Horse racing

Texas talks set to begin

Texas horsemen meet Thursday at Lone Star and Friday at Sam Houston to discuss various plans for race dates in 2011. A couple of plans for consolidation are on the table -- plans, in other words, that call for Sam Houston, Retama Park and Lone Star to pool their resources in an effort to offer some relevant racing.

For a summary of the problem Texas horsemen and racetracks face, just look at Lone Star Park's Thursday and Friday programs. The track will offer 18 races, nine each day. Six of the races are maiden affairs, and in four of those the horses can be claimed for $25,000 or less. In other words, they're not regarded as very good maidens, or at least not especially valuable ones. Of the other 12 races, 11 are claiming events; in six of those, the horses will run for $10,000 or less. And there's one allowance race, for Texas-breds. The racing isn't very attractive.

As Texas purses have fallen, the quality of the racing has declined. And as the quality declines, handle and attendance continue to fall. It's a cycle that must be broken if Texas horse racing is ever to prosper again. Average daily handle has declined 24.7 percent at Lone Star from a year ago. And you probably thought last year was horrible. Even worse, off-track handle -- that is, money bet elsewhere on Lone Star's races -- has declined 28.5 percent. That's important because it suggests Lone Star's racing just isn't competitive in the market place. When bettors have a choice of racetracks, they're not choosing to play Lone Star.

In fact, even bettors at Lone Star aren't choosing to play Lone Star. Of the $837,620 bet at Lone Star on a typical day of racing this year, 64.45 percent has been bet on simulcasts of races at other tracks. Not surprisingly, the shift of handle from the live product to the imports has accelerated as the local quality has declined. Last year, bettors at Lone Star put 62.36 percent of their wagered money on simulcasts, up from 60.48 percent in 2008. Back in 2002, when purses were at their highest and the track handled $90,515,477 during its spring-summer season, there was nearly a balance between the live racing and the simulcasts, with 49 percent bet on the live product and 51 percent on the imported signals. The handle has tilted more dramatically toward the simulcasts ever since. And, of course, this shift has been disastrous for the racetrack since its share of the simulcast handle is less than its share of the live handle.

It all goes back to purses and quality racing. And that's what the horsemen and the track operators need to discuss Thursday and Friday.

Life among the animadversions

"He got the good stuff today," the big guy at the bar said after a 10-1 outsider won a maiden race. The guy sucked on his cigarette, looked upwards, as if in contemplation, and added, "That's why ya can't beat this game."

"Glen, whataya mean the good stuff?" asked his girlfriend, who was built along the lines of the Bass Hall -- large and sturdy, but with a decorative facade.

"Juice," Glen said. "He got the juice. Ya know, something to make him run faster. There's no way that horse could win unless he got some help."

"Oh, I see," the girlfriend said, admiringly. "Is that legal?"

"No, baby," Glen said, adorning the comment with that unmistakable smirk of condescension. "But they all do it if they can get away with it."

Such conversations take place, I suspect, every day at racetracks and betting emporiums around the country. The winner in this case, a horse making only his second start after a troubled trip in his debut, couldn't have been much of a surprise to a keen observer or an astute handicapper. But Glen obviously didn't bet on the winner, apparently didn't even give him a chance. And so in Glen's mind, prodigious by its own and his girlfriend's accounting, only chicanery could explain the outcome.

Horse racing faces a mountain of ignorance that the sport must try to circumvent or surmount if it's to prosper. Every sport, of course, must educate its fans. But for horse racing, the mountain is higher than for any but the most esoteric of sports. The problem, I think, has been exacerbated by two groups who ideally should contribute to its solution: the regulators and the media. They actually encourage people such as Glen to embrace absurd assumptions. And so it will be left to the racetracks themselves to educate their fans.

Regulators contribute to the problem, of course, by not distinguishing between violations that are simply logistical errors, usually involving a genuinely therapeutic medication, and those that are indeed indicative of an attempt to cheat. Nor do they distinguish, in many cases, between levels of medication that wouldn't affect a cocker spaniel and levels that could significantly influence a horse's performance. And the jurisdictions that have adopted a policy of no tolerance have in effect insisted on no intelligence.

