We’ve had this blog for a while and we haven’t used it like most folks do – to state our opinions on various subjects. Starting today, we are going to post weekly with some insight and opinion. We welcome you comments and we will post them. Today’s subject is aftermath of the Kentucky Derby…
It seems to generally be good policy to let the dust settle before opining on controversial issues. The loss of Eight Belles in the Derby is just such an issue, and, to no one’s surprise, it has generated a great deal of dialog.
Interestingly, NTRA CEO Alex Waldrop almost immediately posted a statement on the NTRA web page with a “safety first” message. The comments he received to his post were amazingly consistent.
Of course, the overwhelming majority of folks were distraught over the loss of such a courageous
filly who had so valiantly battled the boys on racing’s biggest stage. A few, simply said that accidents were a part of racing, move on.
Others proffered potential solutions to what they perceived to be an increasing problem: catastrophic injuries and deaths.
The solutions offered for how to best fix the racing industry ran consistently down five paths: 1) switch from dirt to synthetic racing surfaces, 2) fundamentally change the breeding industry, 3) stop whipping, 4) advance the racing calendar forward one year so four-year-olds compete in the Triple Crown and 5) ban all drugs.
Starting with the switch from dirt to synthetic surfaces -- there is a study that says catastrophic breakdowns are reduced on polytrack and the like, but the jury still seems to be out. California tracks have rushed head long into the brave new world of synthetics with mixed results. The January 2008 issue of Mid-Atlantic Thoroughbred featured a very comprehensive and lengthy article about the issues surrounding artificial racing surfaces. Not too many conclusions were drawn, but many trainers seemed to believe that they were generally beneficial although they seemed to cause more problems behind than dirt. Score this one: A good idea, keep working on it.
As far as fundamentally changing the breeding industry, that’s a tough one. Many of the folks responding to Waldrup were racing fans and not breeders. They seemed to incorrectly believe that breeding is much more predictable than those of us on the inside know it to be. However, they did point out that speed over stamina is contributing to faster, but more fragile horses. That position seems on point.
If one examines photos of horses from earlier times, be ready to see more bone and more substance. A good bit of that came from Europe following one world war or another, but even back in the early 1900’s horses simply had bigger bones. It would appear through simple historical translation that they were sounder (longer races, multiple heats). Surely, there were breakdowns, but without the 24 hour news cycle and the internet, it was more difficult to track.
Score fixing the breed difficult at best. Where do we get new blood from bigger, stronger, sounder horses and who takes the hit when they are slower? How can the market be organized to endure a change from speed to stamina. The answers won’t be easy, but it’s something to think about.
That brings us to whipping. Surprisingly, whipping got a lot of play. Many young people (potential fans) are appalled by whipping. In many cases, they were bothered more by the whipping than Eight Belles’ ultimate demise. It is simply fascinating that the perception (and, yes, in today’s world perception is every bit as important as reality) of whipping is more distasteful than that of catastrophic injury and euthanasia.
Score this one fixable. Last week there were conversations in the VTA and VA HBPA offices about Virginia taking the lead on the whip issue. Racing folks in the Commonwealth, be it horsemen, breeders or regulators, aren’t shy about taking the lead on national issues. We were the first state to run the overwhelming majority of our races on the turf, to require telephone wagering companies to get a license to guarantee purse contributions, to prohibit steroids, to prohibit drug offenders from holding a jockey’s license (since changed – the Pat Day Rule) and the first to pay a 100% owners bonus. So, Virginia isn’t afraid to take a stand or to swim upstream.
Why not follow suit with the National Steeplechase Association and require the use of a softer-kinder whip similar to the one’s used in England? Why not have a week or two where the use of the whip is prohibited unless it is needed to keep the horse on a safe course or from interfering with others? Why not run the whole meet that way?
Would it complicate things for trainers, jockeys and betting fans?
Yes, but they will figure it out in short order and the positive public relations would be good for Virginia and the entire sport. Paycheck manipulation is a wonderful motivational tool for education, so the jocks will figure it out in no time. Would such a rule make the steward’s job harder? Of course it would, but we have smart stewards who know what they are doing. They will figure it out too.
