Horse racing

Jackson supports Asmussen

Jess Jackson, during his recent teleconference, expressed his support for trainer Steve Asmussen, who, as you probably know, has been suspended six months in Texas for a medication violation. The suspension has been stayed pending an appeal.

The teleconference was occasioned by Rachel Alexandra’s appearance in Sunday’s Haskell Invitational. But almost immediately, and predictably, somebody veered off in the direction of the recent ruling. The question put to Jackson was loaded with assumptions and implications, the sort that have become commonplace among media who are largely ignorant of racing generally and of medication complexities particularly.

A self-styled racing expert recently complained, “Why can’t American racing be like European racing, where no medication is allowed?” Well, it’s naive in the extreme to think Europeans don’t allow medication of any sort. It would also be, I should add, barbaric to deny horses medication who need treatment. But Europe, unlike Texas and some other jurisdictions in this country, has reasonable threshold levels for therapeutic medication, and so in France, Ireland and England there aren’t so many dubious “positives” and so many trainers unfairly slapped with derogatory labels.

The great A.J. Liebling may have been talking about bureaucrats but also could have been talking about media types when he pointed out that you can’t clarify subtleties and complexities for the naturally dull mind. For such people, he said, the only way to clarify split pea soup is to remove the peas.
 
Anyway, Jackson, the principal owner of Rachel Alexandra, stood by Asmussen, much to the dismay and disappointment of some. Jackson called the suspension “unfair” and a “bum rap.” The refusal by the Texas Racing Commission to allow for additional testing in the case was, Jackson said, a “denial of due process.” And Jackson, by the way, is an attorney.

“I would hope,” he said, “that my love of Texas isn’t tarnished by what they’re doing.”

That’s my fear, too: that Texas will become a laughingstock among knowledgeable racing people who will hesitate to bring their horses here in the future.

Lone Star concludes with a carryover

For closing day (Sunday) at Lone Star, the carryover in the Pick Five is $10,393. Ok, that’s not  up to Del Mar’s million-dollar standard, but this is a $1 Pick Five, which means with a good stroke and a little luck a home run is within reach of every horseplayer. The fences aren’t too deep.

I actually like a carryover in the $10,000-$30,000 range. When it gets much higher than that, the syndicates start syndicating, the big rollers get rolling and the bankrolls lose their rubber bands. I’ve seen syndicates bet as much as $68,000 into a Pick Six. At that point, they’re not handicapping, or at least they’re not picking winners; they’re just trying to identify can’t-winners. When the carryover soars, the syndicates buy races and bet tickets designed to be impregnable to everything except the bizarre. And although the best handicapper can sometimes pick the bizarre, he probably won’t pick bizarre five or six times on a program.

Anyway, the carryover is $10,393 today at Lone Star. That’s the second-largest carryover of the season (on April 5 it was $23,934), and that’s sufficient to invite a swing but not so gaudy that it invites the big buy-a-race syndicates. And the five races look very competitive.

The series includes the Middleground Stakes, where Big Texas Daddy will try to run down Western Forum. The Pick Five, though, starts with the sixth race, a contentious one-mile turf event. I could use six of the nine horses in there: John Medica, Atthebuzzer, Rahy Express, Harbour City, Princessa Approval and Boom Boom Bubba. The seventh race has a 14-horse field, and the eighth has attracted 11. And the Pick Five concludes with a 1 1/2-mile turf affair, where Favorite Jazz will go for his fourth consecutive victory.  

What does this mean for Texas racing?

Before the sun set on Thursday’s ruling, I received an email from a reader asking if the suspension of Steve Asmussen would start “the demise” of Lone Star Park. And, of course, the demise of Lone Star Park would mean the death of horse racing in Texas.

I didn’t think so, and still don’t, but the question seemed valid at the time and more so now, especially after I saw a comment from a reader in Lexington, Ky., made via the Internet, on today’s column in the Star-Telegram: “We occasionally ship horses in to run at Lone Star and it is very concerning that the racing board won’t treat trainers fairly. . . . We must seriously think twice about ever sending a horse to race in Texas.”

After this week, how many owners and trainers will think twice about sending a horse to Texas? Thursday’s ruling, the suspension of Asmussen for six months because of a “positive” for a lidocaine metabolite last year, could indeed lead them to reconsider such a move. The suspension itself isn’t the reason. Everyone will agree that a trainer who gives a horse illicit medication for the purpose of trying to win a race should be dealt with severely. No, the problem here is that the Texas Racing Commission seems indifferent to fairness and truth, and who would willingly submit himself to such supervision?

The test results on the urine sample taken from Timber Trick after she won at Lone Star in May, 2008, suggest contamination, according to Steven Barker, the chief chemist for the laboratory at LSU. Testing the blood, he said, would be conclusive. But a request to have the blood tested was denied. A request to quantify the level of the metabolite in the urine was denied.