Given the sensitivity of today's testing and the attitude of some regulators, even the Archbishop of Canterbury would inevitably have a positive test and a medication violation if he trained a large stable of racehorses. A trainer with a large stable can hardly avoid it. The consequences are that some honest horsemen who would never consider violating the rules in an attempt to get into the winner's circle get labeled unfairly, and horseplayers such as Glen get the mistaken impression that the game is dominated by cheaters. In truth, racehorses are probably the most drug-free athletes in professional sports.

The media do little to dispel these mistaken ideas about medication and cheaters. In fact, many in the media reinforce such ideas by insinuation and implication, even in the absence of any evidence or any facts. But, of course, most people in the media learned everything they know about horse racing by sitting in a press box. Or hanging out with Glen.

And have you noticed that the media have become increasingly solipsistic? More and more newspaper columns these days read like the journal of a not especially articulate teenager. You know the type of thing: all about feelings and impressions, likes and dislikes, opinion and criticism, with few facts and little about actual events. Don't misunderstand: As Mark Twain pointed out long ago, horse racing is all about a difference of opinion. But today's opinions, even when expressed loudly and with conviction, are frequently uninformed. And video, which takes that same attitude to a different medium, often amplifies it.

No, the regulators and the media aren't going to help the sport over the mountain. The racetracks have to climb it themselves. Lone Star Park has taken a step in that direction with a program called "Jockeys and Java." Each Saturday morning in June, fans were invited to the racetrack at 8:30 for breakfast -- and, of course, for an opportunity to watch workouts and talk with horsemen. Guests have included jockeys and trainers, the state veterinarians, the assistant clerk of scales and the track superintendent. Created by publicity director Dan Leary, the program has been very successful, attracting 200-300 fans each of the mornings. The program also offers a tour of the stable area, complete with a visit to a specific barn and with a specific trainer.

The fans attending "Jockeys and Java" have had a voracious appetite for information. Some may know little, but they ask insightful questions, and they're all hungry for knowledge. It has been very encouraging. Given the choice, people don't want to be as stupid as Glen. And it's up to the racetracks to give them the choice.   

An early line on Horse of the Year

In my column today (http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/06/10/2256241/time-to-get-serious-about-horse.html), I tried to make the point that with the conclusion of the Triple Crown season the championship season has begun. And with that I included an early line for Horse of the Year. It was, however, somewhat hidden on the website, and so I offer it again here.

 

The Race for Horse of the Year: an early line.

1. Quality Road, 7-2: He’s unbeaten this year and aimed at Saratoga. If he runs the table, the golden Eclipse is his.

 

2. Zenyatta, 5-1: The great mare races for a record Sunday, her 17th consecutive victory. But unless she takes on Quality Road, she'll need some help to win the golden Eclipse.

 

3. Rachel Alexandra, 6-1: The reigning Horse of the Year runs Saturday at Churchill and looks to return to the sensational form of a year ago.

 

4. Lookin At Lucky, 8-1: The Preakness winner could return in August. He never has run a poor race and appears to be the kind of horse who does what's necessary, but can he defeat his elders in the fall?

 

5. Super Saver, 10-1: The Derby winner has Saratoga in his future. He has run only four times this year and has room to improve.

 

6. Blame, 12-1: He takes a major test Saturday at Churchill Downs in the Stephen Foster. He'll have to overcome an outside post position and a modest pace, but he's very talented and could challenge Quality Road at Saratoga.

 

7. Battle Plan, 15-1: Unbeaten this year, he’s also in the Stephen Foster, where he could control the pace.

 

8. Rail Trip, 15-1: He could confirm his status Saturday at Hollywood as the best older horse not named Zenyatta in California.

 

9. Misremembered, 20-1: He hasn’t been heard from in a while.

 

10. Gio Ponti, 30-1: The turf champion continues to look for the winner’s circle.

 

11. General Quarters, 30-1: The admirable and versatile colt is good on any surface.

 

12. Tuscan Evening, 50-1: She’s the queen of the California turf.

 

13. Fly Down, 50-1: The Belmont runner-up is getting better and could be a major factor down the road.

 

14. Drosselmeyer, 50-1: He won’t have many 1 1/2-mile opportunities, but he has a gem in his pocket and is obviously improving.

