While racetracks in California struggle with the idea of synthetic racetracks, one thing seems very clear on the opposite side of the country. Synthetics will not fly in New York.
"I don’t see this happening any time soon in New York, if at all," said state Racing and Wagering Board Chairman John Sabini.
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 On an afternoon when heavy rains forced Santa Anita Park management to cancel a special holiday program, track president Ron Charles said the all-weather surface currently in place will be removed at the end of the 2009-’10 and strongly hinted the Arcadia, Calif., racetrack would return to dirt for its main track surface.
Santa Anita and the other major California tracks were required by the California Horse Racing Board to install synthetic surfaces by Jan. 1, 2008, but horseplayers and many trainers have been critical of the various synthetic tracks ever since. Charles, during an interview on Steve Byk’s "At the Races" radio show Monday afternoon, said the synthetic tracks did not deliver as promised by their manufacturers. Santa Anita Park joined Hollywood Park in installing Cushion Track prior to the 2008 deadline and experienced almost immediate problems with the track’s ability to drain and lost several days of racing after rains hit Southern California. Santa Anita replaced the Cushion Track with material from another manufacturer, Pro-Ride, and sued the owners of Cushion Track. When that new surface was installed in time for the 2008 Breeders’ Cup, Charles indicated it would be a short-term solution. Santa Anita began experiencing further drainage problems again last fall.
Del Mar has gone with Polytrack, which is part owned by Keeneland and in place at Keeneland, Turfway Park, Arlington Park and Woodbine.The Bay Area’s Golden Gate Fields, like Santa Anita owned by bankrupt Magna Entertainment, installed Tapeta Footings, which is also installed at Presque Isle Downs in Pennsylvania and at the new Meydan racetrack in Dubai, which is scheduled for its grand opening in the next couple of weeks.
Charles did not confirm the Pro-Ride surface would be replaced with dirt,, though said a decision will soon be announced and that it would be supported by a majority of the trainers and jockeys he has spoken with. Charles said the synthetic tracks were installed with good intentions–to reduce injuries and make racing safer, especially during wet weather–but became an extremely polarizing issue in racing. The synthetic tracks were cited by Rachel Alexandra’s principal owner, Jess Jackson, as the reason his star filly did not compete in ther 2009 Breeders’ Cup at Santa Anita.
Then come back to the Paulick Report and let us know what you think about synthetic tracks and the possibility of Santa Anita returning to dirt for its main surface.
By Ray Paulick Racing fans have read the superlatives or come up with their own adjectives in the wake of super filly Rachel Alexandra’s dominating victory over a very good field of 3-year-old colts at New Jersey’s Monmouth Park in Sunday’s Grade 1 Haskell Invitational, her eighth consecutive victory. They’ve also heard the declaration by majority owner Jess Jackson that he has no intention of running the daughter of Medaglia d’Oro in the 2009 Breeders’ Cup, because the event’s traditional “dirt†races are being held for the second year in a row on the Pro-Ride synthetic surface at Santa Anita Park in Southern California.These are heady days for Jackson, who has his sights on a third consecutive Horse of the Year crown, following Curlin’s titles in 2007 and ’08. Jackson blames Curlin’s fourth-place finish in the 2008 Breeders’ Cup Classic on the track that he calls “plastic,†and it’s harbored within him a grudge against the synthetic surfaces that the California winemaker just won’t let go of. The defeat didn’t cost Curlin the second of his two Horse of the Year titles—he’d done enough earlier in the year to warrant the award—but Jackson remains convinced that it was the track surface alone that forced the son of Smart Strike to ride off into the sunset of his outstanding career with a stinging defeat.
In truth, Curlin’s performance level was in decline when he came to the Breeders’ Cup. The trip to Dubai for the World Cup has taken a toll on many winners, from inaugural hero Cigar, who wasn’t quite as invincible after his victory there in 1996, to Well Armed, the 2009 victor who finished last in Sunday’s San Diego Handicap at Del Mar, his first start since his record-setting 14-length World Cup win.
Yet Jackson ignores the fact that Curlin was hard-pressed to beat Past the Point and Wanderin Boy–two horses who had never been in his class—in his final two starts before the 2008 Classic, the Woodward at Saratoga and Jockey Club Gold Cup at Belmont Park. And Robbie Albarado, a fine rider who fit Curlin well, rode him like a 1-9 shot at Santa Anita, as if he were up against a field of allowance horses or minor stakes winners. Given the circumstances of Curlin’s demanding campaign, the overconfident way he was ridden, and the quality of the international field he was facing in the Classic, there should have been no disgrace in defeat. Jackson and trainer Steve Asmussen chose to make the synthetic track the scapegoat, however, and they haven’t let up since.
Anyone who’s had their hands on a good horse, much less an extraordinary one like Rachel Alexandra, knows it presumptuous to point for a race too far into the future, but that’s what Jackson is doing. He’s trying to dodge criticism from ducking this year’s event by saying he’ll run Rachel Alexandra in the 2010 Breeders’ Cup at Churchill Downs on a conventional dirt track. Everyone hopes she stays healthy and sound for that long, but, realistically, what are the chances of that happening? Distant, I would think, especially if she continues to race on conventional dirt tracks that have been sealed in advance of rain, as Monmouth’s was on Sunday for the Haskell. Much as Jackson disparages synthetics, I would think he’s been around this game long enough to know that a sloppy, muddy or sealed racetrack is probably the most dangerous on which a horse can race or train.
