentlessly and runs an absurd number of horses: he had 2,235 starts in 2003, 2,885 in 2004, 1,870 in 2005, and 2,247 in 2009. His best year earnings-wise was $10,811,631, an average of $3,748 per start. Many people feel he is using the animals as nothing more than a commodity to get what he wants. His critics, and there are many, say the horses too often pay the ultimate price.

Nothing outstanding about that. For the life of me, I don’t see how anyone ever could have voted to give him an Eclipse Award.

Jockeys at Penn National Race Course apparently took a vote of a different type on Saturday night, allegedly telling track management they would refuse to ride in any more races in which Mike Gill-owned horses were entered. The vote was taken following the fifth race, after third-place finisher Laughing Moon broke down past the wire, causing another horse to also go down. Laughing Moon’s jockey Rickey Frazier escaped injury.

It was the second breakdown of a Gill-owned horse at Penn National in three nights, Melodeeman having suffered a similar catastrophic injury on Thursday night. Melodeeman was trained by Anthony Adamo and Laughing Moon by Darrel Delahoussaye—Gill’s two trainers at Penn National.

There was a lengthy delay between Saturday night’s fifth and sixth races as the jockeys stated their case. Eventually, a Gill horse, Justin M, was scratched from the sixth race, and the remainder of the card was completed without incident. Gill had no other horses entered following the sixth.

“Gill’s horses are breaking down at a race that’s just not normal,” said a Penn National horseman who spoke on the condition of anonymity, “and it’s not the racetrack. The track is safe. The riders did a very honorable thing, finally saying ‘enough is enough,’ and did so at the risk of a backlash from management. The guys said we are not putting our lives in danger, or the horses in danger.”

According to Equibase charts, in just over three months, 14 other horses owned by Gill have either broken down, were pulled up, returned lame, or eased at Penn National. There were nine in October, three in November, one in December and two in January. (The count includes Saturday night’s incident involving Laughing Moon, even though the Equibase chartcaller did not report the horse broke down past the wire.) Most of the horses are running in bottom level claiming races. At Penn National, however, thanks to slot machine revenue, $5,000 claimers can run for as much as $20,000, with $12,000 going to the winner. An owner can make money squeezing a win out of a horse he claimed for $5,000, even if that horse never runs another race.

Chris McErlean, vice president of racing for Penn National Gaming, said he was not at the track on Saturday but got a report on the incident. McErlean said it is his understanding that horses entered by Gill to race later in the week already have been scratched voluntarily by their trainers. “That wasn’t necessarily at our direction,” McErlean said. “No formal actions have been taken.”

McErlean also said the Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission is investigating. “They could be looking into Mr. Gill’s horses in particular, but breakdowns in general,” he said. “They also could be looking at certain veterinarians.”

At the beginning of 2010, Penn National has started reviewing all breakdowns, McErlean said, conducting meetings that involve “the trainer and any other interested parties, the track, the racing commission, and our vet. Every horse that breaks down gets a necropsy done, starting at the beginning of this year. This was initiated by Penn National with the cooperation of the racing commission. Every horse that does break down or is involved in a death does get a necropsy done. We are doing this more for information gathering, to see if there is any connecting of the dots. People are concerned about this and we want some answers.”

Many of Gill’s starters are not stabled at Penn National but ship in from his Elk Creek Ranch in Oxford, Pa. While those horses are on private property, neither the racing commission nor Penn National has access to them. When any horses ship in to race and go to the receiving barn, a state or association veterinarian conducts a pre-race inspection. Horses stabled at the track (and Gill is believed to have 40-50 stalls at Penn National) are not routinely given pre-race exams.

Controversy has followed Gill everywhere he’s gone in racing. He’s been denied stalls at some tracks, banned from the entry box at another, and has not been shy about filing lawsuits.

When he failed to win an Eclipse Award in 2003, Gill put out a statement comparing himself to Seabiscuit’s owner, Charles Howard, in an underdog role against the establishment.

“I can’t help but think that the vote was a vote against me, rather than a vote against the accomplishments,” Gill wrote. “And I don’t understand that. We all cheered ‘Seabiscuit’ last year, a movie about hope and the underdog rising from obscurity to challenge racing’s establishment and emerge victorious.”

Unfortunately, for Laughing Moon and numerous other horses that took their last breath while racing for Gill, there is no hope. The best hope is that he leaves the sport again—this time for good.

Efforts to reach Gill were unsuccessful.

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
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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.