Posts Tagged ‘sunday silence’

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.

I yearn for Hollywood Park yesterday.

Times change, though I often wish they didn’t. The death knell for Hollywood Park came when Churchill Downs Inc. sold the track, three years ago last Tuesday to the Bay Meadows Land Co. Then CDI president Tom Meeker said California “has forsaken racing and its needs.” If things were grim for the sport in California then, how do you think it looks now, with Bay Meadows also bought and closed for development by the same Bay Meadows Land Co., and Golden Gate Fields and Santa Anita Park in the middle of owner Magna Entertainment’s bankruptcy proceedings.

But Hollywood Park yesterday was the place that solidified my love of the sport. My first racetrack experiences were in Chicago in the mid-1970s, but it wasn’t until I moved to Southern California in the spring of 1979 that I got to see the best of what racing offered.

That was the year Affirmed carried 132 pounds to victory in the Gold Cup, covering the mile and a quarter in an incredible 1:58 2/5 while pushed the whole way by the Italian champion Sirlad. It was the year a hotshot California-bred named Flying Paster, winner of the Hollywood Derby, would carry the hopes of West Coast racing fans to the Kentucky Derby, where he would be crushed by Spectacular Bid, a colt who would come West a year later and continue to dominate that same rival.

Legends like Shoemaker, Pincay, McCarron, Hawley, and McHargue populated the jockeys room, Trainer Charlie Whittingham dominated the big races, and the stands were packed to the gills every weekend. Little did I know then that the 24,930 average daily attendance from the 77-day meeting of 1979 was down considerably from just a few years earlier, when Hollywood averaged over 30,000. Santa Anita Park was getting the upper hand under the marketing innovations of Alan Balch.

Not to be outdone, track owner Marje Everett pulled out all the stops in 1980 to reverse the “sagging” business figures. On Sunday, May 4, 1980, the day after Genuine Risk beat the California-bred Rumbo in the Kentucky Derby, Hollywood Park tried something new–a “giveaway” for every paid admission, of a canvas tote bag. 

I was one of the 80,348 on hand that day, though I didn’t even know about the tote bag giveaway. I had come to see the ongoing rivalry between ex-claimer Wishing Well (who went on to produce Horse of the Year Sunday Silence) and Country Queen in the Gamely Handicap. I’ll never forget the traffic jam on Century Boulevard trying to get into Hollywood Park that day, or the lines for concessions and betting. I managed to snag one of the tote bags, and, somehow, 29 years later I still have it. Though it’s a bit the worse for wear, the bag is a reminder for me of the glory days of the sport.

That same year, Hollywood Park introduced Pick Six wagering (they even gave away a Pick Six beach towel in the image of a $100 bill….signed by “Secretary of the Treasury Vernon O. Underwood”) , and the racing was highlighted by incredible performances from Spectacular Bid in the Mervyn LeRoy and Californian Stakes (I kept my free “Bid and The Shoe” T-shirt for years until it mysteriously shrunk and no longer fit me). Average attendance soared to 31,150 in 1980.

Hollywood Park is where I stood in awe alongside my friend and former Daily Racing Form colleague Jay Hovdey, watching a 2-year-old daughter of Seattle Slew, named Landaluce, power her way to victory in the 1982 Lassie Stakes, a race since renamed in her honor. She drew off down the stretch of the six-furlong event to win by an implausible 21 lengths, covering the distance in 1:08 flat for an up-and-coming trainer named D. Wayne Lukas. It’s the track where the first Breeders’ Cup was held in 1984, when Everett pulled a few favors with her Hollywood pals and made it a star-studded event for people and horses. It’s been a huge part of racing history since its opening in 1938. Click here for a trip through Hollywood Park’s history in the introduction to the track’s media guide.

I could go on with the memories of this track, just as I could listen all day long to the deadly accurate and gravelly voiced race calls of the late Harry Henson. It’s not the same as it used to be—few places are—and since moving to Kentucky in 1988 I don’t get there as often as I’d like to.

I loved Hollywood Park, its horses, its people and its energy, but mostly for how it made me feel about racing.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in the Paulick Report.

Support the Paulick Report. Make a donation today.

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

Do you know an individual or organization who you think we should consider for an upcoming “Good News Friday” feature? Then please e-mail info@paulickreport.com with the name of the individual or organization and a brief description of why you think they should be featured. Additionally, we’d like to thank Rob Whiteley and Liberation Farm for encouraging us to bring to light some of the industry’s positive stories and for sponsoring this exclusive Paulick Report feature.