I’m not here to defend synthetic surfaces. They have their detractors and defenders among people who know more about them than I do. Perhaps some horses do not race on synthetics as well as they do on a conventional dirt track. All synthetic tracks are not alike, either, and how they are maintained can be a critical factor in their ability to provide a safe racing surface. The debate over perceived difficulties in handicapping races on these surfaces is a completely separate issue. The idea behind synthetics, first and foremost, is to promote safety for horses and riders. Their use should begin and end on that subject alone. The installation of synthetics was done with what may have been a false sense of urgency. In hindsight, it would have been better to conduct research and compile data on their impact on musculoskeletal injuries.
Breeders’ Cup officials had their reasons for holding the event at Santa Anita in consecutive years, and I think that decision was a mistake that will not be repeated—unless either Churchill Downs or Keeneland become the permanent site for the championships (an unlikely move, at least in the near future). Having said that, though, the competition at last year’s two-day event was outstanding and, for the most part, formful.
Jackson doesn’t owe the fans anything. He’s put up his money and can do whatever he chooses with his horses. But for him to boycott the 2009 Breeders’ Cup with the sport’s biggest star, despite evidence that Rachel Alexandra has performed well on synthetics over Keeneland’s Polytrack, reminds me of the spoiled kid who didn’t like the way a game was going and decided to take his ball and go home.
By Ray Paulick
There are many questions to be answered at tonight’s Eclipse Awards from Miami Beach, Fla. (from which I’ll be dutifully live blogging starting sometime after the 5:30 p.m. cocktail hour begins and before TVG goes on the air with its 7 p.m. coverage). Who will get the crown as 2008 Horse of the Year? Will it be the reigning champion, Curlin, or the unbeaten filly, Zenyatta?
Inquiring minds may want to know…will Michael Iavarone of IEAH Stable have more bodyguards than Jess Jackson? How big will Frank Stronach’s posse be? Who will take the first punch at the publisher of the Paulick Report? Iavarone (I’m no fan of his), trainer Steve Asmussen (I wrote that no trainer with a pending drug positive deserves an Eclipse Award) or my former boss, Bloodhorse publisher Stacy Bearse (who needs no further introduction to our faithful readers)? We’ll try to answer those questions and more, going behind the scenes as best we can.
Many of the Eclipse Award winners are obvious (both of the 2-year-old divisions, 3-year-old male, older male and female, jockey and trainer), but there actually is suspense in several categories (3-year-old filly, male and female turf, male and female sprinter, owner and breeder). Unless, of course, someone at the sponsoring organizations – the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, Daily Racing Form or National Turf Writers Association – has leaked the results, something that has happened in the past.
Without access to the leaks, here are my predictions for the night (on the Eclipse Awards front):
2-year-old male – Midshipman (a slam dunk)
2-year-old filly – Stardom Bound (should be a unanimous vote)
3-year-old male – Big Brown (there might be a few stragglers that voted against him)
3-year-old filly – Proud Spell over Eight Belles (performance should win out over sentiment)
older male – Curlin (slam dunk)
older female – Zenyatta (should be unanimous, though I am reminded that some sports writers didn’t vote for Rickey Henderson to get in the Baseball Hall of Fame)
male sprinter – Midnight Lute (if it’s like boxing, the defending champion should have an advantage, and we’re like boxing, right?). This may have been Bob Baffert’s best training achievement in his career (and he could have three Eclipse winners this year without being a finalist for outstanding trainer!)
female sprinter – Indian Blessing over Ventura (the anti-synthetic track votes may come into play here, diminishing Ventura’s win over Indian Blessing in the Breeders’ Cup)
outstanding owner – Unimaginative voters will probably give this to Stronach Stable, based on the highest earnings (though the 2008 leading owner by money won was Zayat Stable, who was not a finalist). Of the three finalists (Sheikh Mohammed’s Godolphin Racing is the third), IEAH deserves the award if it is strictly based on racetrack performance
outstanding breeder – tough one to call. Adena Springs has the numbers, but the other finalists, Stonerside and WinStar, had very good results from smaller foal crops. With Robert and Janice McNair producing two Breeders’ Cup winners (Midshipman and Raven’s Pass) for Stonerside, they get the nod
trainer – Steve Asmussen, an outstanding horseman and the certain landslide winner (though as I stated in an earlier column, I believe medication positives during the year in question should disqualify individuals or horses from awards consideration)
jockey – Garrett Gomez. Another landslide
apprentice Jockey and steeplechase horse – no clue
Horse of the Year – Curlin, by a comfortable margin…a deserving two-time champion
Tune in to the Paulick Report later tonight to see how wrong I can be!