 

15. All others, 8-1: Could Goldikova win her third Breeders' Cup Mile?

 

 

  

An unfortunate precedent

Their claim to clairvoyance would be amusing if it weren't coupled with an alarmingly dangerous precedent. By not disqualifying She'll Heir, the 3-5 favorite, from winning Wednesday's Cinderella Stakes at Hollywood Park, the stewards there basically have given the best horse license to run over and through anybody on the way to the winner's circle

That's what She'll Heir did. With about a furlong remaining in the Cinderella, She'll Heir, bursting with energy and with want-to, had nowhere to run. And so Rafael Bejarano sent the filly into a sliver of space, a mere crack in the wall of horses in front of him, and without hesitation she bulled her way through, initiating a bumping incident that ricocheted four-horses deep. She'll Heir, by the way, already had dropped over on Trick Skate in the turn and caused that one to steady, and so she directly or indirectly bothered five of the other seven horses in the race. Rockin Heather, who was the first and hardest to be bumped, immediately retreated and finished seventh. Trick Skate ran last.

After an inquiry, the stewards made no change, ruling that the incident didn't affect the outcome. Do these stewards have such amazing powers of perspicacity that they can peer with clear vision through time, back and forth, and into possible outcomes? Such clairvoyance is usually found on the midways of state fairs and carnivals, but here it was on conspicuous display in the stewards' stand. Or was this its pretense? Without being broadsided, was Rockin Heather going to finish seventh anyway, or could she have held on for fifth, which would have meant a more rewarding paycheck? Most important, without bulling her way through that crack, would She'll Heir have won anyway? Or was this didn't-alter-the-original-order-of-finish explanation a specious argument for leaving up the 3-5 favorite?

As a good friend and former steward pointed out, the ramifications of the Cinderella decision could stretch beyond Wednesday's race. If Bejarano can get away with that, then what will a jockey on the best horse try next? And what possibly dangerous situations will he create in the process?

The stewards' job is tough. On the one hand, they have to be reluctant to disqualify the best horse, as She'll Heir obviously was, for that's a move that penalizes not only the owners and the horsemen involved but also the bettors who were smart enough to pick the winner. On the other hand, the stewards can't encourage careless behavior by ignoring it. A balance is necessary, and the California stewards generally have maintained it. But they appeared to be listing Wednesday.

Rachel to Fleur De Lis

Rachel Alexandra will race Saturday at Churchill Downs in the $200,000 Fleur De Lis Handicap, her principal owner, Jess Jackson, announced this morning.

"Rachel Alexandra continues to turn in strong works; therefore the reigning Horse of the Year will start this Saturday, June 12, 2010 in the FleurDe Lis (GII) at Churchill Downs," Jackson said in a prepared statement through his publicist, who needs to work on her commas.

The ultimate goal for her, Rachel not the publicist, is, according to the release, the Breeders' Cup, of course. It will be run at Churchill. Also, nice of Jackson to point out that Rachel Alexandra is the reigning Horse of the Year.

She had been considered a possibility for the Stephen Foster Handicap. But unlike the Stephen Foster, the Fleur De Lis is restricted to fillies and mares.

A winner of 11 of 16 in her career, with earnings of $3,074,050, Rachel Alexandra has finished second in both of her races this year, the New Orleans Ladies Stakes at Fair Grounds and La Troienne at Churchill.

 

Quarantine lifted

Within 12 hours of being imposed, the quarantine was lifted. It was all a mistake, a bureaucratic blunder. Trainer Bret Calhoun saw eight of his horses scratched from Friday night's card at Lone Star Park, the track lost incalculable thousands of dollars, and the entire Texas horse racing industry veered into panic mode because some bureaucrat forgot to dot an "i" or cross a "t" or flush a toilet.

