In Case of Filly Mishandling Accusations, Vodka can Provide Relief

Granted I don't follow the Japanese racing media extensively, but to the best of my knowledge fans and bettors in Nippon did not predict catastrophe in 2007, when 1000 Guineas runner-up Vodka opted to skip the Oaks and later Japan's Distaff Championship to instead compete in the Derby and Japan Cup. And when her winter 07/08 results were not up to previous form, trainer Kazuhiko Sumii and owner Yuzo Tanimizu were not broadly accused of mistreating the filly with their callous insistence on entering a racehorse in horse races. Then again, this being Asian racing, those people are used to seeing their greatest equine stars prove themselves for half a decade, a distant memory for followers of the sport in America (and the times when Europe's absolute superstars were around for more than a dozen races is beyond the recollection of the living). In "proving" themselves, it is obviously implied that some of those who looked like the next Horse of the Decade as youngsters will turn out to be merely good, and that's where we in the quality-starved racing world start to lose grip.

Take Rachel Alexandra for example. Excluding her Kentucky Oaks romp and standard spring campaign for her old connections, the filly's allegedly too hard 3yo campaign consisted of two hard-fought wins (Preakness and Woodward) and one demanding one (the Haskell). Good, very good. But is beating Summer Bird by a couple of lengths and beating Macho Again by a nose really ample proof that she – even at her very best – was as spectacularly great as hype and her ambitious owner Jess Jackson would have us believe? (I want to make it perfectly clear that I found and find her a deserving winner of the 2009 HotY award based on this campaign, just not necessarily the best American filly in decades).

Horses lose former class (or class edge) all the time, especially when turning from two to three and from three to four year olds. This shouldn't be news to anyone and generally isn't, but if the subject in question happens to be last year's "superstar", European and American fans seem to forget the most basic truisms about our sport. We have become so estranged from the experience of seeing a 3yo superstar return that we are willing to buy into the most assinine of theories to explain the most ordinary of developments. Developments that we wouldn't find in any way suprising for a returning G3 horse.


Horsemen of past decades didn't think that you should campaign a good horse as fluffy as possible. This thinking entered the racing world when a speculation bubble started elevating stud fees into ridiculous spheres, paradoxically making "not racing" the most profitable option available for the owners of talented racehorses. It was then that horsemen, in need of a justification other than pure profit, started telling the world that there was something like a moral obligation not to "overexpose" top class racehorses. It was, not coincidentally, also the time when horsemen started to routinely retire horses for injuries that in the past would have been treated with a short period of rest and a couple of changes to the campaign plan.

It doesn't take a great thinker to find out that the real reason for this is a different one: by cherry-picking target races, equine stars can go through their career hardly ever facing other top horses and thus end up with stallion ads that make every borderline BC candidate look like the second coming of Man O'War. And by retiring early you don't risk finding out that this youngster of spectacular class was just an early bird with some fine class, after all. In a breeding market in which actual class had become an afterthought to flashy stats and superficial promise, this made perfect sense from an economical point of view.

What we have here then, it strikes me, is a case of believing the cover story you made up yourself. Which, judging from the reaction to Rachel's La Troienne loss, most racing fans obviously do. A current poll over at Fugue For Tinhorns, asking if Rachel's owner and trainer change a year ago was good for the filly, is heading for a resounding victory for "No".
Apparently, there is broad consensus for the theory that her demanding 3yo campaign has taken too much out of the horse, that horses should be campaigned more cautiously. Where does this lack of confidence come from? Or, to put it differently: when the fuck did PETA manage to convince even the fans of horseracing that thoroughbreds are indeed so incredibly fragile that the only responsible way to handle them is to not challenge them at all?

What racing is left with after decades of alienating anyone who likes a little quality with their sports is a fanbase that's eaten up all the excuses. And maybe, just maybe, we racing fans are getting exactly what we deserve – and that's not good.

Even though it largely dealt with self-inflicted proplems – superstitions and anthropomorphisms that never had any logical or empirical basis in the first place – having a three-year-old filly campaigned like a racehorse (until August at least) was probably the only major step forward American racing has done on its own in more than a decade. Given the public perception of her career, if Rachel Alexandra turns out to be less than outstanding it seems inevitable that American racing will take two steps back as a result.
No other sport I'm familiar with has such an incredible talent to create its own problems, and is so insistent on keeping them.