UPDATE: Due to multiple braincell failure, two hotly contested categories were omitted from the original post.
male turf — Einstein over Conduit. A season of top performances in North America should rate higher than a single Breeders’ Cup win.
female turf — Forever Together (for the same reason as Einstein, even though Goldikova’s BC Mile triumph was nothing short of breathtaking.
Following the 2008 Breeders’ Cup, where European horses had their best results ever, the Paulick Report Daily Poll questioned readers about why the European runners fared so well. Was it the recent California ban on anabolic steroids, leveling the playing field for international runners who have never raced on the medication? Was it the synthetic surface at Santa Anita used for the traditional dirt races? Or were European horses simply better this year? The results were mixed, but 47% of respondents thought the synthetic surface made the biggest difference.
One thing that never crossed my mind was a possible difference in the feed given horses in Europe vs. what they are fed in the United States. Sharon Hinsley, who with her husband runs a public stable in Chicago and Tampa Bay, thinks that could be a factor in the increasing fragility of American-based runners.
Pending the results of scientific research, some ingredients have been banned from feed in Europe, where a movement for “natural” or “green” food ingredients is much farther along than in the U.S. GMO feed (with genetically modified organisms) is labeled as such in European Union countries. (Click here to read about European protests against GMO food.) Nutrition experts here caution us, however, that “natural” products are not necessarily any safer, and that all food ingredients should be monitored and tested.
The following commentary by Sharon Hinsley (who can be reached at Dhhstable1@aol.com) certainly opens for us a new debate about food ingredients, one that has been ongoing in European and Asian countries. Her views do not necessarily reflect those of the Paulick Report, but we think the subject matter is important enough to be discussed. – Ray Paulick
By Sharon Hinsley
My husband and I have been owners and trainer of a public racing stable for over 22 years. As with so many others whose life’s work has been in this industry, we have seen first-hand the increasing fragility of the Thoroughbred and its growing impact on this once-great and beloved sport.
Following the European success in the 2008 Breeders’ Cup at Santa Anita, I couldn’t help but think back to several of the comments voiced in a magazine article about the success of the European runners. For instance, a comment was made that American-bred horses competing in Europe race significantly more than their counterparts here in the United States.
In the same discussion, someone questioned whether changes in the water or type of feed may be contributing to the durability problem. While factors such as racing surface, breeding practices oriented toward speed and precocity, steroids and medication (both legal and otherwise) have dominated the discussions about the seemingly increased fragility of our horses, have we missed some very important and fundamental contributing factors? Could something as basic as what we feed our horses be a part of the durability and soundness problem? Is there something different about the feed given to horses in Europe versus what we feed our horses in the United States?
A review of UK horse feed Web sites shows some interesting terminology not seen associated with horse feed in the United States. For instance, many of the UK feeds contain statements such as “non-GMO” and “Identity Preserved”. GMO stands for Genetically Modified Organism and Identity Preserved refers to quality assurance programs and certifications aimed at ensuring that products can be traced through the entire production cycle so they have not been contaminated by genetically modified organisms.
A genetically modified organism is the result of genetic engineering. Also known as transgenic organisms, they are the product of laboratory processes that take genes from one species and insert them into another in an attempt to obtain a desired characteristic. Although genetic engineering holds great promise, particularly in the field of medicine, its application in the agricultural arena has been primarily focused on herbicide tolerance and pesticide control. By making a crop herbicide resistant, herbicides can be applied over and over again allowing the plant to live while everything else around it dies. This has proven to be economically advantageous for the producers of the herbicides but potentially troublesome for consumers, not to mention the environment. And what of the effect that ingestion of these genetically modified crops might have on horses?
There is a significant difference between what has happened in the United States agriculturally and in many parts of Europe where GMOs have been banned from being grown or used in any feed or food. Within the United States (and Canada), the proliferation of genetically modified organisms within the food supply is troubling, particularly given the high degree of uncertainty that exists with respect to the health effects of GMOs in food. This is equally true for the unknown effects that GMO feed may be having on our horses.
The current technology of genetic engineering is not nearly as precise as most would believe. The insertion of new genetic material is still a highly inaccurate procedure. Unintended side effects are often encountered, and many of these unintended side effects are not well-studied or documented. Genetically modified plants have been known to create toxins. The plant may be significantly altered with respect to its nutrient content, the balance of proteins within the plant may be disrupted, again with unknown consequences. In addition, due to the use of antibiotic resistant marker genes, GMOs may be contributing to increased antibiotic resistance, particularly in critical gut bacteria. GMOs may also be contributing to increases in allergies. The effect of GMOs in what we feed our horses is simply not well-known or understood. In the United States, though, it is likely we are feeding our horses a steady diet of GMO feed. Could this be a contributing factor to the durability issues of the modern Thoroughbred? It is certainly food for thought.
As horsemen we must become educated about what is in our feeds. We cannot assume that the quality of grains we used to get in decades past is the same as what is now in bags of feed. The recipes of our favorite brands may have changed without us even knowing. Oftentimes, we may simply see that bright label saying "new and improved." However, “new and improved” might mean something substantially different from what we would expect it to mean. We must put pressure on our mills to produce non-GMO feed free of pesticide contamination just like our European counterparts have available to them. We need to start asking and validating the contents and quality of the feed we provide to our horses. Even though every horse in the racing business is for sale one way or another, we have a moral obligation to preserve the durability and quality of the breed no matter who owns the horse we raise. Garbage in/garbage out and eventually we are all out of business.
