Armen Antonian | Horse Racing Free Tips

Letter To The Editor: The Implications of Choosing Not To Run in This Year’s Derby

The Derby is not just any race. It is the pinnacle of American horse racing from virtually every angle: breeding, owning, training, riding and yes, even betting (who doesn't want bragging rights for picking the winner?).

And the Derby race/event has grown to such importance for the entire industry (the hoopla around the Derby as an event got bigger in the preceding years even while horse racing has been struggling), that its import flows far beyond the private parameters of ownership of Churchill Downs, Inc. Derby day is an industry-wide event even though it is run by a private entity. And herein emerges the problem that begs for a resolution.

The owners of horses trained by Bob Baffert, in refusing to switch barns in order to get their horses eligible to the Derby race, are, in essence, calling out the management of the Derby race by Churchill and boycotting the race.

I write this from the perspective of years of graduate study in political economy during my Ph.D. work. These owners have made (and undoubtedly not deliberately so) a huge first step in challenging the balance of power in the industry between owners/breeders and the racetracks.

Churchill, in arbitrarily extending the ban on their trainer and shortening the time for the required transfer of their horses from their chosen trainer to someone else (the transfer date was conspicuously set days before the Robert Lewis prep race at Santa Anita), had, apparently gone too far. Churchill was intrinsically questioning both the owner's management and judgment in the care of their horses. The owners, in turn, by not transferring their horses to another trainer and thus choosing not to run in the Derby, are questioning the management of the Derby race itself by Churchill Inc.

The implications from this small group of owner's decisions go far beyond themselves, their trainer and Churchill itself. Not only are these owners challenging Churchill's authority to interfere with the management and use of their property rights, by boycotting this year's Derby, they are preventing (again not deliberately) the breeders of the horses in question from participating in the Derby.

This battle of the power of Churchill Inc. over the Derby race with these owners has rippling effects on the breeding industry itself. You breed a top horse, it gets sold and then doesn't get to participate in the Derby because of a battle between Churchill Inc. and a specific trainer that leads to the owners withholding the horse.

This situation needs to be resolved.

And the power of Churchill Inc. over a race that is now, de facto, an industry race (while proprietary to Churchill Inc.) needs to be curbed so that any similar situation doesn't re-occur. Decisions directly impacting the Derby race need to be subject to countervailing power by the key interest groupings in the industry-with representatives actually in the boardroom concerning key decisions on the Derby race. Such arrangements are not uncommon in business. Even the trainers do not have a voice regarding their own eligibility and seemingly arbitrary decisions regarding their participation.

The Derby is the Derby because everyone wants to run their top horses if they are ready for the race. As soon as capable, top horses are not put on the path to the Derby, the race can lose its significance before too long. The Derby race is too important to the industry to be allowed to be run without Industry-wide input to assure its continued impact.
–Armen Antonian Ph.D

The post Letter To The Editor: The Implications of Choosing Not To Run in This Year’s Derby appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Letter To The Editor: The Unspoken Safety Factor In Horse Racing Fatalities From The Handicapper’s Perspective

Handicappers use the term “bounce” to explain a poor performance of a horse or to project a possible poor performance. This handicapping angle is more pronounced in demanding stakes races where a horse will often meet a field where only a top performance will result in a placing.

But what does a “'bounce” really mean? It refers to a horse that had a recent fast performance, several tough races in a short period or many races in a racing campaign. The handicapper is implicitly (and unknowingly) using basic biology to posit that a given horse did not have enough time to recuperate before the next race. But what if this notion of “bounce” has more serious implications beyond performance intersecting with that of safety? Well, apparently it does.

After the deaths at Santa Anita in 2019, I began to observe the records of horses that had catastrophic injuries. A certain number seemed to be horses whose racing and training schedule appeared excessive. While it is impossible to say with certainty that over-racing was the case individually, I surmised it had to be one factor in catastrophic injury in the aggregate. Now HISA apparently is looking at this angle regarding horse safety. In its, 2023 Equine Fatalities: HISA's Strategic Response under “data analysis,” it asks, “Would a maximum number of high-speed furlongs (published works and races) either lifetime or within a rolling period reduce equine injury?” The issue is finally on the table in racing's most significant institution.