Vodka - a Potent Cure for Problems of Perception

Vodka at the age of two, winning the G1 Hanshin Juvenile Fillies Stakes, one of only two Japanese G1s for 2yo's:



As a sophomore, Vodka won the G3 Tulip Sho (Japan's main 1000 Guineas Trial) from the great Daiwa Scarlet before finishing second to the same filly in the target race. In late May, she took the Japanese Derby from Asakusa Kings and the rest of what turned out to be a very strong crop. In June, she took on older horses for the first time but finished only 8th in the G1 Takarazuka Kinen.
She returned to form after a layoff, finishing third to Daiwa Scarlet in the G1 Shuka Sho (Autumn Oaks, if you will) before a respectable fourth place in the Japan Cup, 1 ½ lengths behind Admire Moon. At the age of three Vodka contested in six G1 races, all of them filled with the maximum number of 18 horses, and against the very best Japanese horses in open company.



Vodka's four-year-old season went off moderately with a 6th place in the G2 Kyoto Kinen and a 4th in the G1 Dubai Duty Free, her first start abroad. The elsewhere oft-maligned Dubai trip didn't seem to hurt the filly at all, as she went on to win the G1 Yasuda Kinen and the G1 Tenno Sho over 2000m (by a nose from Daiwa Scarlet) and in addition finished second in the G1 Victoria (F&M) Mile and the G2 Mainichi Okan before again coming close when third in the Japan Cup.



After another mediocre return in the 2009 G2 Jebel Hatta and G1 Dubai Duty Free, a five-year-old Vodka ran a stellar season which included a 7-length romp in the Victoria Mile and a repeat win of the Yasuda Kinen before being crowned when she narrowly held on for that elusive victory in the 2400m Japan Cup.



How's that for a challenging schedule? To be sure, Vodka was the rule rather than the exception in Japan. Her great rival Daiwa Scarlet ended her career after her 4yo season, which she crowned by winning Japan's second-most important race, the 2500m G1 Arima Kinen (in which she had already finished second as a 3yo).

(Wikimedia Commons image by Goki)

The World Isn't Waiting

Claire Novak’s most recent article has stirred up some controversy in the racing blogosphere. Novak writes for the racing section of ESPN.com, the website of the world’s largest sports network.

One of the critical responses was by Ed DeRosa, usually one of the better turf writers. I strongly disagree with most of his article for reasons discussed there, but it’s one of the minor arguments he brought up (one I didn’t respond to on his site) which keeps coming back to my mind.

Novak’s argument for questioning the sportsmanship of Jess Jackson was, among other things, this:

“the completely ridiculous fact that reporters (and the public) had to wait for the overnight to come out to discover she would not be starting in Saturday's Alabama, one of five races listed as "under consideration" by her connections. [...] Enough cat-and-mouse. Set a date for a press conference, make up your mind, and make the announcement. That's what a true sportsman would do.”

To which DeRosa responded:

“Some have lamented that neither Jackson nor trainer Steve Asmussen publicly stated that Rachel Alexandra would not enter the Alabama Stakes, but her workout pattern clearly indicated that she would not be racing this week. For Asmussen, an easy work back followed by a bullet means a race is at least another week away. John Scheinman of the NYRA press office and trainer Mark Hennig both noticed that, so it's not like deciphering Asmussen's moves required possession of the Rosetta Stone or an advanced degree in reading tea leaves.”

It’s a revealing statement, and a representative one, I fear. If people in the racing media actually think like this, it explains a lot.

Sorry racing press, the mainstream media isn’t in the habit of reading NYRA workout summaries, or studying the subtleties of the workout patterns of the nation’s Top 50 trainers. They won’t get into that habit either. ESPN is, however, in the habit of picking the sports they deem most marketable, and sports that don’t offer information aren’t marketable.