After 48 hours of being told horse racing needs newer and younger and more female fans, Ray Paulick is mad as hell and he isn’t going to take it anymore. He wants to know, among other things: Why does racing hate us old men? Ray’s gavel to snooze button coverage of the 32nd Asian Racing Conference takes a diversion today as he offers stream of consciousness (when conscious) coverage of the final programs from Tokyo, which touch on television, wagering, and the dreaded S.S. (synthetic surfaces).
CONFESSION: I’M AN OLD (55) MAN and am feeling a bit lonely. Racing doesn’t want me anymore. It seems more interested in younger people, men with fulls heads of hair, and women who giggle and love horses but have never bet more than $2 to show on a race. What have I done, to borrow from the Aussies, to hack you off? All I and my fellow old men do is go to your tracks, buy your lousy food, bet till our pockets are empty, and fall asleep on the train on the way home. Yet you would rather cater to people who don’t even like your product. Where’s the love, racing?
It’s not just an American problem, this fixation racing has on replacing the dead with people with a heartbeat. It’s going on in Australia, Hong Kong, Japan. Everywhere horses race, the marketers hate us old men.
Just yesterday, a producer from Fuji television, which broadcasts into 90% of Japanese homes, was lamenting that his Sunday racing telecasts have a demographic that is so old that he can only sell advertising time to rocking chair and walking stick manufacturers. Actually, it isn’t quite that bad, but old men were making up such an increasing percentage of the Sunday racing programs’ audience over the past 10 years (from 47% to 63%) to the point that producers decided to shake up the broadcast and bring in people who knew nothing about racing but had some connection with celebrity. There’s hope for David Hasselhoff over here in Japan!
Worse yet, Fuji’s racing telecast ratings declined over those 10 years, from 7.7 (about 3 million households) to 5.0 (about 2 million). Fuji’s metrics people are very clever, measuring their audience segments into eight categories (two youth, and three each by age group for male and female). The "old man" portion of the audience remained the same over those 10 years, with losses coming in the younger and female segment. So Fuji decided to take it out on the old men by providing programming that was irrelevant or irritating to them.
But wait. The Fuji TV producer, Masanari Funaki, said the younger generation is watching all of television less, not just racing telecasts. They have discovered the Internet, video games and mobile phone networking. Nevertheless, Fuji opted to ignore the old men and provide less information about handicapping and gambling (which us old guys like) and show more personality features, make the program more entertaining and focus more on "the sporting aspects of horse racing."
His reason? "We wanted to catch some of those sports fans who might be channel surfing," Funaki said. "We think it’s very important for viewers to see horse racing programs in the same way they see other sports programs, so we don’t overpromote the gambling aspect and get viewers to see the human element. We show more about jockeys, their histories and their background."
What a fool, I thought.
Not so fast, my friend. "This year’s racing telecast ratings are up," Funaki said.
Fuji TV also developed a Saturday night midnight racing telecast that focuses on handicapping the Sunday race, using well-known handicappers from six Tokyo newspapers who scream at each other about how stupid they are.Kind of like the three talking heads on TVG. "Those programs are very popular with younger men," Funaki said.
In my country, Mr. Funaki, old men are asleep by midnight.
SOMEONE ELSE ON THE TELEVISION PANEL SET UP A HORSEY PINATA representing the American racing industry and people took turns whacking it and reminding us of how stupid we are in the United States.
Those guys from the United Kingdom and Australia are so smart, just because they know how to tell time. Smug. They have a 3 o’clock race at Ascot and a 3;15 at Lingfield in the UK, and in Australia (where the clocks are upside down), they manage to televise about 12,000 horse races every day without having any post times overlapping with one another. The reason? Apparently, they can maximize wagering by coordinating post times for the races.
In America, experience has shown that it’s much better to have three races from major tracks all start at exactly the same time, so that simulcast or account wagering customers have to choose between races rather than bet on all three. It’s called maximizing stupidity, or something like that. "America’s most famous racetracks have races going off right on top of each other," said Brendan Parnell, chief operating officer for Australia’s Tabcorp. "They are cannibalizing or eating each other’s lunch and missing great opportunities. People are getting shut out."
Whack! Take that, you damned Yankees.
OLD MEN AREN’T THE ONLY ENEMIES OF RACING. So are governments, who set and enforce ominous hurdles that keep the sport from seizing on some great opportunities, such as a "global bet." (Aren’t most governments and racing regulatory bodies run by old men? Yes!)
John Stuart, who carries the creative title "director of international marketing and operations" for the make-believe Phumelela Gaming and Leisure Co. (what, there really is a place called Phumelela?), presented a science fiction video about a global horse bet called the "Universal," where fans in any country pick the first eight finishers of a big international race like the Japan Cup and create a betting pool in excess of a billion dollars. "Had Barack Obama been watching that," Stuart said, "he’d be shouting ‘yes, we can,’ ‘yes, we can.’ So should we be."
