A Dubious Record

Back in the good old days racing men knew what they were talking about, so much so they often put it down on paper in the hopes posterity would be smart enough to follow. One thing they had a pretty good understanding of is what constituted a stakes race.

The Jockey Club of New York made it pretty clear in their rules, published annually in the American Racing Manual:

*A "Sweepstakes" is a race in which stakes are to be made by the owners of the horses engaged, and it is still a sweepstakes when money or other prize is added, but, within the meaning of this rule, no overnight race, whatever its conditions, shall be considered a sweepstakes.

*An "Overnight Race" is one for which the entries close seventy-two hours (exlusive of Sundays), or less, before the time set for the first race of the day which such race is to be run.

While these rules have been technically adhered to for the most part, a disturbing trend over the last decade or two throughout the country is the creation of stakes races which are not intended to become long-term permanent fixtures on the calendar, but are to be used as a short-term marketing tools to enhance the value of bloodstock which few horsemen of past generations would have touched.

The percentage of all races that are run as sweepstakes has not changed all that much over the years, according to the Jockey Club, but my lying eyes can't help but notice that the definition of "stakes winner" has taken a tremendous hit in recent years and simply doesn't mean as much as it used to.

To me, a stakes is not only a race that adheres to the definitions stated above, but also is a race with traceable history and is of such importance that racetracks are proud enough to announce its presence on their calendar months in advance. Unfortunately, quite a few races which are now considered "stakes" have little or no history attached to them, and their existence is often unknown until perhaps 2 or 3 weeks beforehand, or in whatever time it takes for the local racing office to distribute the next condition book.

The logical answer as to why there seems to be so many stakes and so few legitimate stakes winners is exactly the same reason why we are constantly having to live with the premature retirement of top colts - the breeders are the tail wagging the racing dog. Bloodstock is apparently not worth much unless there is black type on the catalog page, and since everyone can't perform at the highest level, additional black type opportunities are created so that the value of potential bloodstock, fillies and mares in particular, can be enhanced.

Call it what you want - fraud, hoodwinking, treachery - but everyone with a financial interest in a Thoroughbred with working reproductive organs seems satisfied with the current system. Not being in that category, I find the whole thing a sham.

Organizations such as NYRA and the NJSEA are far from the only ones knee deep in this muck, but the preponderance of "stakes" run at their tracks, usually worth $50,000 to $75,000, make them as good a targets as any. Not only have these races often detracted from the quality of their real stakes (ones they have run forever and which are scheduled well ahead of time), but the winners of such races are assured of a future career in the procreation business without having done so much on the track as winning what years ago would have been considered glorified allowances.

In an era when the industry is conscientious about its image regarding the fate of unwanted racehorses, it is amazing that so much is being done to ensure the expansion of the equine population when there appears to be fewer and fewer people with either the financial resources and/or the moral ethics to responsibly care for and support all these new arrivals. Being of dubious pedigree and having inherently little talent, many of these animals will find themselves in precarious circumstances when they ultimately prove of little use or value to whoever's hands they wind up in at the end of line.

The underlying reason for raising this subject was the news of last weekend that Garrett Gomez had broken Jerry Bailey's "record" for most stakes wins by a jockey in a single year. Prior to the eventual "breaking" of the record, the Daily Racing Form was kind enough to list Gomez's stakes wins through Nov. 4. Alongside such recognizable names as the Breeders' Cup Sprint, San Antonio, Matchmaker, and Spinster, we found these obscure "stakes" among the list:

Magali Farms, Sugar Plum Time, Ogygian, Steal a Kiss, Alyssum, She Rides Tonite, Tweedside, Head, Forward Pass, Fleet Indian, etc.

A knowledgable fan could take a pretty good guess at the possible conditions of these stakes based on what they know about the horse so honored, but why should they have to guess? The fact is that most were created out of thin air and are as fake as Jane Seymour's bosom. I'm sure the previous "record" held by Jerry Bailey was similarly distorted.

