Horse racing

Kentucky and Texas: A tale of two states

Kentucky, as it turns out, and somewhat surprisingly, is very much like Texas. Or maybe the larger truth is that politicians are the same everywhere.

A majority of the citizens in both Texas and Kentucky, according to polls, would like to permit slot machines at racetracks to stanch the flow of millions of dollars (billions, actually, in Texas) to neighboring states, where gaming has proliferated at riverboats and casinos and racinos (which combine racetracks and casinos). Most important, a majority of people in both states advocate moves to save the troubled horse industry. Horses are essential to the character and tradition of both Texas and Kentucky.

But both states’ politicians have rejected plans that would do just that. Yes, it does amaze, unless you’re wise in the ways of politics, I suppose. And I’m not. Without being political myself, I have to suspect, with some amazement, that these failures represent profound and systemic shortcomings in the political process. I suppose what I'm saying is that like many Americans I'm losing faith in government and politics.

Kentucky is a commonwealth, which means it’s governed according to the common consent of the people. But that’s really a joke, isn’t it?

The people, according to the polls, wanted slot machines at racetracks. And if there had been some doubt about the validity of that sentiment, some hesitation about its sincerity, then the politicians could have let the people vote, as in government by common consent. Isn't that what Kentucky's about? But, no, the people didn't vote; a committee voted. After the House had passed it, the Senate Appropriations and Revenue Committee killed the slots-at-the-racetracks bill by a 10-5 vote Monday. Ten people decided for the entire state. Ten.

David Williams, the powerful president of the Kentucky Senate, explained his opposition to helping the racetracks by saying he didn’t think the people of his state could afford to gamble. He put himself in the role of the good Samaritan looking after his fellow citizens.

Don’t you love that? Isn’t that one of the greatest crusted-with-ground-pepper ironies of all-time? These Kentuckians, who have been betting with both hands since the 19th century, who have embraced many, many racetracks over the years, who host the world’s most famous horse race and who regularly slip across the border to Indiana to bet about $700 million or so annually on that state’s riverboats, have to be protected from gambling by a self-appointed guardian of moral and financial rectitude. Whatever Williams’ real motive was for opposing the legislation, it had nothing to do with saving Kentuckians from gambling.

Yes, this failure severely damages horse racing in Kentucky, just as a similar and recent setback was devastating in Texas. To survive, racetracks in both states will have to figure out ways to improve their product and their services without gaming. But perhaps more alarming is the failure of government: Some politicians have become so powerful that they can subordinate the will of the people, indeed the welfare of the state, of two states, to their own desires.

What's next for the big talent known as Big Drama?

David Fawkes is surrounded by opportunities and options, by colorful packages with decorative ribbons and bows. The problem is he can’t have them all, or rather he can’t open them all simultaneously, and so he has to choose. And the choices are tough.

Fawkes, of course, trains one of the country’s best 3-year-olds in Big Drama, who appears capable of competing at the highest level at a variety of distances, from three-quarters of a mile to – well, certainly to 1 1/8 miles. His performance Saturday night at Charles Town in the Red Legend Stakes sparkled. It was nothing short of sensational.

Don’t disparage the race because it was run at Charles Town. Some talented horses were entered, but they barely warmed up Big Drama. He broke sharply, relaxed encouragingly under a firm hold, dragged jockey Eibar Coa to the leaders in the second turn and then drew clear with an explosive surge down the stretch to win by seven lengths, completing the seven furlongs in 1:24. It was the ideal prep. But a prep for what exactly?

“Right now, we’re looking at the Haskell,” Fawkes said, “and we’re looking at the King’s Bishop.” The connections are also looking, he said, at the West Virginia Derby and, further down the road, at the Breeders’ Cup, although which Breeders’ Cup race is hard to say. But that’s the sort of horse Big Drama is: He can be considered simultaneously for a major race at seven furlongs and another at nine furlongs and for no fewer than three Breeders’ Cup races.

He has won six of his nine outings, and that includes a disqualification after finishing first in the Swale Stakes at Gulfstream Park. With his victory at Charles Town, the handsome son of Montbrook went over a million bucks in earnings.

He never has run a poor race, having won from three-quarters of a mile to a mile and a sixteenth. He finished fifth in the Preakness, but even there he was tenacious, despite having every reason to capitulate, despite just about everything going wrong for him.