Jackson, the man who said he bought Rachel Alexandra to broaden racing's appeal, knows that. Kendall-Jackson wine bottles include information as to the appellation, grape composition, taste characteristics etc.. Why? Because customers are unlikely to buy a blank bottle for 25$, that’s why. TV networks are in exactly the same position. As long as they have a dozen sporting events offering press kits, full access and all kinds of help, they would be stupid to instead reserve a timeslot for a sport whose protagonists don’t think they need to cooperate. No manager in his right mind will choose to broadcast races that could end up being interesting, or not; one's they don't know how to promote until three days before the event.

In other sports, locker room access is a given, any development will immediately spawn a press release. In racing, you get a post-race interview with some winning horseman with a history, who snots out a few cryptic comments about “considering five or six options for the horse’s next start”. And of course: “We want to do the best by the horse! Currently our filly thinks the Woodward purse is 500K too low”.


(Although the image on top is by a South African producer actually called “Blank Bottle”, the bottle isn’t actually blank. The pictured example is a Shiraz with 2% Viognier; from the Paarl Mountains, and characterized by “intense fruit and complexity”, according to the producer.)

That Pesky Class Bias

Yesterday I read the following sentences in an otherwise interesting post on the West Points blog: "Last year, not one horse who had been campaigning on dirt won any of the traditional Breeders’ Cup dirt races. NOT ONE HORSE."

It was the second time I read this argument, and got me intrigued enough to spend the next two hours reviewing last year’s BC Pro-Ride races in search of the bigger picture as to how those horses with a dirt-centric career fared. A fun task that perfectly accommodated my advanced horseracing geekiness, so here it is:

F&M Sprint:
Indian Blessing and Ventura were the only reasonable candidates. Indian Blessing came from a NY dirt campaign but went on to win the La Brea at SA after the BC. Her forms looked impressive then, but less so in hindsight. You don’t need the Pro-Ride to explain why she ultimately fell to classy turf miler Ventura. Third-placed Zaftig delivers further arguments that I.B. didn’t run a bad race (she had been beaten a few lengths by her before). Intangaroo (6th) had most of her best forms on the dirt, but synthetics should have suited her running style, and she had won the Santa Monica over SA’s old Cushion Track.

Juvenile Fillies:
Cal-based Stardom Bound dominated this division all summer. Runner-up Dream Empress seems to have been more of an art-surf horse, although she did break her maiden at Saratoga. The third and fifth-place finisher (Sky Diva and Persistently) came out of classic Dirt campaigns and their result matches perfectly with what could have been expected had this race been run on the dirt. That leaves 7th-placed C.S. Silk, who did indeed disappoint, but her subsequent dirt forms weren’t any better (in fact she hasn’t won any of her 5 starts since the BC, four of them on dirt)

Distaff:
Cocoa Beach had made all but one of her previous 10 career starts on the dirt, but coming within 1½ lengths of Zenyatta, she was hardly a victim of the Pro-Ride. Music Note (3rd) is a similar case. 4th-placed Carriage Trail had an affinity for Keeneland’s Polytrack which didn’t seem to help at OSA. Which leaves 6th-placed Ginger Punch, a pure dirt horse until then, but the defending f&m champ was on a downward spiral since July (and her 10/1 line suggests she wasn’t really a disappointment).

Marathon:
One of the weakest fields ever to be seen in a 500K was eventually topped by Muhannak, whose underwhelming best forms came from the Polytracks of the Old World, although he had also won on turf. Muhannak went on to prove that he was equally undeserving of BC-winner status on the turfs of Sha Tin and Goodwood, with his only acceptable post-BC form coming from Dubai’s dirt. Delightful Kiss was the only contender with a dirt-centric past, but his 4th place wasn’t really below expectations. The most disappointing favorite of the entire BC was Sixties Icon, who struggled home 5th in this race. He’s a turf horse.

Dirt Mile:
Winner Albertus Maximus came with an artsy past, but his two post-BC starts were on the dirt, where he Wonn The Donn and placed sixth in the Dubai World Cup. Third-placed SoCal longshot Two Step Salsa also had some dirty fun at NAS after the BC, winning both starts. Lewis Michael (8th) was one of two disappointments, but he too had his best performances to the sound of the synth. The other disappointment was Well Armed, who went on to dominate the Dubai World Cup, but was the favorite for winning the Goodwood over Santa Anita’s Pro-Ride (I guess he would do better on very speed-favoring dirt, but his trainer doesn’t seem to). My Pal Charlie (4th) and Pyro (6th) were the two dirt-campaign runners, and neither disappointed.