Jockeys like Braulio Baeza and Bill Shoemaker, who more than likely held such distinctions in the 1960's, at least won races with recognizable names and verifiable histories. Unfortunately for Bailey and Gomez, their "achievement" is yet more evidence that the sport continues to set the bar too low and long ago lost its soul.

The Myth That Was Just That

Most everyone in Thoroughbred racing, from industry insiders to media and fans, has accepted as gospel that a major cause of the sport’s decline over the past several decades was its relative absence from television during the 1950’s and 1960’s. It is often suggested that if racing had embraced television as other sports did, specifically professional football (an impossibility which will be explained later), it’s popularity might have been sustained, or at least not declined as precipitously over the ensuing decades.

A little historical revisionism is in order. The rise of alternative gaming, the increasing oversupply of racing, and punitive takeout rates, combined, did far more damage to racing’s image and popularity than the sport’s perceived absence during television’s Golden Age (you can now add to that the ridiculous economic model which encourages the premature retirement of the sport’s stars to the breeding shed). Few have taken the time to actually research and challenge this commonly believed myth because if they had they would realize it simply doesn’t hold water, nor does it acknowledge the limits in which the industry was allowed to operate a half-century ago.

1. Consumer choice in programming was limited during The Golden Age of television.

Three major networks survived into the 1960’s and for most Americans that was exactly the number of channels that were available (some even had fewer). Larger metropolitan areas may have had an independent station or two, but by and large there were far more entertainment options available to televise than the number of networks and stations available to broadcast them. This lasted until cable television became widespread in the 1980’s.

2. Most major racing jurisdictions prohibited racing on Sunday.

Sunday racing did not arrive in New York and California until the 1970’s, and then it was on a limited basis. Some states, like Florida and Kentucky, did not have Sunday racing until the 1980’s. By default, the biggest day of racing for most major tracks during the 1950’s and 1960’s was Saturday, which explains why the rising popularity of professional football was not a factor in the decline of Thoroughbred racing’s fanbase.

Because Saturday was the only day to reach a mass audience, racing had to compete with other sports, namely baseball and college football, that not only were more popular, but consumed a lot of the available airtime as well.

It also must be noted that because of the Sunday racing prohibition, many racetracks scheduled major stakes during the week, and for those old enough to remember, sporting events were rarely seen on television on weekday afternoons in that era (the World Series perhaps the only exception).

3. Society was different in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

We currently live in an era where gambling in all forms is widespread and generally considered a mainstream diversion. It’s all too easy to forget that society's tastes were different in the 1950's and 1960's. Gambling was still considered a major vice in many parts of the country, and it could not have helped that Thoroughbred racing is an industry sustained entirely by gambling dollars.

4. It was generally in the sport’s interest to discourage competition from itself.

Before the advent of simulcasting, one could make a legal wager only after forking over a buck or two for general admission at the local racetrack. The primary reason many racetrack executives balked at having racing televised, except for major stakes, is that it would have encouraged patrons to stay home and bet illegally through bookmakers, thus costing racetracks revenue they could not otherwise recoup.

Perhaps these long deceased racetrack executives were shortsighted by not seeing television’s vast marketing potential, but with their only revenue source coming by way of warm bodies in the stands, and with government at all levels taking an increasingly larger share of the takeout, thus cutting into their profits, who could really blame them for thinking in the short term? There were bills to pay and shareholders to appease.

And honestly, does anyone think televising overnight races involving non-championship quality horses would have been considered "Must See TV" or generated much profit for broadcasters?

5. Stakes-filled racecards did not exist in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Racing broadcasts today tend to show more than one feature in a one or two-hour window, and often these stakes-packed programs originate from the same racetrack. Days where there was more than one stakes on a single program at one track were virtually non-existent, however, back in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Thus it would have required an excessive amount of manpower, capital, and technology which may or may not have existed, to broadcast several major stakes from different racetracks around the country.