Asmussen said he would accept the results of the blood test. If the results are positive for lidocaine, fine him and send him fishing. If he'll accept the results of a blood test, why won’t the Texas Racing Commission? Could it be that the Texas Racing Commission knows, or suspects, that the results will expose its no-tolerance rule as an absurdity? And why won’t the Texas Racing Commission quantify the results of the urine test? Could it be that the Texas Racing Commission knows, or suspects, that the results will suggest a level so low it wouldn’t have affected a cocker spaniel, much less a thousand-pound racehorse?

And so now the case moves into the appeal process, first to the State Office of Administrative Hearings, a citadel of bureaucracy, and then to the Texas Racing Commission. From there, it could go to the courts.

“We will fight this as long as it takes until the truth comes out,” said Maggi Moss, a prominent horse owner and an attorney for Asmussen. She said the process has left her very “disillusioned.”

Well, apparently it has left many owners, fans and trainers disillusioned with Texas racing.

Asmussen suspended; stay granted

The Lone Star Park stewards have suspended Steve Asmussen, the leading trainer in the country, for six months, starting Monday and continuing through Jan. 15, and they have fined him $1,500. An appeal was immediately filed with the Texas Racing Commission, which late this afternoon granted the trainer an administrative stay, according to Maggi Moss, an attorney for Asmussen.

With the stay, Asmussen can continue to train his nationally prominent stable as the case goes through the appeal process. 

Just this past Saturday, Lone Star Park honored Asmussen as its Man of the Year. With two weeks remaining in the meeting, Asmussen already has set a single-season record with 100 victories at the track. Nationally, he sits atop the standings with 343 wins and $10,782,682 in earnings, according to Equibase. The Eclipse Award winner last year as the nation's outstanding trainer, Asmussen has many prominent stakes horses in his care, including Rachel Alexandra, the Preakness winner who’s the leading candidate for Horse of the Year honors.

The stewards' ruling, which comes after several procedural delays, is the result of a “positive” from last year. The urine sample of Timber Trick, a filly trained by Asmussen, tested “positive” for hydroxylidocaine, a metabolite of lidocaine, after she won at Lone Star on May 10, 2008. Lidocaine is a topical anesthetic common in lotions and ointments.

Asmussen repeatedly has asserted that neither he nor anyone in his employ administered lidocaine to the filly. Steven Barker, the chief chemist at the LSU laboratory, testified that the data he has seen suggested contamination. But the Texas Racing Commission has said that under its no-tolerance rule the presence of a lidocaine metabolite at any level represents a violation.

It's about the rules, not the facts

Looking back over the week’s newspapers, I came across a story about President Barack Obama’s recent trip to Moscow, where his criticism of Russian leadership was couched, as it had to be, in diplomatic generalities. In the story, he’s quoted to say, “The arc of history shows that governments which serve their own people survive and thrive; governments which serve only their own power do not.”

Reading that, I suddenly realized what this situation, this contretemps, is all about with Steve Asmussen’s “positive” test from a year ago. It’s all about the Texas Racing Commission’s serving its own power, to borrow Obama’s phrase.

At Tuesday’s hearing before the board of stewards, just before Steven Barker testified, Mark Fenner, the attorney for the Texas Racing Commission, said the testimony would be irrelevant. Fenner had a why-bother attitude about Barker's appearance. Barker is the chief chemist for the testing laboratory at LSU and a nationally recognized expert on equine drug testing. But his testimony was irrelevant, Fenner said, because this was a matter of law, not fact.

By law, he meant, I assume, rules, specifically the state’s no-tolerance rule regarding lidocaine. But by fact, he clearly meant the facts regarding the “positive” test. Barker testified that the urine sample taken from Timber Trick after she won on May 10, 2008, at Lone Star suggested possible contamination. If a horse is administered, lidocaine, he explained, the sample will typically contain evidence of the parent drug and two metabolites. Timber Trick’s sample tested “positive” for one metabolite: no parent drug, just one metabolite.

Those are some of the facts that the Texas Racing Commission apparently thinks irrelevant. The blood sample, Barker testified, would provide a clear indication of whether the filly was actually given lidocaine. And isn’t that the essential fact? But that, too, like the blood sample, is apparently irrelevant. The stewards denied Asmussen’s request to test the blood.

Asmussen, who repeatedly has asserted that neither he nor anybody in his employ ever administered anything illicit to Timber Trick, isn’t the only horseman in Texas with a “positive” for lidocaine or one of its metabolites. But as the leading trainer in the country, he’s the most visible.

In June, trainer Jerimiah West (no relation) was suspended six months and fined $1,500 because the urine sample collected from a horse he trained, Mad At Cha, who ran second as the 2-1 favorite on April 10, tested “positive” for lidocaine and hydroxylidocaine. West, who trained only six horses, didn’t appeal, he explained, mainly because he didn’t have the money to do so.