“It all started with Rachel,” Fawkes said, referring to Rachel Alexandra’s joining the Triple Crown party at Pimlico. “Her running style made things more difficult. And then we drew the one-hole. He acted up in the gate – when I heard somebody was acting up, I couldn’t believe it was him; he’s never done that. And the race didn’t set up for him.”

And that morning, Fawkes said, Big Drama became cast in his stall, rolling into a position where he couldn’t get his legs underneath him. Nothing went right, in other words, and still he ran fifth, about five lengths behind Rachel Alexandra at the wire. But he got back into the winning habit at Charles Town, and his performance there suggests he could be a major player in the division for the remainder of the year.

Zenyatta, Rachel and Julie Newmar: Where beauty, popularity and accomplishment converge.

This is embarrassing: Zenyatta sits atop the NTRA poll. She received nine of the 19 first-place votes. Rachel Alexandra received five, Well Armed four and Einstein one.

I find it embarrassing because I participate in the poll, share some responsibility for it. When it came out Monday afternoon I felt as I sometimes do when my newspaper has printed an especially weak or poorly written story or when an American tourist has flashed the Queen or when a swarm of rude journalists has entered a locker room: guilty by association.

Rachel Alexandra, as you’ve probably guessed, occupied the top spot on my ballot. I had Zenyatta at, I believe, No. 8, which I thought a kindness. So far, she really hasn’t done anything to be considered for Horse of the Year, and that’s how I approach the poll: If the voting were today, based on accomplishments to this point, how would you rank the candidates for Horse of the Year. 

I recently put Rachel Alexandra’s odds of being Horse of the Year at 4-1. And I would have put her at 5-2 if the Breeders’ Cup “championship” races were going to be run on real rather than faux dirt. The line, of course, is a projection; it looks ahead to the end of the year. And so somebody who believes that, say, Martians will kidnap Rachel Alexandra and that she won’t race again on this planet, that person may want to dispute her favoritism and make somebody else the HOY front-runner. Fine. But clearly, at this point, on June 16, she’s the most accomplished horse in the country and should be No. 1 in the poll.

As for Zenyatta, I love her. Even if she didn’t remind me of Julie Newmar, I’d love her. Nevertheless, I’m embarrassed Zenyatta sits at No. 1 because she hasn’t done much more than Julie Newmar to earn the ranking. Zenyatta certainly hasn’t put together the sort of campaign that deserves consideration for the sport’s top honor; she didn’t last year and she probably won’t this year. But she sits atop the poll and she’ll receive HOY votes simply because of her popularity.

That’s why I found it very amusing that somebody responded to my making Rachel Alexandra the HOY favorite by warning me against confusing popularity and accomplishment. Does that imply that Zenyatta, or any other horse in North America, has accomplished more than Rachel Alexandra this year?

Well, let’s look at Zenyatta’s accomplishments, or rather her accomplishment: By less than two lengths, she won the Milady Handicap in a six-horse field, where the only real threat was her stablemate, Life Is Sweet. That’s it so far. But Zenyatta sits atop the poll. If her connections follow their plan to stay in California and to continue running against the same hapless bunch, Zenyatta will win the Vanity, the Clement Hirsch, the Lady’s Secret and then the Breeders’ Cup Distaff, or Ladies’ Classic, as it’s now called. That’s not a campaign for Horse of the Year; that’s a campaign for Miss California.

That campaign wouldn’t even compare to what Rachel Alexandra already has accomplished this year – five stakes victories (at four tracks, by the way), including a 20-length romp in the country’s most prestigious race for 3-year-old fillies and a tenacious decision over the Kentucky Derby winner in an American classic.

And yet Zenyatta sits atop the NTRA poll? Based on what exactly? Well, based on her popularity with 19 voters, among whom nine are apparently eager to demonstrate that they possess wild imaginations.

Because of the small sample, the NTRA poll can slip -- on a banana peel no doubt -- to the level of opera bouffe from time to time, and this is one of those times. Based on her single accomplishment this year, you have to stretch just to include Zenyatta in the top 10, and placing her atop the poll is just, well, silly.

Some voters, I know, will justify such a vote by saying Zenyatta would win in a race. Really? Are you sure about that? A match race? I rather doubt it. But some folks regard voting for Horse of the Year as a surreal handicapping challenge and ask themselves (I’ve actually heard somebody put this question to himself): If all the horses who have run in North America were to line up in the starting gate together for a race, who would win?