6. Large segments of the population had no legal outlet in which to develop any newfound interest in racing which more broadcasts might have generated.

Most major population centers in the 1950’s and 1960’s were home to either professional or collegiate sports teams, thus the market for televising team-sporting events existed pretty much everywhere. The same can not be said for Thoroughbred racing, or pari-mutuel wagering in general, which existed in far fewer states in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Most industries don’t think 20 or 30 years in the future, and there was little evidence at the time that either pari-mutuel wagering would be legalized, or Thoroughbred racing introduced, into many new markets. It stands to reason then that widespread broadcasting of Thoroughbred racing would not have significantly increased the sport’s fanbase since potential new fans would have had no legal outlet (i.e. a racetrack) in which to enjoy or participate in the Sport of Kings.

For example, the population centers of Houston, Dallas, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Oklahoma City – which now have Thoroughbred racing but did not in the 1950’s and 1960’s – were markets unlikely to have embraced televised Thoroughbred racing at the time. The same could be said for other cities (mostly in the South) which to this day have few, if any, pari-mutuel wagering outlets (e.g. Atlanta, Charlotte, Jacksonville, Memphis, Milwaukee, Nashville, Norfolk, Salt Lake City, etc.)

7. Racing was a regular staple of Saturday afternoon television programming in areas where a replenishing of the fanbase was most needed.

In addition to national network coverage of the Triple Crown races (which seem to be the only races the networks want to broadcast these days, too), "Race of the Week" type programs were broadcast and syndicated to various cities in both the East and the West. How do we know this? Just go to your public library, find the microfilm reels of newspapers from the 1950’s and 1960’s, and check the TV listings. If you lived close to a large city where Thoroughbred racing was generally popular and/or available (e.g. New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore/Washington, Chicago, Louisville, Miami, Boston, Cincinnati, Los Angeles, Seattle, Phoenix, New Orleans, etc.), chances are some racing was routinely available for viewing (in season, of course) on a weekly basis.

Fans in the East typically got to see the Saturday feature from Florida in the winter and from New York the rest of the year, with prominent sportscaster Win Elliot at the mic. Elliot’s counterpart out West, Gil Stratton, was the host of the Saturday feature emanating from either Santa Anita or Hollywood Park, which was then beamed to western markets. And these two examples don’t even take into account locally based broadcasts that likely appeared in other locales such as Chicago and Miami.

Would racing have benefited from more network coverage rather than syndicated and locally produced shows which did not reach as many viewers? Sure. But the fact remains racing broadcasts did exist, something current industry leaders have conveniently forgotten or choose not to acknowledge. It is much easier to blame their predecessors for such an oversight, which really wasn’t one given the circumstances the sport found itself in when the powerful medium of television began exerting its influence.

I’d like to conclude this posting with an appeal: can anyone verify whether the films of Win Elliot’s weekly racing programs remain in existence? Unfortunately, the exploits of some of racing’s greatest champions, those that raced prior to the 1970’s, have been mostly unseen since the day they were filmed. What little film that does exist (aside from producer Joe Burnham’s fine but incomprehensive collection, which has been available commercially for several years) is poor in quality, usually black & white patrol films which are not visually clear nor were taken from good vantage points.

Should the televised broadcasts of the most prestigious stakes run in the East during the 1950’s and 1960’s remain in existence, the racing industry must invest as much as needed to acquire them, restore them using modern technology, and make them available for viewing either at the Hall of Fame at Saratoga Springs, or make them commercially available for private home use.

A significant part of racing’s history in the 1950’s and 1960’s, arguably the sport’s Golden Age from a popularity standpoint, has been lost to time and neglect. We know visual records were made, but a concerted effort must be made to find them and make them available for the enjoyment of racing fans and racing historians.