Juvenile:
10th-place Munnings might superficially look like he was hampered by the Pro-Ride, but then again his far-beaten runner-up performance in the Champagne was hardly astonishing if reviewed in hindsight and nothing suggests that he particularly disliked the surface. Apart from him, no dirt horses took part.

Sprint:
Actually, Mr West and Co. may have to reconsider their premise! While winner Midnight Lute had run a dismal performance in his only other race of last year over Del Mar's Polytrack, the majority of his top performances (including his wins in the previous BC Sprint at Monmouth and the 2007 Forego) were on the dirt.
It’s easy to miss that fact when you concentrate on dirty guy Fabulous Strike (7/1), whose 5th place finish is as close as last year’s BC got to a disappointing performance by a dirt-campaigned horse (he was beaten by only one horse, 8/1 In Summation, with minimally longer odds).

Classic:
I don’t think I need to explain for the hundredth time how Curlin’s performance was not a huge surprise to anyone with some basic handicapping skills. Everyone who still doesn’t want to recognize this because “Tiago could never beat Curlin” has other issues, obviously. And is a complete hypocrite if they don’t also claim that “Smooth Air could never beat Duke Of Marmalade”. DoM was clearly a better horse, but just as clearly out-of-form. Eventually, last year’s BC was decided in a battle of giants between two of the world’s best horses.
Smooth Air (7th) and Fairbanks (10th) were the other two dirtsters in the field, neither was a victim of the “plastic”.

Conclusion:
All in all, there is very little basis to argue that Pro-Ride was a major factor behind last year’s BC results. In any case it was a much smaller factor than the West Coast setting of Santa Anita, which kept many of the top East Coast horses away. One might argue that the "not one horse who had been campaigning on dirt won any of the traditional Breeders’ Cup dirt races"- sentence is technically correct, it is. But it's used as an argument on this occasion, and therefor the more important thing is: the implication of this sentence is wrong.
There's no reason to believe that it's impossible or even considerably harder to win a Pro-Ride BC with a horse that has been exclusively campaigned on dirt. It's just that hardly anyone has tried it, and those who did fell short for other reasons. There's also no reason to believe that Pro-Ride is any more of a factor in handicapping than speed bias, rail bias or sloppy track. It's a factor, but not an unfair one.

The fact is: if one doesn't like Pro-Ride for another reason, that’s fine. If you think Pro-Ride ruined last year’s BC: start looking for a better argument.

Oh, and if you happen to constantly find the need to attack this surface as a fundamentally unfair and (for whatever unexplained reason) dangerous type of “plastic” just because you’re willing to say anything rather than come to grips with a disillusion: go open a bottle of wine, lean back, start thinking, and shut the fuck up!

BC Thoughts - Early Edition

Whatever you think of Jess Jackson’s decision not to run Rachel Alexandra in this year’s Breeders Cup, or of his tirade against synthetic surfaces (my take: there is a distinct smell of "sore loserism" lingering in the air), the one thing we should agree upon is that his argumentation was disingenuous.

Those types of "plastic" are too different from each other? “Man interfering with nature”? You might wanna take a closer look on that Churchill surface, it’s not your average mid-Kentucky soil either, nor is it identical to the surfaces at Gulfstream or Belmont. Mr Jackson, after all, has become a billionaire “interfering with nature”, as in artificially creating vineyards, where he grows genetically modified grapes that have little more to do with their ancient ancestors than a Tapeta track has with the sand at Del Mar beach.

I’d like to see the BC as an event as close to an American Open Championship as possible, but I'll just skip that argument for now. Interesting takes in support of Jackson’s decision can be found on The Aspiring Horseplayer and Foolish Pleasure blogs. I still disagree, for reasons stated there, but even before reading those I felt far less passionate about the topic than, say, the prospect of Rachel following up her Oaks romp with another one in the Acorn. This is largely because, for all we know, a RA v Zenyatta duel would have only been likely if both had chosen the Distaff, which would have opened up a whole new can of worms.