“You’d have to be insane to give a horse lidocaine,” West said, “because you know you’re going to be caught. . . . This horse didn’t have any issues. There was no reason to use it.”

West, who had no prior infractions, is now unemployed and banned from all racetracks. He said he was shocked by the “positive” and had “no idea” how it happened, especially since most racetrack veterinarians no longer use lidocaine.

“The Texas Racing Commission may not care about Jerimiah West,” said trainer Danny Pish, who once employed West as an assistant, “but people on the backside who know him sure care. He would never cheat. He’s a model citizen.”

And so what’s the explanation for these “positives”? Lidocaine is contained in many lotions and creams, several over-the-counter treatments, Barker said, explaining that the possibility of contamination is significant.

Back in 2002, Hall of Fame trainer Bill Mott had a lidocaine “positive” in New York. Believing this to be an important issue, he came here Tuesday to testify on behalf of Asmussen. The low level of Mott’s “positive” suggested contamination; New York officials suspended him two weeks (later reduced to one) and fined him $1,000. But in Texas those are irrelevant facts.

In Texas, it’s a matter of rule, not fact. The no-tolerance rule. You have to wonder, don’t you, how many major stables in the future will be willing to race in a state that has no regard for the facts. And you have to wonder, don't you, how far confidence in the sport will tumble.

And so in a few days, Asmussen could be suspended and fined. He no doubt will appeal. But the inevitable headlines will give racing fans and horsemen all over the country a shudder. It’s probably the same kind of shudder the Russian people felt when Obama spoke about governments that serve only their own power.

 

The spirit of Ray Holmes at Churchill Downs

Horse racing needs a Ray Holmes.

On Sept. 15, 1940, during the Battle of Britain, Holmes, a pilot in the RAF, spotted a German bomber threatening Buckingham Palace. When his machine guns failed and the situation became desperate, Holmes rammed the German bomber with his Hawker Hurricane. The bomber crashed before it could deliver its deadly message, and Holmes parachuted to safety, having saved Buckingham Palace.

Well, the situation is becoming desperate for horse racing. For June, handle on America’s races declined 16.89 percent from a year ago, to $993,578,873, according to Equibase. For the year, handle has dipped 10.48 percent from 2008. And, of course, 2008 was nightmarish, with handle declining 7.16 percent. At the end of this year, handle will probably check in somewhere around $13 billion, or the lowest total since 1998.

With the decline in handle, there has been a concomitant decline in purses, down 10.30 percent in June and down 6.04 percent on the year, from 2008.

And so everyone is looking for horse racing’s Ray Holmes. Where is the person or the idea to rush in and save the historic palace of racing?

Many, if not most, racetracks have looked upon slot machines as the Ray Holmes who would ram the economic bomber and save the day. And maybe they are. Certainly racetracks need the ability to diversify their product if they’re to remain competitive, especially those racetracks that face competition from nearby casinos and racinos.

But the last few years have taught the sport a cruel lesson. When gaming companies become racetrack operators, when casino satraps become general managers, horse racing usually becomes unimportant, or at least less important than the spinning fruit of the slot machines.

But this past Thursday, Churchill Downs identified another potential Ray Holmes when the track attracted a crowd of 33,481 for its final night of racing. No slots, no Kentucky Derby or Oaks, no Jonas Brothers concert, and yet a throng was on hand for the last night of Churchill’s experiment with night racing.

This newly identified Ray Holmes is an attitude, an approach that seems fundamental: Give the fans a good product, an enjoyable time, a special experience and a bargain, and they will indeed come out to the track.

For its first night of racing, Churchill attracted a crowd of 28,011, but, by all accounts, the track fumbled. Fans had to wait in long lines to bet and to buy concessions. It was a classic case of dropping the ball when there was a clear field to the end zone. But Churchill, much to its credit, rallied to make amends. For its next night, June 26, the track offered an extended Happy Hour, with dollar beer. And 27,623 attended. Apology accepted. And Thursday, a throng came out for the final night of racing. For the three nights, Churchill attracted 89,115, an increase of 318 percent from the corresponding dates a year ago. The increased attendance also led to significant increases in handle.

These difficult economic times present challenges, but also opportunities. Because racetracks, unlike many professional football and baseball and basketball teams, aren’t burdened by multi-million dollar contracts, and because most racetracks aren’t burdened by overwhelming debt, they can offer bargains.

Racetrack executives are fond of pointing out that their concessions are slightly cheaper than those offered at the nearby ballpark. But, of course, that’s an absurd comparison. Racetracks are faced with the unique challenge of entertaining people over a period of four hours while most of them are losing their money. Tracks can accomplish that only if they provide a comfortable setting and only by creating an unusual and exciting experience and, of course, by offering bargains. That’s the attitude that could be the newly identified Ray Holmes.