Reading Between The (Sire) Lines

Last week I received a call from a racehorse-owning friend seeking some advice. However, a few minutes into the call I realized he was seeking some "I would normally be paying for this, but since you know something about it, maybe you can help me for free," kind of advice. Any lawyer with at least one friend knows what I'm talking about.

As bad luck would have it, his 4-year-old filly had just been retired due to injury and he was looking to book her a date for the 2006 breeding season. Being a neophyte to the racing game, my friend (we'll call him Nate) confessed to being utterly confused on how to interpret the plethora of data available on every potential sire. So, having some experience in planning matings (and, ahem, getting paid for it), I graciously agreed to help him with the process of choosing a stallion. I told him not to worry and to call me later in the week to go over my recommendations.

That night I began to sift through various stallion registers and reference materials to try and find a few potential stallions to suit Nate's mare.

Over the course of several hours something interesting began to happen. Not only was my knowledge of Thoroughbred bloodlines and genetics being put into practice, but so was my acute sense of B.S. Time and again, I began to notice the Madison Avenue-style spin used to 'sell' these stallions. Distortions of fact, cleverly twisted phrasing, and tailor-made statistics poured from every page, highlighting the incomparable strengths of every $2,000 stallion in the country. Suddenly, I became very intrigued by the whole practice. I mean, outside of the established pillars of the breeding game and those perennial hot, young sires whose accomplishments sell themselves, it was actually a challenge to make some of these horses look desirable. I soon found myself torn away from my original job, and more focused on the ridiculous methods used to make an un-raced son of Vice Regent, standing in New Jersey, sound like an attractive breeding proposition.

Here's a sample:

Beyer Beware

The latest and greatest fad in stallion promotion is the use of Beyer Speed Figures. Now it's bad enough that handicapping simpletons have become fixated on Beyers as some sort of divine revelation from the handicapping gods, but the sooner we divest this overrated performance gauge from the breeding beat the better.

At any rate, I see that Golden Missile recorded "Triple Digit Beyers in nine consecutive stakes races," while Hap had "Ten Triple Digit Beyers in his last 13 starts." Now, I'm not quite sure why that would make them good sires, nor am I sure why the words "Triple Digit Beyers" are all capitalized in stallion ads. I mean, that's just poor grammar. However, I do know how many Triple Digit Beyers that Northern Dancer earned. Zero.

But wait there's more. Stormin Fever is "the only son of Storm Cat to have earned Triple Digit Beyers at six different distances." Which I interpret to mean: a lot of sons of other sires have done it, but he's the only Storm Cat. How about No Armistice? He was a "Graded stakes performing sprinter by Unbridled with Triple Digit Beyers!" (Note: 'performing' = never won one). Why this magic triple digit threshold? If earning a 100 Beyer was a harbinger of success at stud, then every high level claimer in New York and California would be a potentially appealing stallion prospect.

And my personal favorite: Wagon Limit. Who "EARNED THE WORLD'S BEST BEYER FIGURE AT A MILE IN 1998." The world's best? I don't have my Beyers for Jagersro Racecourse handy, but I believe the '98 Swedish Derby winner might have run a 123. C'mon, that's just plain cheating.

Leaders of the Pack

If you dig deep and come up with enough conditions, you too can have a leading stallion. After all, what sounds better than having your stallion ranked among the leaders of the breed in something…anything. For example:

Bucksplasher was the "leading Florida sire of graded stakes winners with lifetime earnings of over $500,000."

Even the good folks at Mill Ridge chose to engage in this weak little practice, and for no less a sire than Gone West. In 2000, he was the all-important "leading sire of unrestricted, first time stakes winners." On a Wednesday? At Finger Lakes?

And of course we can't forget Eltish. You know, the "nation's leading 2003 select yearling sire by median and percentage profitable yearlings in the less than $5,000 stud fee range". Of course he was.

Good Company

Class in the Thoroughbred is measured by the company you keep. So why not draw attention to the quality competition and performances in your stallions' race career.