The self-proclaimed “World Championships” (never mind the title) have recently revamped their Win & You’re In list for the third time in three years, and in the process created a hodge-podge of American and Overseas races that are unlikely to have promotional value and are hard to follow even for the most dedicated fans. If I understand their website correctly, most of the added International races won’t even be broadcast in America. It’s also not quite clear why we need BC W&YI’s at all. Unless you simultaneously limit the BC to a maximum of 10 runners per race, its just an unneccessarily complicated way to determine about half the field (less in some cases).

The most interesting aspect is hidden in the details: not a single one of the races on Dubai World Cup Day will carry W&YI status. Is there any reason other than animosity towards the world’s other “Thoroughbred World Championship”? I don’t think so.

A second line of criticism has focused on the BC’s ignorance of the labels assigned by the American Graded Stakes Committee. True, some of the new W&YI races are entirely ungraded and the grades obviously didn’t play any major role in determining the races, but really, the AGSC’s work deserves to be ignored. Its pattern system is entirely useless to identify the most important races, unless you think that the Prioress, Kings Bishop and Santa Maria really are more prestigious than the Suburban or Oaklawn Hcps, that the Ark Derby and Lexington Stakes are on the same level, or that there really are no less than 115 races in the US which consistently attract several runners of the highest caliber.

Plus, increased incentive even for non-graded niche stakes, especially in the Turf Sprint and Marathon categories, is a good opportunity for all those upstart racinos to establish meaningful races without simultaneously watering down the quality of already established stakes elsewhere.

Epsom And Elmont

The last days have seen such a flurry of Belmont Stakes predictions and analysis that it would almost be ridiculous to post another one. And that’s where I come in:

It’s been slightly more than a week ago that Rachel Alexandra’s connections informed the racing world about their filly skipping the Belmont in an announcement that obviously lacked a sentence. Something along the lines of: “And by ‘she is in great shape’ we mean from a medical standpoint, yet we as the people in everyday contact with the horse feel she isn’t as fresh as we had hoped for, and therefor won’t contest another tough race at this point in time”. With that qualifier fallen victim to the “delete”-button (Microsoft- or mind-wise), the remaining parts of the announcement read like Stonestreet aren’t starting a perfectly ready horse (after all, a bit of attrition is supposed to be a factor in the Belmont) and inexplicably delayed the announcement for two weeks.

The last two weeks also made it hard to defend against the widespread public perception that racing is a fundamentally elitist sport.
First, Paul Moran declared there were several better riders than Calvin Borel in the New York jockeys room but didn’t feel the need to name a single example (much less any actual argument) even after repeated urging. Moran sounded even more like he just wanted to vent some frustration when adding that Borel wouldn’t have ridden Mine That Bird any better in the Preakness, which of course can’t be disproved, but isn’t exactly convincing given that the gelding went from a perfect Derby trip to a decidedly sub-par one in the Preakness. Add the fact that Borel was in a tough spot of his own in said race, and he mastered it perfectly.
After that, a number of racing fans used Moran's sentiment (opinion minus argument = prejudice, as Aristoteles never quite said) as proof for their theory that MTB’s connections are a couple of rednecks who aren’t up to the challenge.

The main backwoods redneck, Chip Woolley, has had one really good horse in his life, and he trained him to win the Kentucky Derby, after which only a bad trip provided MTB from really challenging RA in the Preakness (insert your own Toddster reference of choice here). He may still be prone to make a beginners’ mistake or two on this level, but so far he has outsmarted all of us, so you better wipe that smug look right off your face!

With those thoughts off my mind, let’s have a look on the two main races today. The Epsom Derby shapes up as a virtual added-distance re-run for the 2000 Guineas. As always, handicapping the English Classics (except the St. Leger) comes down to an exercise in guessing at horsemen and pedigree angles rather than comparing actual forms, but Guineas winner Sea The Stars looks to be the one to beat. He’s a half-brother to Galileo and his pedigree doesn’t include too many stamina question marks. Still, with no less than six horses in a twelve-horse field, Aidan O’Brien has a lot of options, even though his first jockey (Murtagh) skipped what would be his logical first two choices (Fame And Glory and Black Bear Island) for Rip Van Winkle, whose last two disappointing performances aren’t helped by his doubtful pedigree. The first six choices are all Irish raiders, and there’s only Godolphin’s Kite Wood to hold up the Emirati flag, but he was beaten decisively by Black Bear Island in the Dante Stakes.