A popular thread was from those who advocate simply doing away with two-year-old racing and making the Triple Crown a series for four-year-olds. Opponents to such thinking quickly point out that there is no empirical evidence that shows that a horse that doesn’t race at two and who starts racing at three is less likely to breakdown.
In fact, many vets will tell you that exercise at two is critical to healthy bone development and that three-year-olds' skeletons are mature. There is also info out there that shows that horses that start at two win more and make more starts than those that don't. Of course, that could be partially because they were superior athletes and sounder to begin with. The industry needs to study this and take a position one way or the other.
Again, perception is more important than reality. The world is changing. The children born today or more likely to be urban than rural. The connection with the horse is waning in many ways. People don’t sit around talking about animal husbandry and our sound byte world isn’t conducive to reading the Daily Racing Form on handicapping. More and more people are able to empathize with the animal rights groups. Simply put, these are troubling times.
So why not try a rash experiment? If it doesn’t work, go back to the old way. Why not simply move the calendar? For the foal crop of 2008, the yearling sales will sell two-year-olds, and the two-year-old sales will sell three-year-olds. Juvenile races will now be written for three-year-olds and the stakes calendar including the Triple Crown will shift up one year.
So far so good, but what about the lost year? Good question. Keeneland and Fasig-Tipton would have to forego yearling sales' revenue for one year. No Keeneland September and no Saratoga. Will corporate profits be down for the year? You bet, but Keeneland and the new Fasig owners from Dubai can no doubt weather the storm for the long-term good of the industry.
Another issue is short fields, especially in 2010 and 2011. Racetracks would be short one whole crop of three-year-olds and that seems like the toughest problem to overcome. We don’t have a solution to that one just yet. In addition, folks who make a living training young horses may or may not be negatively impacted. Some breeders/owners will leave them in the field a year longer to the yearling breakers detriment, but others will still break them in the fall of their yearling year and bring them along nice and slow.
Now, we come to the record book. All sports cling determinedly to their records and are subsequently reluctant to change the variables. They like things to be clearly defined and consistent – it’s called tradition. There is nothing wrong with that, but records are ultimately about people. The horses don’t care about the record book, only the owners, trainers, jockeys, breeders and fans care. But the question is why? Would you be any less excited if your four-year-old won the Derby? Any less excited if you hit the Derby triple? Would you discount your Derby winners’ stud fee because he won at four not three? How about
probably not, no and NO!
Ultimately, most statistics in the horse racing world are utilized to determine future value in the breeding shed and to measure one generation’s best against another. Simply put, that won’t change. The best of a generation is the best of the generation no matter what year the test is taken. So whether they run in the Breeders Cup Juvenile at two or three seems irrelevant to the horses and to market value.
Baseball which has been wracked by a steroid scandal has been forced to take a long hard look at their record book. NBC’s Bob Costas, who studies the game as hard a anybody, suggested they put an asterisk in the record book for the “steroid years.” Racing could do the same, the asterisk is simple “* in 2009 the racing calendar was moved up one year for all horses.” Could you then compare Man O’ War or Secretariat to the four-year-old winner of the 150th Kentucky Derby? Probably not, but does that really matter?
Finally, there were many who advocated the prohibition of all drugs pointing out that many other major racing markets get along just fine without a zillion permitted medications. Of course, there are arguments about the health and welfare of the horse, but other racing countries don’t seem to have the same concerns.
Breakdowns in other countries with dirt racing are less frequent, and many people point to our heavy reliance on various drugs as the reason. Again, drug free racing would cause short fields as it did in New York causing them to abandon their “hay, oats and water” policy some years back. But when all is said and done, a rule that impacts everybody the same way (be it whipping or drugs) is a fair rule. A level playing field is level whether or not one likes what makes it so…
So, when all the dust clears, consider a continued pursuit of new and better racing surfaces, a ban of whipping except for maintaining course, a prohibition of drugs and a change in the racing calendar to eliminate two-year-old racing and yearling sales, etc.
See, that wasn’t so hard...
Triple Crown hopeful Big Brown has developed a “slight” quarter crack on the inside of his front left hoof, but his connections remain confident he will be 100% for the $1-million Belmont Stakes (G1) on June 7.
good it happened now. He’s going to be okay.”
good it happened now. He’s going to be okay.”