For instance, Twin Spires, who "outran Grade 1 millionaire Affirmed Success in the Travers." That's good, right? Well, Twin Spires was 6th of 8 runners, beaten 17 lengths in the Travers. While the classy gelding Affirmed Success was 7th, beaten 17 lengths...and a neck by Twin Spires. Thanks, but I'd rather breed to Affirmed Success.

How about Al Sabin? He "finished a respectable 6th of 18 in Derby," or Baquero whose credentials include having "led to the quarter in the 1998 Preakness." Not to take anything away from those horses, I'm sure they're lovely animals, I just don't want their semen in my mare.

Artax "won the classic West Coast Derby prep..." (funny, I don't remember him winning the Santa Anita Derby) "...the 1 1/16 mile (G2) San Felipe..." Hmmm, where have I been?

Then there's Unbridled Jet, "He should have won the Haskell." I should have been a best selling author, but you don't see me asking $7,500 for women to...ah, never mind.

Eye of the Beholder

Why waste time trying to decide what's good and what's not when it's already been done for you:

Festive "is a great investment with his runners earning nearly 20 times his stud fee..." Of $1,000. So basically, winning a maiden special at Delaware Park makes you above average Festive offspring? Well, if that doesn't inspire confidence there's always Big Murkora, a "brilliant sprinter…" (5 for 41 lifetime; never stakes placed), or Performing Magic, "a true workhorse," as his 18 lifetime starts in 3 years clearly indicate.

But how can you go wrong with Golden Slew? After all, "only injury prevented him from following in his sire's (Seattle Slew) footsteps." For the record, Golden Slew won his debut, then lost his remaining 9 starts by a combined 102 lengths, which doesn't include being eased after turning for home 31 lengths behind the field. I'm gonna stick my neck out and say that injury wasn't the culprit.

Still need some help? Why not trust a Hall of Fame jockey? According to Chris McCarron, Freespool, "was a brilliantly quick and generous racehorse who displayed courage and class on the track." There's nothing particularly egregious about that statement, in fact, Freespool could flat out fly. But, if the old saying about jockey's being the worst handicappers is true, then I'm certainly not going to breed to any stallion they endorse. My first exposure to this ill-conceived angle came a few years back. During the nightly Southern California re-cap shows, I can remember Laffit Pincay extolling the merits of Slew's Royalty. "I think Slew's Royalty is going to make a great sire," he said. No telling what Balkan nation with a Jockey Club he’s standing in now.

Fourth. It's the New Third.

Lastly, it appears that I've been asleep for several decades, or I missed a memo. In my long history of following racing, I always worked under the premise that "on-the-board" meant finishing first, second, or third. Apparently, the connections of Cashel Castle and Burning Roma say otherwise, because Cashel Castle was "never off the board in 11 career starts." Except the two races where he actually finished 4th. Meanwhile, Burning Roma was "never off-the-board at two," which lends itself to confusion when I'm told on the very next line that he ran 4th in the Breeders' Cup Juvenile and Breeders' Futurity. Who knew that the Superfecta would have such a profound impact on the industry?

After several hours of feeling like a member of a Senate oversight committee, I had actually built up a healthy respect for the architects of these ads. But sometimes you just can't dress-up mediocrity. Eventually, I managed to turn my focus back to the original task at hand, and two days later, Nate called. "Hey, J.B.," he said. "I don't think we're gonna breed my mare after all. My wife wants to turn her into a riding horse for our daughter."

!@#$!%

Classic Breslan

A couple of years ago, I had the privilege of being invited to contribute a couple articles to an upstart online journal called the Thoroughbred Review. Similar in goal and style to the blog you are now reading, the TR, unfortunately, did not last very long. However, I received sufficient enough praise for my pieces that I decided to keep them stored in the inner sanctuaries of my hard drive, waiting for the time I could dust them off and enlighten the world with them again.