As for the Belmont, I find myself underwhelmed by this race now that RA is out of the mix. It’s not that no Triple Crown is on the line (I wasn’t particularly thrilled by last year’s edition either), it’s just that there isn’t too much sporting interest left. Mine That Bird could once again cement his status, but anyone who still doubts that he is the real deal probably can’t be helped anyway. If he gets beat by one of the fresher horses, he’ll have enough excuses.

#1 Chocolate Candy – unusual comment for an Argentine-sired horse, but I doubt his stamina; also, he was beaten quite decisively in the Derby, and I don’t see enough reason for a reversal of fortunes

#2 Dunkirk – probably the only interesting non-Borel storyline left: will he disprove his meager Derby performance? I doubt it, but I was never on the Dunkirk bandwagon; Pletcher indicated his colt might not like wet ground, but he may have been just scrambling for excuses; all in all I consider him an underlay at a 4/1 ML

#3 Mr Hot Stuff – sorry, but 1-from-8, trained and run almost exclusively on artificial surfaces just doesn’t translate into Belmont victory for me

#4 Summer Bird – has the pedigree, and by my long-standing policy to automatically bet any horse that ran okay going spectacularly wide in all of his last races, this 12/1 ML horse is a “buy”

#5 Luv Gov – unless I’m completely missing something here, his 20/1 ML would make him the underlay of the day; trainer has proven often enough that he WILL send out horses with a snowball’s chance.

#6 Charitable Man – won well in the Peter Pan, but wasn’t too impressive; may profit from added distance and likes this track; needs the race to set up for him to beat MTB, but may get it

#7 Mine That Bird – almost looks like a sucker bet, but I just don’t see a better horse in this field, only a couple that could be more fortunate; I’m not concerned about the distance, but the track and level of attrition are concerns, though wet-fast would help; with RA out, his opposition might concentrate on making this tough on Borel and his horse

#8 Flying Private – ran well in the Preakness, but won only one of twelve LT starts and doesn’t look to be the greatest fighter of all; at 12/1 ML he is worth consideration for the exotics, but I wouldn’t rate him a real threat; as a fan, I find Lukas horses an automatic “root-against” after he once again proposed his TC extension plan.

#9 Miner’s Escape – Federico Tesio to Belmont may be stepping up a bit too fast

#10 Brave Victory – a Zito-horse like #9, he has yet to hit the exacta in five graded stakes attempts; highly doubtful he’ll do so here

Summary:

Plenty of things could go wrong for MTB, but as a racing fan I hope he wins it. If he doesn’t, I doubt that a new star will be born as the rest of the field (with exception for Summer Bird and Dunkirk) is rather playing the angles than actually Triple Crown material. I’ll just try to get some small bets on the 'Birds for a good price (both are attracting too much in the early market at betfair, actually below their ML right now) and leave it at that.

If you want to bet more, I recomend you single #7 for a Win, #4 and 6 for the Exacta spot and #2,4,6 and 8 to hit the board. You might switch #7 and #4 for a value bet.

Rachel Alarmista

Quite a few things have happened over the last week here at the corner of Horseplayer Road and Racing Boulevard. Rachel Alexandra proved every bit as good as she looked in the Oaks when winning the Preakness from a strong-challenging non-fluke, catapulting herself into a layer of stardom that reaches the oft-mentioned casual fan, and even achieving that most precious proof of immortality, being photoshopped into a picture with the president on The Daily Show (approx. at the 2:30 mark).

Speaking of political satire and fake stories that make you laugh out loud, we learned that Larry King might find it so easy to avoid obvious hard questions because he has a habit of making up his own reality anyway.

Finally, those who hoped that one filly winning the Preakness would be enough to get some rest from the “fillies-shouldn’t-run-against-colts” debate were seriously disappointed when this one moved right on into either “she shouldn’t be asked to do what we expect of those inferior horses she beat” or “she should be treated as a piece of porcelain and not run ever again”. The latter might be the most stupid opinion on racing I ever read, and that’s against some pretty stiff opposition.