Yes, of course, this is absurd. How far are they racing -- six furlongs, a mile, 1 1/4 miles? On what surface – turf, dirt, faux dirt? At what track, around how large an oval? And where, I can’t help but wonder, are we ever going to come up with all the jockeys? Aren’t we going to draw post positions before we have to choose because, well, the horse coming out of the 25,346-hole might be just a wee bit compromised? And isn’t this the subject of a play by Samuel Beckett? Yes, it’s absurdity squared.

But aside from imaginary races involving thousands of horses, if the level of performance is going to be an important factor in the voting, then how are you going to determine it? Do you rely on those popular numbers that attempt to quantify performances, numbers handed down by specious mathematicians who may know very little about horses and may not have even seen the races, or perhaps on numbers that represent a computer’s refined and objective distillation of stark data? Well, all such numbers are flawed. A reality that’s as complex as a horse race cannot be reduced to a number, or even a few numbers. According to my numbers -- I make my own, and they're also flawed, and hardly comprehensive, but I trust them, or rather I trust them more than the others -- the best performances (in two-turn races) of the year have been turned in by Quality Road, I Want Revenge and Rachel Alexandra. Zenyatta's performance is a few lengths back. But that hardly matters. Somebody else’s numbers might suggest something else, and another person’s numbers something else entirely, but shouldn’t we talk about horses and about what they win and whom they beat, about, in other words, accomplishments? Not about numbers. (I'm often reminded of a particularly offensive self-styled pundit who once proclaimed Ten Most Wanted's greatest accomplishment to be his 110. No, you fool, his greatest accomplishment was winning the Travers.)

In other words, shouldn’t the NTRA poll and ultimately the golden Eclipse Award be determined by horses’ accomplishments, not their popularity and certainly not their numbers? Well, in terms of accomplishments in 2009, neither Zenyatta nor Julie Newmar can compare with Rachel Alexandra. 

A line on the race to be Horse of the Year

With the running of the Belmont Stakes, horse racing’s first season has concluded. And with the running of the Stephen Foster, the second season has begun.

This, of course, is the championship season, which culminates with the Breeders’ Cup feast and, perhaps, some postprandial cigars and brandy (Gazelle, Cigar Mile, Remsen, Hollywood Starlet and CashCall Futurity). The Triple Crown season usually determines the champion 3-year-old, but with three different winners this year and with Quality Road preparing for a return, even that division offers a title to be won.

Yes, this is the championship season, these next five months, a time for seizing guerdon, including the most revered prize, Horse Of The Year. Most of the serious players for the top honor have stepped onto the stage, if only briefly, to announce themselves. some more loudly than others. Some flashy 2-year-olds will no doubt emerge over the next few months; but even the most dazzling juveniles rarely accumulate sufficient accomplishments to be considered for Horse Of The Year. And several impressive Europeans almost certainly will aim for some of America’s richest prizes, but a single start here, or even two, may not suffice to win the golden Eclipse Award.

Already, connections with Rachel Alexandra and Einstein have indicated that their goal is to win Horse Of The Year. And so it’s reasonable, I think, to speculate about the foremost contenders for that honor and about what they’ll have to do in this championship season to win it. With that in mind, here’s a line on the race for Horse Of The Year:

1. Rachel Alexandra: 4-1
2. Einstein: 9-2
3. Zenyatta: 5-1
4. Well Armed: 8-1
5. Mine That Bird: 10-1
6. Quality Road: 15-1
7. Gio Ponti: 30-1
8. Summer Bird: 30-1
9. Macho Again: 40-1
10. All others: 6-1

If the voting for Horse of the Year were today, Rachel Alexandra probably would win. With her victory over males in the Preakenss, she satisfied the historical imperatives. And so she can remain within her division, where she’s dominant – and she appears to be aimed at the Mother Goose -- and still have a solid argument that she’s deserving. With another victory against the "boys" or a superlative effort against older fillies and mares, she would be golden indeed. 

If the voting were today for the sport’s most versatile performer, Einstein would win it. The venerable winner of the Santa Anita Handicap and Churchill's Turf Classic, he didn’t lose a soupcon of popular admiration when third in the Stephen Foster, where he had a troubled trip. If he could win the Arlington Million or the Pacific Classic and then the Breeders’ Cup Classic, he would have a golden resume.