Dr. Sue Stover, chair of the HISA Racetrack Safety Committee, goes well beyond what handicappers have noticed in their “bounce” notion only to prognosticate a poor performance for a horse. Dr. Stover in the Spring 2023 Churchill Downs Equine Fatalities: HISA Findings under the category “high speed exercise analysis,” concluded–after comparing the Churchill deaths to the control group- -that (indeed) the deceased horses had more races per year and that the data coincides with the notion that, “frequent high injury exercise (as observed in injured horses) that does not allow for recovery of exercise-induced microdamage contributes to the development of stress fractures and subchondral stress which presupposes horses to catastrophic injuries.” Dr. Stover is based at UC Davis and their veterinary webpage regarding catastrophic injuries to racehorses includes “training intensity” as a risk factor. Thus, from Dr. Stover's remarks, the science on thoroughbred injury has already progressed to a point where the new (Churchill) data is being amalgamated with existing hypotheses.

The notion that with the recent deaths at Saratoga and Churchill Downs there is no one risk factor in common does not mean that several risk factors are not known. The industry has come a long way since 2019 and many risk factors or pre-existing conditions are known including the over-racing of horses.

I do not want to mention individual horses as it is impossible to know with certainty in any single case whether a horse's racing and training schedule was the main culprit in a breakdown. Too often, in my view, trainers are being cast as “bad guys” and that's too easy a way to address industry wide problems in relation to safety. And my point is not to prove this notion as it is already part of the science on racing injury.

I wish merely to bring the issue out from the shadows to be part of a necessary discussion on horse safety. But I will relate a few high-profile examples of a horse's racing schedule in horses that broke down in top races dating back to 2019 without mentioning the name of the horse.

Horse A had 13 races in 11 months and broke down in a grade 1 race,
Horse B had 10 races in 12 months mostly at the grade 1 level and died after a workout,
Horse C raced 11 times in 10 months breaking down in a grade 3 stakes,
Horse D had 4 races in 4 ½ months moving up into a grade 1 with less than a month off.

There are other high and low-profile examples and again HISA, in their report, summarizes the horse's racing schedule as part of their analysis. Of course, many horses can handle a tough schedule–there is genetic variation in any species. Nonetheless, the over-racing of a horse is one risk factor that has to be addressed in any overall plan regarding horse safety. It intersects with other issues like medication: rest versus therapy.

Why this factor of over-racing a horse has been understated in recent discussion of horse fatalities until now is due, I suspect, to the implications on possible restrictions for the scheduling of a horse's campaign. It may mean limiting the number of starts per horse per racing level, age, etc. It obviously casts a doubt about the spacing of racing's greatest event: The Triple Crown.

Yes, I support 1/ST Racing's Aidan Butler's efforts to move the Preakness date because of the safety issue alone. Yes, it would be a tough go to factor in a horse's schedule regarding an overall safety plan for thoroughbred racing. But if the horse racing industry is going to completely address the issue of safety, the over-racing of horses (not the racing but the over-racing of a horse) needs to be looked at. There is not a good alternative to not do so.

–Armen Antonian Ph.D.

The post Letter To The Editor: The Unspoken Safety Factor In Horse Racing Fatalities From The Handicapper’s Perspective appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Letter to the Editor: Horse Racing Needs a Commissioner’s Office

by Armen Antonian Ph.D

As the 2021 Breeders' Cup approaches, there is much for horse racing to celebrate. New procedures put in place at racetracks to prevent horses with pre-existing conditions from racing have reduced fatalities. And the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) will be implemented next year to standardize medication of horses.

But from California to Kentucky to New York, horse racing is still under a magnifying glass. In the absence of national leadership, individual racetracks struggle to manage ongoing issues and each, on their own, is responsible for promoting a positive image for racing with the general public.

Thoroughbred racing needs a commissioner's office to help address emerging problems and enhance racing's image. Other sports have such an entity. Horse racing needs one, too. Why add another layer of authority? The existing, truncated structure of individual track management of pressing racing issues is insufficient because problems/solutions go well beyond the framework of a single track. What would such an office be involved in?

Take the controversy about the recent Kentucky Derby. The Derby is so important to racing nationwide (revenue, breeding, fan interest, etc.) that any major decision involving the Derby would have a commissioner's office oversight looking out for the general interest of the sport. A commissioner's office would have addressed the slight medication positive of Medina Spirit (Protonico), the Derby winner, while, at the same time, standing by the race result. Whether the win later technically holds is a legal matter. Churchill's response had no such subtlety as it called into question both the authenticity of Medina Spirit's performance and his fitness to run in the Derby.