Of course, that will never happen because too many governments have protectionist laws prohibiting commingling of betting pools from one country to another. Plus, the American totalizator companies would still be accepting bets after the race is over.
A SERIES OF PRESENTATIONS ON MEDICATION featuring dreadfully boring attorneys and veterinarians has just about everyone in the room nodding off until a snappy Q&A segment near the end when the moderator directed a question about illegal drugs to Brian Stewart, head of veterinary regulation and international liaison to the Hong Kong Jockey Club. Specifically, Stewart was asked by Australian turf editor Bart Sinclair whether blood-doping agents like EPO, which have plagued cycling and some other sports, are being used in racing. Stewart nodded to the affirmative. "How big a problem is EPO?" Sinclair asked. "I’d say it’s widepread," Stewart said. That sent many Asian Racing Federation delegates straight to the bar for a stiff one.
THERE ALSO WAS MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT HANDICAPPING INFORMATION. What should be given to these young fans who don’t exist yet? How should we deliver information to them? Gift wrapped with local currency, I think.
Howard Wright, senior editor for England’s Racing Post and one of the people in the media who "gets it," had me going there for a minute when he said the racing industry in Great Britain actually wants to make money from newspapers for providing information about horse racing to fans. Good one, Howard. They can’t be that arrogant over there, can they? Seems like the industry should be paying newspapers to promote the sport, not the other way around.
Howard, like me, is a slightly grumpy old man who does see the need for racing to replace those of us who will soon be pushing daisies. He also understands these young kids today don’t know how to read a newspaper, but doesn’t think the traditional ways of providing handicapping information (Racing Post, Daily Racing Form) should be abandoned. "One size fits all no longer applies," he said. "The media has to find ways of satisfying its traditional horse racing audience while also accommodating the PlayStation generation, who want their involvement presented in small pieces and want it now." It’s time for "Racing Form Lite" he said. Tastes great, less filling!
Howard also mentioned the budget cutbacks in most daily newspapers (e.g., they are dying faster than us old men), and suggested that racing isn’t alone in having its editorial space reduced. "Racing will never beat football," he reminded. Someone got out the Pinata again and started talking about how American newspapers have stopped covering horse racing altogether. Whack, whack, whack!
SOMEONE SUGGESTED THIS NEW THING CALLED THE INTERNET might be a good way to deliver information to these newbies. That’s where the kids are hanging out these days, aren’t they? To strategerize about this, the Asian Racing Federation found a really smart kid, Koichi Yamamoto, who must be the youngest senior research director the Dentsu Institute has ever had. (He got his MBA from Columbia University when he was, like, 12 years old.)
Yamamoto outlined how blogs and social networking have changed things and talked about how businsses need to reach "new influencers," people who are constantly communicating online by networking and commenting on blogs and never breathing fresh air. These "new influencers" might not be as informed as us old guys or as opinioned; in fact, they are more easy to influence than us stick in the mud types, Yamamoto said. But don’t inundate these "new influencers" with gibberish, he said, because they are adept at filtering out useless crap. "Only the most attractive and relevant information gets through," he said.
If the message gets through, however, Katy bar the door. Word of mouth is the new king, he said. Social trends spread at lightning speed. "People want to tell friends about things that at least some people know, but not too many people know," Yamamoto said. "The topicality window opens faster and closes faster."
Yamamoto said the newbs are hip to the trick of marketing people. "Increasingly sophisticated consumers can easily see through marketing schemes," he said. "Relationships with these consumers is more important than ever. Strong relationships turn information-filtering consumers into information-hungry consumers."
Can I get a translator please?
"WHAT IF STEVE JOBS WERE TO ENTER THE RACING INDUSTRY? How would Apple innovate the customer experience?" Those questions were asked by Edward Tse, a McKinsey and Co. consultant to the Hong Kong Jockey Club who encouraged racing associations to think more innovatively than they have done in the past. Tse reviewed the depressing statistics that show pari-mutuel handle losing altitude and asked if it is sufficient to simply launch new bet types, which many racing associations have tried. "Or," he asked, "do we need a new approach?"
He then listed six building blocks needed for innovation: 1) tax reform and product pricing; 2) customer segment expansion; 3) channel innovation and expansion; 4) product and service innovation; 5) image or brand building; 6) customer relationship management/loyalty.
Savvy guys like Tse do all sorts of analytics, and he said the most valuable ones are predictive in nature: in other words, get a swami to crunch your numbers. Short of that, he said, try and get predictive analytics that answer the following questions: What’s the best thing that can happen? What will happen next? If these trends continue, why?
Tse said companies that do this well include Capital One, the annoying credit card company that fills your mailbox with junk every day, the consumer electronics store Best Buy (news of their current problems hadn’t reached Tse yet), and the Harrah’s casino company, which he said "revolutionized the casino industry by adopting highly analytic customer focused innovation."