By Bradford Cummings
Oftentimes, the racing industry loses sight of what is important when trying to market its product. Talk of increased handle, while necessary for the bottom line of racetracks, does not change the public perception and momentum of a sport that has continued a slow and steady slide over the last 20 years. In order to grow this sport, racing needs new fans, not old fans making more bets.
 
So when the ratings came out for the Kentucky Derby and most recently the Preakness Stakes, it was a breath of fresh air and a much-needed shot in the arm for the psyche of racing. The first two legs of the Triple Crown brought in an average of 13.4 million viewers, the most since 1989 when Sunday Silence won both Classics over Easy Goer in a spirited East vs. West rivalry.
 
Individually, the Kentucky Derby brought in 16.3 million viewers with a 9.8 rating and 23 share, up 2.1 million viewers from last year. The Preakness came in at a strong 10.9 million viewers, pulling a 6.8 rating and 16 share. This number was up 3 million viewers from last year’s version with Big Brown easily pulling away from the field.
 
For those not familiar with the television ratings system, the Derby’s 9.8 rating means that 9.8% of all households with televisions were tuned into NBC’s telecast on the first Saturday of May while the 23 share means 23% of all televisions in use watched Mine That Bird pull an unprecedented upset. That means nearly a quarter of all Americans watching television showed an interest in racing’s biggest event.
 
Perhaps most significant was the true lack of a compelling storyline going into the race. Most of the favorites had been sidelined before the Derby, and morning line favorite I Want Revenge was scratched the morning of the race with an injury, leaving what has been proved to be an overrated colt from the Louisiana circuit in Friesan Fire as the betting choice. And while other sports have the ability to build audience throughout the course of a 3 hour game, the fact that a 50-1 shot won the race would have had virtually no effect on the ratings because of how quickly the telecast ends.
 
Much credit must go to NBC, which did an admirable job selling the event throughout the week prior with promos on mainstream mainstays like the Today Show and investing in a solid marketing campaign. The fact a long shot won only added to the mystique of the Derby they so effectively sold.
 
That momentum allowed for the male vs. female storyline to be created with Rachel Alexandra and the unintended positive consequences of media coverage from Mark Allen and Ahmed Zayat’s conspiring to keep her on the sidelines. Proving the old adage there’s no such thing as bad press, the Preakness well out performed every other running this decade except for Smarty Jones in 2004, which brought a 7.7 rating and 23 share.
 
Of course, all of these numbers are irrelevant without some perspective and comparison to other top events in high profile professional U.S. sports. While the Kentucky Derby will not be in the same league as the Super Bowl anytime soon with its 42 rating, racing’s biggest day in 2009 stands incredibly strong with other major championship equivalents.
 
The final game of the NBA Championship from last year, in a matchup of the two most storied franchises in the league, drew only 12.6 million viewers.  The Stanley Cup Playoffs featuring the Detroit Red Wings and Pittsburgh Penguins never saw more than 6.8 million folks tune in to a game. The Daytona 500, the most prestigious race in NASCAR, was down this year to a modest 15.95 million television fans. Even America’s Pastime peaked with just 15.49 million at home spectators during last year’s final World Series game.

Something the ratings do not take into account is the large number of racing fans who watch and wager on events like the Triple Crown races and Breeders’ Cup at a local track or simulcast site. Kentucky Derby Day is the biggest day of the year at some tracks, and those in attendance are not counted as television viewers.

This ranks the Kentucky Derby as the second most watched professional sporting championship of the last year, a fact few in the industry would have assumed. And the news is actually better than it looks. Wedged in at around 6 p.m. EST and potentially distracted by the dinner bell or an eventful Saturday, a viewer more likely schedules their day around the Derby coverage whereas a typical championship game appears during the primetime hours of 8-11 pm. That coupled with the lack of build up for the average racing fan as evidenced by the paltry ratings of preps like the Florida Derby, Wood Memorial and Santa Anita Derby, means racing has a legitimate opportunity to capture the imagination of the public if marketed correctly.
 
With drug issues and safety concerns being taken seriously, there will be an opening for racing to breeze through. Will we take the opening and shoot through like Mine That Bird’s last to first rally on May 2nd? Will we look at what we have and figure out how to sell this beautiful sport to the masses beyond the Kentucky Derby, Preakness Stakes and Belmont Stakes? Can we turn the Breeders’ Cup into a legitimate championship that builds from January on?
 
The good news is we can.

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.

Previous Good News Friday subjects: Father Chris Clay, The Race for Education, Military Appreciation Day at Keeneland, Kentucky Oaks Pink Out for the Susan G. Komen Foundation, Mary Lee-Butte and the Blue Grass Farms Chaplaincy, Mary Jo Pons and the Radio Reading Network

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.

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