Trainer Bob Baffert was abruptly suspended from Churchill for two years. What ensued was a (predictable) outpouring of accusations from all directions about the horse, the trainer, and, yes, the sport of horse racing. The sport of racing was not enhanced by Churchill's response. Some in the general public have been led to think that a smidgen of a legal medication can make a horse win the industry's signature race, the Derby. It is very hard to win the Derby! Ask any trainer, jockey, or owner.

Medina Spirit's trainer, Baffert, has been the face of racing. A commissioner's office would have stepped in to add balance to any official pronouncement about the trainer. A two-year ban appears excessive both to the average racing fan and the public at large. The positive reception of both Baffert and Medina Spirit this month at Santa Anita indicate the feelings of the average race fan. Of course, penalties would have been proposed based on a commissioner's office interaction with Churchill for the positive test result (pending investigation) but not without a nuanced view of the circumstances. The last thing horse racing needs is doubt about the sincerity of its response to one of its most noted figures. The public understands the need to give an ointment to a horse for a skin rash (the plausible reason for the drug overage pending the test result). The public would even approve of such a medication for Medina Spirit.

Contrast Churchill's one-sided response to Medina Spirit's positive test to the balanced approach of the Breeders' Cup board of directors. The Breeders' Cup board acknowledged Baffert's predicament (“totality of the circumstances”) and are requiring his horses to undergo additional testing and scrutiny before racing in this year's Breeders' Cup. The board acted in the broad, constructive manner of a quasi-commissioner's office.

There are a host of other issues that demand industry-wide attention. A commissioner's office would already be addressing the purposeful doping of horses with illegal drugs charged by the FBI against trainers Jason Servis and Jorge Navarro (Navarro has pleaded guilty). An industry-wide investigation (apart from that of the FBI) would be underway, coordinated by a committee that would reach out to all racetracks to verify how widespread such doping might be. The horses who may yet be subject to such treatment deserve a rapid response. The racing and general public need to know. Instead, discussion of illegal drug use on horses just festers in chatter among race fans and then filters out into the general public fueling the dark notion that the entirety of horse racing is a dishonest enterprise.

The most visible of racing issues today is the riding crop. To the public at large, the riding crop appears to be a negative, archaic feature of racing. A commissioner's office would help to create a nationwide riding crop standard, after consulting with the jockeys' representatives themselves, and then educate the racing and the general public as to its proper and expected use. The public will understand–if the reasons the crop is needed are explained. But instead, having different crop rules in different states, and no crop at all in New Jersey is incongruous and again feeds into suspicious views about horse racing.

And finally back to the Derby. I was at the 2019 Derby and what struck me about the disqualification of Maximum Security (New Year's Day) was that three local stewards alone were making the decision for the industry's biggest race. No input from a central office like other sports existed. Let us have a seven-person stewards' team for the Derby, with a member from a commissioner's office and with a handicapper/fan on it as well. Horse racing: its people, its fans, and its horses deserve the consideration of a national racing office like any other major sport. From whip rules to public relations and more, today's issues require immediate action that go well beyond the capacity of individual tracks. A first “tip” for a press release from the new office: I know of a horse that originally cost $1,000 that won the Kentucky Derby. Now that is a story to run with!

Armen Antonian of Pasadena, California holds a Ph.D in political economy and political philosophy.

The post Letter to the Editor: Horse Racing Needs a Commissioner’s Office appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Letter to the Editor: Time for Horse Racing to Exhale

by Armen Antonian, Ph.D.

Horse racing is stuck: stuck in the winter of 2019. Stuck at my home track at Santa Anita. That Santa Anita winter meet saw 37 horses euthanized and the meet stopped for a time due to horse safety concerns. California Senator Dianne Feinstein admonished the track publicly and Governor Gavin Newsom called horse racing “archaic.” There was real fear among Santa Anita officials for the continuation of horse racing in California.

The events at Santa Anita were a trauma that reverberated around the U.S. racing world. The critics had been jabbing at racing for decades as societal mores regarding animals had changed dramatically. Suddenly, the entire industry found itself in a huge public relations and political crisis from which it has not escaped.