Harrah’s, he said, separates all of its customers into segments by profit potential, drives those customers to aspire to a higher level, optimizes placement of its slot machines in the best locations, and uses customer satisfaction measurements to shape their business plan. The whole point of this is to separate the customers from their money, and Harrah’s is extremely good at that.
Back to racing. Tse insisted that new approaches to the customer experience are required to modernize the industry. Following Harrah’s lead, racing associations must use deep customer segmentation and analytics as the foundation for innovation. "For most racing organizations," Tse said, "this will require a different mindset and new skills."
Unfortunately, many people with those skills end up working at a company like Apple.
DO LOWER PRICES INCREASE SALES? The Hong Kong Jockey Club was curious to see if the cost of a bet could affect how much is wagered, so they tried something foreign to most horseplayers: they lowered prices. Specifically, the HKJC offered rebates for losing bets made by some of their highest-rolling customers. The net result: players who received rebates, thereby effectively lowering their takeout, wagered more.
It wasn’t that easy, though. To give rebates, the HKJC had to cut a deal with government that gave them the flexibility to offer innovative programs like rebates. The agreement worked both ways, with the HKJC guaranteeing HK$8 billion in annual revenue to the government, more than they’d gotten the previous year. The HKJC wanted to expand the number of race days from 78 a year and the number of commingled simulcasts from 10. The government didn’t budge on those requests.
The rebates were for losing bets of HK$10,000 and up (about US$1,200) on win, place, quinella and quinella place wagers. To coincide with the introduction of the bets, the HKJC convinced 500 bettors from different wagering segments (frequent, occasional, big bettors, small bettors) to allow their betting to be tracked for analytical purposes. Not surprisingly, big, frequent players took advantage of the rebates the most, effectively lowering takeout from 18.7% to 16.9% and increasing the volume of their bets by having more money to churn. For the occasional and smaller players, the rebate and lure of lower takeout made little or no difference.
The rebates were funded by the HKJC, which looked at them as a marketing investment in their future. Handle increased, but not to the extent that it paid for itself. Bill Nader, the former New York Racing Association chief operating officer who is now executive director of the HKJC, said the organization hopes it will pay dividends in the long run.
MR. SEKIGUCHI, WHERE ARE YOU? Fusaro Sekiguchi, the flamboyant Japanese businessman who raced Fusaichi Sekuguchi to victory in the 2000 Kentucky Derby and has been a major buyer at foal and yearling sales around the world over the last decade, has been keeping a very low profile in his native Japan recently.
Some Japanese racing insiders have said he has sold most of his horses and others have suggested the global credit crunch may have dealt him a severe blow. Last time I saw him was in the paddock of the Tokyo Race Course at the Japan Cup a couple of year ago, where he was nattily dressed as usual. Sekiguchi has had some ups and downs in his racing and business career (famously failing to pay Keeneland on some yearling purchases prior to buying FuPeg for $4 million, and later getting fired by the company he started), and he always seems to land on his feet.
Here’s hoping we see him in the winner’s circle again real soon.
DARLEY JAPAN FARM EXPANDING: Darley Japan Farm, the Japanese breeding entity on Hokkaido owned by Ken Mishima, has expanded with the purchase of Nishiyama Farm, whose previous owner raced Paradise Creek, winner of the Eclipse Award as outstanding turf male in 1994. Though it’s a bit confusing, Darley Japan Farm and Darley Japan (which stands stallions) are separate entities, in part because of the licensing peculiarities of the JRA that require Japanese owners of breeding farms.
FINALLY, THE GRAND FINALE THAT WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING FORWARD TO…the "cage match" discussion arguing the merits of synthetic surfaces.
Ian Pearse of Pro-Ride surfaces of Australia, bragged on the results of the Breeders’ Cup at Santa Anita while Michael Dickinson, waiting for his turn to speak about his creation, Tapeta Footings, sat patiently onstage sticking pins into a voodoo doll that resembled Ron Charles, who chose Pro-Ride over Tapeta for Santa Anita, host of the 2008 and 2009 world championships.
Raji Jayaraju then sang the praises of the synthetic surface installed at the Singapore Turf Club track where he is senior manager. Singapore’s new track has been very useful because of the heavy rain they get in Singapore that often leaves the turf course extremely soggy. Jockeys and trainers said in a video that the synthetic track was terrific (under threat of a caning?).
Dr. Toshiyushi Takahashi, a representative of the JRA, presented some scientific research that showed why synthetic tracks might be safer than Japanese dirt tracks. The JRA installed synthetic material on one of its training tracks and compared hoof impact between dirt and synthetic tracks, measuring the velocity of impact and time of hoof stabilization at impact. Dr. Takahashi summarized by saying that synthetic tracks are more stable and provide more traction than dirt or wood chip tracks, and are more constant at the time of hoof landing.
But that science is meaningless in the face of comments from turf writers and horse players who are more concerned with tradition and form than the safety of horses.
"To those of you who train, for those of you who’ve got sand and dirt tracks, please switch to synthetics," Dickinson said. when asked about safety. "Whether you go with Tapeta, Pro-Ride or my good friend Martin Collins’ Polytrack, please change. It’s much safer for the horses." Apparently, someone "got to" the panelists and said no name calling. Cage match cancelled.