You do realize she’s a racehorse, do you? The class repeats: RACE-HORSE! The word consists of two parts, of which the first, RACE, is referring to racing, which is what racehorses are intended and, theoretically, bred to do. Does anybody suggest that MLB should retire its Rookies-of-the-Year, so we can dabble in memories of Jacoby Ellsbury’s first (full) season on ESPN Classics, instead of watching him actually steal home live on broadcast TV? (To be sure, I’m an Orioles fan, but I do enjoy watching Ellsbury).

Those people who spent the week before the Preakness telling us that fillies are somehow naturally bound to break down when competing against colts (allegedly because they run their heart out against superior opposition, which, I understand, can’t happen in filly races) are now at it to tell us that fillies also can’t run 12 furlongs (as opposed to one-and-a-half miles, the traditional distance for Oaks races). One thing is obvious: should Jackson decide to start his filly in the Belmont (which I would appreciate, provided she is fit), it’s a no-win for him, and for racing. If she wins, she’ll do what was expected of her, if she is injured in any way, the alarmists will pop out of their holes screaming “I told you this race was one too much”, which of course is easy enough to be right about if you predict apocalypse before absolutely every one of her races.

The risk of a horse breaking down or otherwise injuring itself is pretty high in American racing. We all know why (drugs, breeding the infirm to the unraced), and we all should certainly be able to understand that it has nothing to do with the gender of horses a racehorse competes against, nor does it have much to do with the frequency of races. The increasing unsoundness of the American racehorse is a problem that becomes more apparent with every 3yo crop we watch entering the Triple Crown trail, where injury has replaced graded stakes earnings as the main obstacle to enter the Derby gate. It’s a major problem. And it has to finally be addressed in a meaningful way. But not by stopping racehorses from racing.

Could Jess Be Our Savior?

The racing world suddenly looks several shades brighter since Jess Jackson’s Stonestreet Stables, no doubt inspired by my repeated whining about the path lined out for her, purchased Rachel Alexandra. And things got even better when today it was announced that the standout filly will be pointed to the Preakness next, with Calvin Borel aboard. According to Jackson, Borel’s decision “came down to the facts that he knows and loves this horse, that he knows how to get the most from her and he knows how to win”. That he knows she’s the better horse compared to the Derby winner might have been a factor too.

Like most people, I’m not exactly euphoric about seeing great horses in the care of Steve Asmussen, but having this horse owned by Stonestreet is about the best thing that could happen to the sport. RA was looking to be a lost opportunity for racing, now she could become the sport’s best (and fastest) PR campaign.

With Curlin, Jackson gave the racing world an almost forgotten sensation – the sight of a Horse of the Year being campaigned like a Champion. Curlin took on all comers in Dubai, California, Kentucky and New York. He won a lot and lost a few, but his defeats came because Stonestreet didn’t duck a challenge and never pampered their horse by entering races they couldn’t lose. I loved how Jackson pointed his horse to challenge the world’s best turf horses in the Arc. It ultimately turned out Curlin didn’t like the turf, but even so it assured that fans got an exciting season out of the HOTY. Most owners would have rushed him off to stud or, like Ghostzapper, campaigned him in races tilted towards his interests, all the while patting themselves on their back for how great a gesture it was to show up at all. I will always take a horse that lost a couple of big challenges over one that avoided them in the first place. If this decade has produced one true Champion, Curlin was that.

I also loved how Jackson challenged Big Brown to a pre-BC match, first in the Woodward, then in the JC Gold Cup. Big Brown’s owners, IEAH, on the other hand weren’t that sporting. Their attitude is typical for most of today’s big-time owners: seeing a great challenge as nothing more than a great risk to their horse’s value at stud. As long as the breeding industry is the tail wagging the dog, this strategy makes sense. After all, Big Brown was syndicated for over $50 million, amazing for a horse that battled soundness issues all through its career.

Fans of the sport can only hope for owners who put sportsmanship first and financial considerations second. Right now, no major owner represents that spirit better than Jess Jackson.