Friday afternoon, Calhoun, Lone Star's leading trainer, was told a horse he trains, Seven Shooter, had tested positive for piroplasmosis, a debilitating tick-borne infection. Actually, from the first batch of test samples sent to Texas A & M, which only recently began testing for this, there were three positives. Three. Shouldn't that have set off an alarm with somebody? Street Positioning, who's trained by Brian House, also tested positive, along with a horse recently shipped from Lone Star to New Mexico. Or rather some bureaucrat said they tested positive and not only said it but acted on that mistaken assumption.

Calhoun immediately said this was all nonsense, a case of bureaucracy run amok. Piroplasmosis, from what I've been able to learn, is very difficult to diagnose. Its symptoms include fever, anemia, weakness, lack of appetite. But Seven Shooter, Calhoun said, was a picture of health. After all, he has won four consecutive races, the most recent on May 8.

But over Calhoun's reasoned objections, officials from the Texas Animal Health Commission stepped in and quarantined all the horses in his barn, as well as House's horses. Informed of this, the stewards had no choice but to scratch those horses Calhoun had entered for Friday's races on the advice of the TAHC. Eight Calhoun horses were scratched from six races. At least two of the horses and probably more would have been favored. As it turned out, one race, the fourth, was run with just three horses.

Early this morning, Calhoun received a phone call, he said, from his veterinarian, who explained that the whole thing was the result of a clerical error and that the quarantine had been lifted. Another explanation was that the test results had been mininterpreted. Track officials confirmed this morning that the quarantine was indeed no longer in effect. And Calhoun's horses were on the track this morning during regular training hours.   

"There's a lot of blame to go around for this," Calhoun said this morning. "Too many mistakes come out of there (Texas A & M), and the Texas Animal Health Commission and the Texas Racing Commission overreacted. This cost me and my owners thousands of dollars, and it hurt my reputation. And it was all avoidable if somebody just used some common sense. We never had a sick horse on our hands. I know if I were on the other end of this and if I had made these mistakes, I know I would be in a lot trouble."

Calhoun said he had not received so much as an apology so far this morning. He also said he would pursue at least that.

  

Horses quarantined at Lone Star

The barn of leading trainer Bret Calhoun has been quarantined at Lone Star Park by the Texas Animal Health Commission because one of the horses there, Seven Shooter, tested positive for piroplasmosis, a tick-borne protozoal infection that also affects donkeys and mules. A second horse at Lone Star, Street Positioning, also has tested positive, along with a horse recently transported from Texas to New Mexico, according to track officials. Street Positioning is trained by Brian House.

All of the horses trained by Calhoun had to be scratched from their races Friday night. The horses he has entered for this weekend will probably be scratched, too. The quarantine also affects horses trained by Kevin Favre.

 

“There can be no traffic from those barns,” said Lone Star steward John Ferrara. The quarantined horses will not be allowed to race or train with other horses.

 

Lone Star president and general manager Drew Shubeck said he didn’t anticipate any disruption of the racing schedule. Racing continues at Lone Star through July 18.

 

“Right now, we are cooperating fully with the efforts of both the Texas Animal Health Commission and the Texas Racing Commission,” Shubeck said, explaining that Lone Star might be able to adjust training hours to allow the quarantined horses access to the track.

 

Seven Shooter has won four consecutive races, most recently on May 8 at Lone Star. Calhoun said he was preparing to send the horse to Kentucky, which required a test for piroplasmosis. And so he sent a sample of the horse’s blood to Texas A & M, which only recently began testing for piroplasmosis.

 

The symptoms of piroplasmosis, which can be difficult to diagnose, include malaise, fever, weight loss and anemia. But Calhoun said Seven Shooter “hasn’t been sick at all.” He said he questioned the validity of the test.

 

Jody Hall of Texas Animal Health Commission declined to comment.

 

Calhoun began the week sitting comfortably atop the Lone Star trainers’ standings with 38 wins from 100 starters. Danny Pish is second in the standings with 29 victories.

The mysterious case of the disappearing racetrack executives

"The truth is, these are not very bright guys." -- Deep Throat.

Whenever a racetrack names a new general manager these days, the horse racing community generally responds by asking, "Who?" Or, with a little more edge, "Who the hell?"

