List of Breeders Cup-related questions
DiscreetCat
Moderator
from NTRA:
Now that the dust, er, oops, make that plastic chips have settled at Santa Anita, post time is at hand for the question that everyone wants answered.
But just like the surprisingly rambunctious Quality Road, I'd like to delay that blog for at least a few days before offering an opinion on Horse of the Year. It's not an issue that should be based on a knee-jerk reaction from the events of one single day. Reflection on an entire year is necessary, and, believe me, this is not an easy choice.
All that I'll say now is that I completely disagree with the notion of simply giving the award to both Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta. Maybe it's the old youth sports coach in me, but, even though 5-year-olds are involved, this is not a tyke's t-ball game. It's OK in that sport to let the kids smack the ball around and run the bases all day and then call it a tie so no one goes home sad. But horse racing is a sport where a matter of inches can decide the difference between immortality and trivia. Just ask the connections of Real Quiet about that. If you can split hairs to decide a $5 million purse, you can choose between Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta (I'm listing them alphabetically, folks, so don't read anything into who was mentioned first).
If the vote ends up in a tie, so be it. There are dead heats. But the process should go forward as usual, with the more deserving recipient winning out.
So, as we mull over the big question, let's reflect on a few others to come out of another memorable edition of the Breeders' Cup.
Q: Who was the leading lady?
A: By far, distaff runners stole the show. Saturday's Sprint, featuring males, was the most thrilling finish, but the most breath-taking performances of the two days were registered by Goldikova and Zenyatta.
Late in each of their races you wondered about them, then they flashed an incredible turn of foot that catapulted them to a spectacular victory.
Of the two, Zenyatta's in the Breeders' Cup Classic was the more impressive. She beat a much better field than Goldikova did in the Breeders' Cup Mile. The only real threat to the European filly was fellow import Zacinto, who ran like he was still in quarantine.
Zenyatta faced better competition, and I'll admit at the top of the turn I thought she was in trouble. I didn't have a lot of confidence that jockey Mike Smith would make an inside move with her, but he did save some ground on the bend before tipping out in the stretch, and that might have been the difference in the race. I don't know if her kick would have been as powerful if she was carried eight wide on the turn.
Both performances illustrated why they are champions, but the one that stood out most was clearly Zenyatta's.
Q: Will the ladies stop bullying the guys?
A: That's a tough one. I think we're still feeling the effects of an extremely weak 3-year-old class in 2008. Big Brown was the group's only star and he was gone before the Breeders' Cup.
This year's sophomore class was better and deeper and has the potential to give us a much stronger handicap division next year. Will any of them beat Rachel Alexandra next year? Who knows. Horses often change, for better or worse, when they turn four and one wonders if a very demanding 3-year-old campaign will ultimately take a toll on Rachel.
Q: Will you see more Pick 6 syndicates at the 2010 Breeders' Cup?
A: I think so. I'm not a big fan of the bet, but when you look at what seemed like an unhittable Pick Six for anyone other than a hacker - with payoffs of $52.60 and $63.20 starting the sequence in the end you saw it was not out of the realm of possibility for someone with a $5,000 or $10,000 bankroll.
Think about it. If you singled Goldikova, Conduit and Zenyatta and then went all-all-all in the other races, it would have cost $2,340 for $2 tickets and the return would have been about $900,000 (I'm figuring you would have had to split the $1.8 million payoff with the other person who actually hit it.).
That's out of my league, but I'm sure there were plenty of syndicates with enough Benjamins to cover it.
The lesson to be learned is that sometimes it makes more sense to spread your bets in wide-open races rather than inflate your ticket by lining up against a sure thing.
Q: Is it time to drop Ladies' Day?
A: Most definitely. The format isn't working. Friday will always be the other day at the Breeders' Cup, so let the biggest stars shine on Saturday and fill Friday's card with some great betting races to entertain the true fans who are watching and wagering.
One exception would be the Ladies' Classic. I'd keep that on Friday as the center piece stakes. It gives the day some meaning.
Make the schedule the Ladies' Classic, Dirt Mile, Turf Sprint, Juvenile Turf, Juvenile Fillies Turf and Marathon and you'll have some wide-open betting races to keep devoted fans happy on Friday and have a Saturday lineup that will truly showcase the sport to the newcomers.