That’s it from the Asian Racing Conference. I’ll summarize what I’ve learned over these last few days in a forthcoming commentary.
Turns out that wasn’t an illusion earlier this year when Colonel John seemed to catch another gear just as the wire was approaching in the 1 1/8-mile Santa Anita Derby. The rest of the field looked to be in deep water and the muscular bay son of Tiznow was skipping along on the surface as if he had just entered the fray. His margin of victory that day was only a half-length, but it was the way he did it that was so impressive.
That’s why I thought the mile and a quarter of the Kentucky Derby would be right up Colonel John’s alley. There was some skepticism because it didn’t appear to be a very strong group of 3-year-olds in California prepping for the Classics, and the horse he caught in the final sixteenth of a mile, Bob Black Jack, was a stretching-out sprinter. Nevertheless, I thought Colonel John had what it took to become the 134th winner of the Run for the Roses.
Big Brown ran Colonel John and everyone else off the track that first Saturday in May. It was no contest, really, especially when you consider how much ground Big Brown lost. Colonel John had a nightmare trip, getting virtually eliminated right after the start, when he was pinched back and steadied, then raced into a wall of flying dirt down the stretch the first time. Midway down the backstretch, Colonel John put in a strong run from 16th in the 20-horse field to get as close sixth, but he had nothing left for the final quarter mile.
The team of WinStar Farm and trainer Eoin Harty went back to the drawing board after Colonel John’s disappointing sixth-place result in Kentucky, bringing him back two months later in the Swaps Stakes at Hollywood Park (he finished a close third in a four-horse field) but circling Aug. 23 on the calendar as THE day to seek redemption in the 139th running of the Travers. For despite winning four of his first six races, being a Grade 1 winner, and going into the Kentucky Derby as the second betting choice, Colonel John was still carrying that dreaded new moniker: Synthetic Horse. He had yet to win on a racetrack made of real dirt.
Outside of Churchill Downs, no dirt is more hallowed than that which covers the main track oval at Saratoga racetrack in upstate New York. But Harty kept Colonel John in California almost up to the last minute, working him like clockwork every six or seven days on Del Mar’s Polytrack. Garrett Gomez, racing’s current “go to” big race jockey, would travel east for the mount after replacing Corey Nakatani in the Swaps following the disastrous Kentucky Derby run.
In the crowded, 12-horse Travers field, Gomez didn’t get the smoothest of trips, either. Belmont Stakes winner Da’ Tara led for the first mile of the mile and a quarter “Midsummer Derby,” with Gomez and Colonel tracking him all the way. At the top of the stretch, Colonel John was ready to take off, but Gomez was in tight and had to angle out sharply to avoid clipping the heels of Tale of Ekati to his inside and Da’ Tara, who was directly in front of him. Once clear, Colonel John took dead aim at Da’ Tara and put that stubborn rival away. But quickly joining the fray after rallying around horses on the turn for home was Mambo in Seattle, a late-developing Kingmambo colt who ran on Derby day at Churchill Downs, finishing second in an entry-level allowance race. He breezed through his allowance conditions after that and won a restricted stakes at Saratoga in late July, his first-added money effort. Trainer Neil Howard, who is always dangerous with a loaded gun, had Mambo in Seattle ready for the race of his life, and the colt did everything but win the Travers.
In fact, jockey Robbie Albarado thought he’d won the race, waving his whip in celebration at the wire, and ESPN commentators took the bait, interviewing him as the apparent winner as he jogged back to have his picture taken. But the bob of the head went to Colonel John, whose margin of victory could be measured in millimeters.
The Travers is the second most coveted race for a 3-year-old colt after the Kentucky Derby – at least among breeders. The victory, though the margin could not have been narrower, was huge for the stallion potential of Colonel John, who threw the synthetic monkey off his powerful shoulders. The result also sets up the potential for a most interesting Breeders’ Cup Classic on Santa Anita’s new Pro-Ride synthetic surface, if (and it’s a big if) Big Brown shows up. Right now, the connections of Big Brown say that’s where they are heading after the son of Boundary preps in a specially created turf race at Monmouth Park next month.
As for Mambo in Seattle, he is a colt of great talent who was unlucky to lose. He’ll have his chance at Grade 1 glory down the road, and will be to a force later this year and in 2009 for co-owners Will Farish and Mrs. William Kilroy. His pedigree (Kingmambo out of Weekend in Seattle, by Seattle Slew) assures that he will have every opportunity at stud when his racing days are over.
After all the problems Santa Anita experienced with its Cushion Track synthetic surface this past season, why did track management decide not to go back to a conventional dirt track and instead commit to installing a synthetic surface manufactured by the Australian company Pro-Ride? Aside from the fact the California Horse Racing Board has mandated all major California racetracks use synthetics instead of dirt for their main surface, Santa Anita was merely following the wishes of horsemen who were asked which type of surface they preferred.
The decision by Santa Anita management took on added significance because the Breeders’ Cup world championships will be contested there in both 2008 and 2009, marking the first time the former dirt races will be held over a synthetic racetrack.