And if the voting were today for the sport’s most spectacular performer, Zenyatta would win. If her connections decide to keep her in California and to race her exclusively within her division, she’ll probably continue to dazzle and dominate. But if she’s to win the golden Eclipse Award, she’ll probably have to accept a grander challenge by taking on males in perhaps the Pacific Classic or by traveling east. Either way, when she’s done, everybody who ever saw her will be thankful for having had the privilege.

The Breeders' Cup souffle

The Breeders’ Cup already is starting to look like a souffle. More puff than substance. It already has that limp anticlimactic expression that accompanies a predictable punch line.

Last year, as you no doubt recall, the sport’s championship event at Santa Anita turned into a turf festival, where the Europeans played starring roles. Now, I have nothing against festivals or Europeans – I’ve been known to celebrate both -- but when an event is billed as a championship contest of one sort, it’s disconcerting to discover that it suddenly has become a contest of a different sort altogether.

A hypothetical and extreme example: If Wladimir Klitschko and Chris Arreola were to meet in something billed as the heavyweight championship of the world, you wouldn’t want to arrive at the auditorium and discover that they’re going to play chess. In fact, Arreola probably wouldn’t show up for a chess match.

And that’s what could happen to the Breeders’ Cup so-called World Thoroughbred Championships. I suspect many of the country’s best horses, especially those based in the East, won’t travel to California for the Nov. 6-7 turf festival. Unless, of course, they’re turf horses. And who can blame them?

Last year, all the Breeders’ Cup “dirt” races were won by horses who had raced on turf or on synthetic surfaces. Not by horses who had built their reputations racing on dirt. No horse who had raced exclusively on dirt was successful in any of the Breeders’ Cup “dirt” races. What dirt? There was no dirt. Indeed it has become quite obvious that Santa Anita’s Pro-Ride surface plays more like a turf course than a conventional dirt track.

And after the experience of 2008, how many of the country’s top horses will travel to Santa Anita this year? The country’s best sprinter, Fabulous Strike, obviously doesn’t like the faux dirt – he finished fifth last year at Santa Anita. Jess Jackson has indicated he’s reluctant to race Rachel Alexandra on a synthetic track. Except for Pioneerof The Nile, most of the best 3-year-olds have never raced on a synthetic surface or they’ve already indicated they don’t particularly like the stuff.

And so in terms of championship implications, this year’s Breeders’ Cup could become the least significant in history. The other side of this, of course, is that the major stakes over the next four or five months will only grow in importance. We could see retro-values, retro-thinking. The Vosburgh, for example, could determine the champion sprinter, the Champagne the champion 2-year-old and the Jockey Club Gold Cup the champion handicap horse. And the Breeders’ Cup, no doubt, will be a wonderful turf festival, but it’ll be an anticlimactic souffle.

The sport's sick, but not dead

And so the numbers continue to tumble, as if from the top bunk when awakened by a fire alarm in the middle of the night. Plop, flop, to the floor, screaming.

But what do you expect: The people who regulate the sport in many cases don’t know anything about it, and the executives who manage the nation’s racetracks in many cases don’t have so much as a vague understanding of the very product they’re selling, which is betting on horses.

And so in May, handle for American racing fell 8.26 percent, from $1.50 billion in 2008 to $1.38 billion, according to Equibase. That was the good news. For the first five months of the year, wagering on American races has fallen 9.22 percent from a year ago.

And, keep in mind, last year was horrible. In 2008, handle fell as if it were in a laundry chute, dropping 7.16 percent from 2007.

The sport’s shrinking, that much is clear, but will it shrink to nothing in some regions? Racetracks are cancelling dates, some racetracks will be sold, some could soon disappear and everybody’s blaming the economy. That has always been the way: Blame somebody or something else.

In a booming economy, even fools can succeed. But in these tough times, success depends on intelligence and knowledge and understanding, and, frankly, when I look around, I don’t see much of that in horse racing's leadership. Racetracks for many years have neglected bettors and fans. Owners, trainers and especially breeders have for many years reneged on their responsibilities to the sport. And so, of course, the handle on American racing is nose-diving: The mistakes of many years have finally caught up with the game. 

Can you believe that in this economy, with professional teams in just about every sport slashing prices to compete for the entertainment dollar, some racetracks have actually increased the price of admission and concessions? You’re right: It is shocking. But that’s horse racing.

Some people say horse racing is dying. Well, the truly amazing thing, given its leadership and management, is that horse racing isn’t dead.