Q: Did we see the next Kentucky Derby winner in the BC Juvenile?
A: Maybe at the back of the pack, not at the front. I'm quite willing to bet against Vale of York, the unlucky Lookin at Lucky and Noble's Promise in the Kentucky Derby. Winning a major 2-year-old race on a synthetic track does not tell me anything about that horse's chances of winning on the First Saturday in May over a dirt track. If anything, their strong form on an artificial surface makes them an inviting bet-against in the Derby.
Like last year, I'll look to Florida or New York, or even New Mexico this time, for the next Derby winner.
Q: Is racing on a synthetic surface tantamount to turf racing?
A: Two straight years of the Breeders' Cup at Santa Anita answered that question better than a $10 million study. Once again, horses that raced and trained primarily on dirt floundered on the Pro-Ride surface, and that was grass star Gio Ponti who finished second in the Breeders' Cup Classic. There are always going to be crossovers, versatile horses who can handle any surface. Off his two career-ending turf victories I'd say Secretariat would have won the Breeders' Cup Classic on dirt, Pro-Ride, Polytrack or even gravel, for that matter. Yet many horses have a niche. They're dirt horses. They're grass horses. And they're now synthetic track horses. They might be a grass AND synthetic horse, but only a small percentage of the top dirt horses is suited for an plastic track.
And that's something racing cannot run away from. To consider dirt and synthetics the same surface is simply rhetoric. A casual fan might buy it, as the discussion is becoming less prevalent in other sports they follow like baseball and football. Yet passionate fans and especially handicappers know better.
At some point, sooner rather than later, the issue needs to be addressed frankly and candidly before the sport takes even more turns down a path it may regret following.
Synthetic tracks surely have a purpose. They help to maintain field size in bad weather. They might be safer, though I will not claim to be versed enough on all the stats to adequately debate that point. Yet in a sport where there's choice, not a mandated schedule that must be followed, the dirt vs. synthetics issue is a major one. We all know about Rachel Alexandra's absence from this year's Breeders' Cup and how New Yorkers turned their noses at it, but do you think Californians are doing cartwheels over the BC returning to Churchill Downs? Might Zenyatta be coming back for a 6-year-old campaign if the BC was to be held Santa Anita for a third straight year?
The sport needs a unified direction on this before an individual decision throws it out of whack. I've said this before, and I'll repeat it again. Can you imagine the consequences if either Churchill Downs, Pimlico or Belmont Park went synthetic and the other two didn't? You might as well retire the Triple Crown. No one would ever win it.
Q: Should the Breeders' Cup return to a synthetic surface?
A: That's the inevitable follow-up question, and I'd say yes, but not for two years in row. Synthetic tracks are the norm in California, which is a major circuit, as well as Keeneland and Arlington Park. A rotation is the only way to be fair to everyone.
And for those who want to exclude synthetic tracks, I remind you of how fickle Mother Nature can be. I could have used scuba gear at the 2007 Breeders' Cup at Monmouth. One long cloud burst can wipe out a year's worth of dreams for some dirt stars who cannot stand up in the mud. At least with synthetics, you basically know in advance what you're getting and you can map out a campaign accordingly.
And what are your answers to these questions. Don't worry, we'll get to the big question soon enough.
Now that the dust, er, oops, make that plastic chips have settled at Santa Anita, post time is at hand for the question that everyone wants answered.
But just like the surprisingly rambunctious Quality Road, I'd like to delay that blog for at least a few days before offering an opinion on Horse of the Year. It's not an issue that should be based on a knee-jerk reaction from the events of one single day. Reflection on an entire year is necessary, and, believe me, this is not an easy choice.
All that I'll say now is that I completely disagree with the notion of simply giving the award to both Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta. Maybe it's the old youth sports coach in me, but, even though 5-year-olds are involved, this is not a tyke's t-ball game. It's OK in that sport to let the kids smack the ball around and run the bases all day and then call it a tie so no one goes home sad. But horse racing is a sport where a matter of inches can decide the difference between immortality and trivia. Just ask the connections of Real Quiet about that. If you can split hairs to decide a $5 million purse, you can choose between Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta (I'm listing them alphabetically, folks, so don't read anything into who was mentioned first).
If the vote ends up in a tie, so be it. There are dead heats. But the process should go forward as usual, with the more deserving recipient winning out.