The reason for the confusion is that more and more often casino people are assuming the top jobs in racing. It's a development that's especially evident, of course, at "racinos," which bring racing and gaming together in one facility. In many cases, to be precise, the gaming is actually nothing more than a parlor filled with slot machines. But whatever form the gaming takes, whether it's slot machines or video poker or shell games, the results of the casino guys' taking charge have been, to judge from the early returns, disastrous. The results have been catastrophic, humiliating and, well, downright dumb.

Ken Dunn's stepping down as president and general manager of Gulfstream Park provided the most recent example of a gaming guy's ascendency. Dunn simply said it was not in his best interest to sign a new contract. And so now Steve Calabro, the erstwhile vice president of gaming, takes charge of Gulfstream Park: Another gaming guy assumes a seat at the head of the table, and another racing guy walks out the door. This isn't just the latest puzzler from that plague on racing known as Frank Stronach. This is happening everywhere. A casino guy recently assumed the top spot at Fair Grounds in New Orleans, replacing another gaming guy who, of course, had replaced a racing guy. 

But when racing and gaming merge, why does it become necessary to put a person with gaming experience in charge of the entire operation? The result is always the subordination of racing. And from here, it doesn't look very smart. But, of course, the truth is, these are not very bright guys.

In terms of complexity, a slot machines parlor is to a racetrack what a go-cart is to a Ferrari, what a kiosk is to a department store, what "There once was a man from Nantucket" is to "Paradise Lost." What does it take to run a slots parlor? Keep the machines in a cool place, have some variety, bring in new machines from time to time, plug them in, and remember to unlock the doors. Yes, that might simplify things somewhat, but basically any idiot could operate a slots parlor.

Ideally, though, an idiot wouldn't operate a racetrack. (At this point, you're probably screaming that many idiots have run racetracks, and you'd be right. Many have, some are, and many will. But you're overlooking the "ideally.")  A racetrack operator has to be, or should be, sensitive to the needs of all the horsemen's groups -- e.g., the HBPA, the TOBA -- as well as the breeders' groups. And the groups multiply with each breed that races. Here in Texas, the Quarter Horse folks have their associations, and the Thoroughbred folks have theirs. An operator also has to be sensitive to safety issues for both the human and equine competitors. He often has to maintain living quarters for backside employees, and he has to deal with regulators, and then he has to negotiate with other racetracks. He has to serve the fans and their needs, providing good-time promotions, clean bathrooms, restaurants, cheap concessions, easy access and egress to the premises.

Then, of course, there's the racing. An operator should know a thing or two about racing, its history and traditions, its complexities and subtleties; he should be comfortable when he walks into the stable area and when he speaks with trainers and owners. He should know how much it costs to train a racehorse. Then there's betting. Many, even most, racetrack managers don't know anything about what they're selling, specifically the betting on races. But ideally a racetrack manager should understand how to handicap, how to pick a winner, and how to bet; he should understand how disconcerting and frustrating it can be to blow a bankroll on a horse's inexplicably poor performance, and if he's genuinely going to appreciate the game from the bettors' point of view, he should experience the exhilaration of the score. Yes, he should understand how bettors think and what they value. Of course, a racetrack operator should also know the media, their values and habits and needs. And even all that represents a simplification, but it suffices to make the point that running a racetrack is much more difficult and complex than operating a slots parlor.

So wouldn't somebody who's expert in racing and racetracks find it much easier to learn how to operate a slots parlor than the other way around? A racetrack person could learn about slots in, what, a week. But a slots guy would need, what, a decade or a lifetime to learn how to operate a racetrack. And so wouldn't it be wise to put the person with racetrack knowledge in charge of a racetrack?

Yes, these corporations that seem to have taken control of the sport are eager to maximize the profitability of their most profitable enterprises, and so they put the slots guy in charge. But while imposing their shortsightedness on the sport, these corporations threaten to ruin it and ultimately ruin themselves. The slots don't need emphasis to be profitable; they don't need a shepherd. Just plug them in. It's racing that can't be neglected. That's why the modern racino needs a brilliant manager with racing expertise, not some gaming guy. And yet these gaming and casino guys continue to assume control of racetracks and racinos. You might as well put a sausage salesman in charge.