In March of this year, Ed Halpern, the executive director of the California Thoroughbred Trainers, sent a letter to Magna executive Frank Stronach and Ron Charles detailing the results of a survey conducted among Santa Anita-based trainers. The Paulick Report obtained a copy of that letter.
The letter begins: “The board of directors of the California Thoroughbred Trainers has asked that I write to request that you take whatever action may be necessary to retain a synthetic surface at Santa Anita. One only needs to look at the facts to support this conclusion. Since the introduction of synthetic surfaces in California, barn areas are now filled, trainers have moved to California from across the country, field size has grown dramatically, injuries are down, and horses are racing more often. Those facts speak loudly and are irrefutable.”
Halpern then outlined the survey, which asked trainers to rate their surface preference five different ways:
-Strongly favor dirt
-Favor dirt
-Neutral
-Favor synthetics
-Strongly favor synthetics
Trainers were contacted personally and could sign their name or respond anonymously. Ninety-two of 115 trainers with horses in training at Santa Anita responded.
To quote further from Halpern’s letter:
“Of all those responding who strongly favored dirt or strongly favored synthetics, 70% strongly favored synthetics.
“Of all those responding who indicated that they either strong favored or just favored dirt or synthetics, 70% favored synthetics.”
Eleven trainers were neutral.
Trainers representing 90% of the horses in training at Santa Anita favor synthetics, according to Halpern. “Hence, there is is overwhelming support for synthetics from trainers who have trained at Santa Anita,” Halpern wrote. “That support exists in spite of the problems that were encountered due to the failure of the Cushion Track product. Trainers favoring synthetics cited numerous reasons for their support. They indicated that their support was based on a significant decrease in injuries, the ability to continue to train and run on a safe and non-sealed surface, even during periods of rain, and the ability to train horses through minor injuries. The latter benefit means significant and substantial savings for owners who no longer need to turn out horses for months before resuming training.”
One month later, the CTT sent a second letter to Stronach and Charles with the results of a survey of trainers based at the Northern California racetrack, Golden Gate Fields, also owned by Magna Entertainment. Golden Gate has a Tapeta Footings synthetic surface.
Here is how those 53 trainers responded:
-Strongly prefer dirt…2
-Prefer dirt…3
-No preference…3
-Favor synthetic…17
-Strongly favor synthetic…28
The opinions of California trainers seem to be supported by statistics obtained by the Paulick Report. At every California track where synthetic surfaces have been installed, the number of fatalities per 1,000 has declined, as follows:
Hollywood Park
Before synthetics, 2.87 per 1,000; after synthetics, 0.97 per 1,000 Del Mar
Before synthetics, 2.47 per 1,000; after synthetics, 0.81 Santa Anita
Before synthetics, 2.81; after synthetics, 1.71 Golden Gate Fields
Before synthetics, 3.90; after synthetics, 2.50 Bay Meadows (did not convert to synthetics)
Conventional dirt, 3.19
Aggregate
Before synthetics, 3.19; after synthetics, 1.37
A national survey of races charting horses that did not finish (DNF) a race due to various factors shows the following percentages on different surfaces:
Inquiring minds may want to know…will Michael Iavarone of IEAH Stable have more bodyguards than Jess Jackson? How big will Frank Stronach’s posse be? Who will take the first punch at the publisher of the Paulick Report? Iavarone (I’m no fan of his), trainer Steve Asmussen (I wrote that no trainer with a pending drug positive deserves an Eclipse Award) or my former boss, Bloodhorse publisher Stacy Bearse (who needs no further introduction to our faithful readers)? We’ll try to answer those questions and more, going behind the scenes as best we can.
In my country, Mr. Funaki, old men are asleep by midnight.
which have plagued cycling and some other sports, are being used in racing. Stewart nodded to the affirmative. "How big a problem is EPO?" Sinclair asked. "I’d say it’s widepread," Stewart said. That sent many Asian Racing Federation delegates straight to the bar for a stiff one.
It wasn’t that easy, though. To give rebates, the HKJC had to cut a deal with government that gave them the flexibility to offer innovative programs like rebates. The agreement worked both ways, with the HKJC guaranteeing HK$8 billion in annual revenue to the government, more than they’d gotten the previous year. The HKJC wanted to expand the number of race days from 78 a year and the number of commingled simulcasts from 10. The government didn’t budge on those requests.
Some Japanese racing insiders have said he has sold most of his horses and others have suggested the global credit crunch may have dealt him a severe blow. Last time I saw him was in the paddock of the Tokyo Race Course at the Japan Cup a couple of year ago, where he was nattily dressed as usual. Sekiguchi has had some ups and downs in his racing and business career (famously failing to pay Keeneland on some yearling purchases prior to buying FuPeg for $4 million, and later getting fired by the company he started), and he always seems to land on his feet.
Raji Jayaraju then sang the praises of the synthetic surface installed at the Singapore Turf Club track where he is senior manager. Singapore’s new track has been very useful because of the heavy rain they get in Singapore that often leaves the turf course extremely soggy. Jockeys and trainers said in a video that the synthetic track was terrific (under threat of a caning?).