So, as we mull over the big question, let's reflect on a few others to come out of another memorable edition of the Breeders' Cup.
Q: Who was the leading lady?
A: By far, distaff runners stole the show. Saturday's Sprint, featuring males, was the most thrilling finish, but the most breath-taking performances of the two days were registered by Goldikova and Zenyatta.
Late in each of their races you wondered about them, then they flashed an incredible turn of foot that catapulted them to a spectacular victory.
Of the two, Zenyatta's in the Breeders' Cup Classic was the more impressive. She beat a much better field than Goldikova did in the Breeders' Cup Mile. The only real threat to the European filly was fellow import Zacinto, who ran like he was still in quarantine.
Zenyatta faced better competition, and I'll admit at the top of the turn I thought she was in trouble. I didn't have a lot of confidence that jockey Mike Smith would make an inside move with her, but he did save some ground on the bend before tipping out in the stretch, and that might have been the difference in the race. I don't know if her kick would have been as powerful if she was carried eight wide on the turn.
Both performances illustrated why they are champions, but the one that stood out most was clearly Zenyatta's.
Q: Will the ladies stop bullying the guys?
A: That's a tough one. I think we're still feeling the effects of an extremely weak 3-year-old class in 2008. Big Brown was the group's only star and he was gone before the Breeders' Cup.
This year's sophomore class was better and deeper and has the potential to give us a much stronger handicap division next year. Will any of them beat Rachel Alexandra next year? Who knows. Horses often change, for better or worse, when they turn four and one wonders if a very demanding 3-year-old campaign will ultimately take a toll on Rachel.
Q: Will you see more Pick 6 syndicates at the 2010 Breeders' Cup?
A: I think so. I'm not a big fan of the bet, but when you look at what seemed like an unhittable Pick Six for anyone other than a hacker - with payoffs of $52.60 and $63.20 starting the sequence in the end you saw it was not out of the realm of possibility for someone with a $5,000 or $10,000 bankroll.
Think about it. If you singled Goldikova, Conduit and Zenyatta and then went all-all-all in the other races, it would have cost $2,340 for $2 tickets and the return would have been about $900,000 (I'm figuring you would have had to split the $1.8 million payoff with the other person who actually hit it.).
That's out of my league, but I'm sure there were plenty of syndicates with enough Benjamins to cover it.
The lesson to be learned is that sometimes it makes more sense to spread your bets in wide-open races rather than inflate your ticket by lining up against a sure thing.
Q: Is it time to drop Ladies' Day?
A: Most definitely. The format isn't working. Friday will always be the other day at the Breeders' Cup, so let the biggest stars shine on Saturday and fill Friday's card with some great betting races to entertain the true fans who are watching and wagering.
One exception would be the Ladies' Classic. I'd keep that on Friday as the center piece stakes. It gives the day some meaning.
Make the schedule the Ladies' Classic, Dirt Mile, Turf Sprint, Juvenile Turf, Juvenile Fillies Turf and Marathon and you'll have some wide-open betting races to keep devoted fans happy on Friday and have a Saturday lineup that will truly showcase the sport to the newcomers.
Q: Did we see the next Kentucky Derby winner in the BC Juvenile?
A: Maybe at the back of the pack, not at the front. I'm quite willing to bet against Vale of York, the unlucky Lookin at Lucky and Noble's Promise in the Kentucky Derby. Winning a major 2-year-old race on a synthetic track does not tell me anything about that horse's chances of winning on the First Saturday in May over a dirt track. If anything, their strong form on an artificial surface makes them an inviting bet-against in the Derby.
Like last year, I'll look to Florida or New York, or even New Mexico this time, for the next Derby winner.
Q: Is racing on a synthetic surface tantamount to turf racing?
A: Two straight years of the Breeders' Cup at Santa Anita answered that question better than a $10 million study. Once again, horses that raced and trained primarily on dirt floundered on the Pro-Ride surface, and that was grass star Gio Ponti who finished second in the Breeders' Cup Classic. There are always going to be crossovers, versatile horses who can handle any surface. Off his two career-ending turf victories I'd say Secretariat would have won the Breeders' Cup Classic on dirt, Pro-Ride, Polytrack or even gravel, for that matter. Yet many horses have a niche. They're dirt horses. They're grass horses. And they're now synthetic track horses. They might be a grass AND synthetic horse, but only a small percentage of the top dirt horses is suited for an plastic track.