Back by popular demand (and with only the slightest editing from the original piece) is a column I entitled "Clearly Not 'The Greatest'." While not intended to be an expose (well, sort of), it does give the reader a sense of what was going on in the mind of a budding, young turf writer with a rather warped opinion.

CLEARLY NOT "THE GREATEST"

I happened to be thumbing through some old copies of the late, great Thoroughbred Record recently, and while perusing the pages of a May, 1980 issue I came across a letter to the editor entitled THE GREATEST, submitted by a gentlemen offering his thoughts on recent fan surveys for the 1970's Horse of the Decade. Some of the surveys made the distinction between European and American horses for this honor, but this gentleman's choice for Horse of the Decade, "in both Europe and America," was the great filly Dahlia.

While obviously forsaking the likes of Secretariat, Affirmed, Seattle Slew, Nijinsky II, Mill Reef and Brigadier Gerard (to name a few), one could nevertheless make a case for Dahlia. As the gentleman pointed out, she was a champion on both continents, routinely beat males in some of the world's most prestigious races, and retired as the all-time leading female money earner.

Which leaves me with one question: if Dahlia was the 1970's Horse of the Decade, what was Allez France?

Regally-bred and a multiple champion in her native country, Daniel Wildenstein's brilliant French filly is commonly referred to as Dahlia's great rival. However, recurring nightmare might be a more accurate term. In racing terms, a rivalry would imply that two horses are closely matched in ability...but these two weren't. Not only did Dahlia never finish ahead of Allez France in seven meetings, she never got within two lengths of her! In those seven encounters, Allez France amassed a record of six wins and one second place finish (in the 1974 Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe), while Dahlia managed to hit the board only twice. If Dahlia vs. Allez France had been a heavyweight fight, Dahlia would have bitten Allez France's ear off. She simply had no answer for the French miss. It seems peculiar to bestow the title of Horse of the Decade on a filly who wasn't even the best of her crop.

Originally, I chalked up the author's choice to nothing more than an oversight. That was until I curiously began to look through a few of those "Greatest Horses of the 20th Century" lists found in various Thoroughbred publications in 2000. To my astonishment, not only did Dahlia rank higher on every one of them, but Allez France failed to even crack the list on more than one occasion. “How could this be?” I asked aloud. Having thrashed Dahlia on the racetrack and compiled her own impressive resume of Group 1 wins over males, what was I missing that the rest of the racing world was seeing? This was akin to claiming Alydar was superior to Affirmed, or ranking Flying Paster ahead of Spectacular Bid. You would have a better case if you argued that Upset was better than Man o’ War since he actually beat him - once. While I admit my French has gone a bit rusty since high school, I believe the French translation for 0-for-7 is...ahem...0-for-7!

Now lathered in bewilderment from head to toe, this seemingly innocuous, five-paragraph letter was beginning to test my patience and challenge my sanity. Then, the switch suddenly flicked. For all her greatness, Allez France's career ended on the most sour of notes, when she finished last of 11 in the National Thoroughbred Championships at Santa Anita. More importantly, it was her one and only start in America (and on dirt), and totally unrepresentative of her true ability. Thus it seems logical, having seen Dahlia deliver the goods on American soil on numerous occasions, that the racing fans and media in this country would develop a serious misperception about the comparative talents of the two fillies. It's a parochial view to be sure, but then again, this is America.

I do not contend that Dahlia was a great racehorse. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find many performances more impressive than her stunning triumph in the 1973 King George VI and Queen Elizabeth Diamond Stakes. But lets not test the limits of the human imagination here; for every person who witnessed Dahlia's great victories, there's another who witnessed her dismantling at the hands of Allez France. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another thing entirely to ignore facts. Allez France may not have been the Horse of the Decade, but she was better than Dahlia - pure and simple.

Oh yes, the author of that much maligned letter? None other than renowned racing journalist Steve Haskin. Knowing what I know now, I'll never be able to look at those "Derby Dozen" rankings quite the same.