And that's something racing cannot run away from. To consider dirt and synthetics the same surface is simply rhetoric. A casual fan might buy it, as the discussion is becoming less prevalent in other sports they follow like baseball and football. Yet passionate fans and especially handicappers know better.
At some point, sooner rather than later, the issue needs to be addressed frankly and candidly before the sport takes even more turns down a path it may regret following.
Synthetic tracks surely have a purpose. They help to maintain field size in bad weather. They might be safer, though I will not claim to be versed enough on all the stats to adequately debate that point. Yet in a sport where there's choice, not a mandated schedule that must be followed, the dirt vs. synthetics issue is a major one. We all know about Rachel Alexandra's absence from this year's Breeders' Cup and how New Yorkers turned their noses at it, but do you think Californians are doing cartwheels over the BC returning to Churchill Downs? Might Zenyatta be coming back for a 6-year-old campaign if the BC was to be held Santa Anita for a third straight year?
The sport needs a unified direction on this before an individual decision throws it out of whack. I've said this before, and I'll repeat it again. Can you imagine the consequences if either Churchill Downs, Pimlico or Belmont Park went synthetic and the other two didn't? You might as well retire the Triple Crown. No one would ever win it.
Q: Should the Breeders' Cup return to a synthetic surface?
A: That's the inevitable follow-up question, and I'd say yes, but not for two years in row. Synthetic tracks are the norm in California, which is a major circuit, as well as Keeneland and Arlington Park. A rotation is the only way to be fair to everyone.
And for those who want to exclude synthetic tracks, I remind you of how fickle Mother Nature can be. I could have used scuba gear at the 2007 Breeders' Cup at Monmouth. One long cloud burst can wipe out a year's worth of dreams for some dirt stars who cannot stand up in the mud. At least with synthetics, you basically know in advance what you're getting and you can map out a campaign accordingly.
And what are your answers to these questions. Don't worry, we'll get to the big question soon enough.
Comments
Dar Re MI also ran quite well vs. males in the BC Turf, although since she didn't win, she''ll get no attention at all. Faced some traffic on the turn for home, but kept on coming regardless. Figures a threat next year if she returns.
Time to drop Filly Friday? Yeah, for sure. When the two best filly/mares don't run on Filly Friday, what's the point? Put the traditional races back on Saturday where they belong, and run the new ones on Friday.
Was the Derby winner in the Juvenile? Impossible to say, of course. Lookin at Lucky was highly impressive, as usual. And i think the above author's contention that his record on synthetic means nothing in the Derby is just silly. Compare him to Pioneerof the Nile, who had a similar synthetic-only record for Baffert and then ran very well in the Derby, looking like the winner turning for home before finishing second. And Baffert is already on record as saying he thinks Lookin at Lucky is better than Pioneerof the Nile was. So, by sheer volume (of horses NOT in the Juvenile), it's easy to say no, but Lookin at Lucky impressed me a great deal.
Is synthetic racing tantamount to turf racing? I don't think so. Do turf horses run well on it? Well sure, some do. But many others don't. Ask Rip Van Winkle about that. Or Duke of Marmalade last year. Turf success is no guarantee of synthetic success. Also worth mentioning that some European turf invaders have run awfully well on DIRT in previous Breeders Cups. Arazi, Johannesberg, Giant's Causeway, Sakhee, etc. But now that we hae synthetic, that's thought to be the main factor whenever a Euro runs well on the main track. Could just be a coincidence, though it's certainly an individual-horse thing, whether you're talking about Dirt, Synthetic, Mud, or whatever. And people seem to forget that not all Dirt tracks are the same, anyway. There have been horses-for-courses LONG before synthetic racing showed up. Highly-touted East Coast horses used to come into California and flame out on the faster Santa Anita dirt (and vice-versa) every year. That's the chance you take with shippers, no matter what surface they're running on.
Should the Breeders Cup retuirn to a synthetic surface? Well, if they're still around in a few years, then sure, why not? I thought the Breeders Cup went off just fine these last two years. As the author mentions, it's the Monmouth Breeders Cup a few years ago that i had the real problem with. This last Kentucky Derby was no picnic either. So you've gotta take the good with the bad. As long as the surface is fair and consistent, i really don't care if it's dirt of synthetic.