California and Santa Anita led the reforms aimed at making racing safer. Horses would be screened, medical records transparent, medication levels and rules therein standardized and much more. Throughout the country, industry practices changed dramatically. Did the changes work? Yes, the changes have worked. There were 11 deaths at the recently concluded Santa Anita winter meet. Racing fatalities have dropped significantly in California. That is the story that needs to be told throughout the country. Racing is back on a solid foundation. But that is not what is happening looking at the headlines today. Far from it.

I was recently mingling among young fans at Hollywood Gold Cup Day at Santa Anita. They were as full of the wonder and joy of racing as I was in the late 1960s as a youth. My immigrant Armenian dad (who had been seized from Russia by the Nazis for forced labor during World War II) would tip the ushers so we could have a precious box up in the stands with the owners, movie stars and the trainers. There was actor John Forsythe. Walking by, always expressionless, was trainer Charlie Whittingham. What great horses I saw at Santa Anita over the years: Damascus, Affirmed, Spectacular Bid! And many years later, what event could compare with my experience at a Kentucky Derby? I thought to myself: who is going to educate this generation about racing and keep them in the game to see what I saw? The racing industry or the critics?

The choice is immediate. Why is the industry, in its entirety, not stepping forward and telling a renewed story of a sport that is as brilliant as its horses and its people and of a sport again ready to regain luster? The industry is not seizing the moment because the critics continue to set the dialogue. The critics' paradigm about racing is what prevails in the general media.

Just what do the critics say about horse racing? To start, they see no beauty in the interaction of humans to horses. This is an extreme position and must be so noted and challenged by industry spokespeople. The critics see no beauty or sport in the competition of horses. They start with the fact that horses die. But for the critics, horses die only in racing. The critics do not like to admit that horses also die in nature. The industry must counter that horses are actually better off in racing than in nature. Nature is not neutral. Nature is more about Darwin than Bambi. And, aesthetically, racing can be beautiful–something the critics, a priori, will not admit.

The critics then attack horse racing from another angle. Horses are drugged. And winning horses are “juiced.” The critics prey on a vague notion that has lingered about the sport that it is somehow rigged. I call this the film noir version of horse racing: everyone in racing is seedy or greedy or crooked. We have all seen some fragments of this view in a plot of an old movie. Such a notion is palpably false. Trainers know how hard it is to win a race. The general public needs to be better educated about the game. This dark view of racing needs to be met head on. How are races really won: pace, class, conditioning, etc. Young folk are hungry for information about the game. At the track, they have mountains of questions. Racing needs to continually educate the fanbase. Instead, recent events and industry decisions have actually fueled this pejorative film noir view of racing.

By 2021, the industry had made great strides in the area of horse safety. In watching what transpired after the positive test result for Medina Spirit, one wouldn't know it. After news of the first test positive, Churchill Downs suspended the trainer from entering horses at its track. Such a definitive response opened the door for the critics to create the spin about the Derby result, a result that quickly came to be viewed as bogus. The trainer later pointed to a creme for a rash as the (undetermined) reason for the test result. Even this purported creme explanation was used by one critic's group to state that the creme was given purposely to mask a secret injection of Medina Spirit before the Derby. And so it went…

The general press, not especially astute at covering horse racing these days, followed a story that was defined by one side. Not surprising where they too ended up. There was no industry spokesperson to counter the excesses of the public discussion which cast a long shadow about racing's product itself. As the second positive result came in from the lab, Churchill was categoric in its response and its accompanying statement fed readily into the critics' dialogue that the race result was phony and that racing Medina Spirit was not safe. A drastic measure of a two-year suspension by Churchill of the trainer was proposed. The extent of the suspension cast further suspicion about Medina Spirit's Derby victory.

Before the vitriol and the finger pointing ensued, it would have been nice to hear someone stop and say that it was “a good thing” Medina Spirit's rash was treated.

The Derby product is racing's product and its results cannot be picked apart so readily. But that is what happened. Ironically, those with little expertise in horse racing defined the illegitimacy of a Derby result while those with expertise remained largely silent. So we learned from the charges led by the critics and found in the general press that it was not safe to race Medina Spirit Derby Day and his win was not an honest result. When Churchill made an official pronouncement, it used words like integrity and safety. The critics' talking points about Medina Spirit's Derby run and that of Churchill management were comparable. “Integrity” casts doubt on the veracity of the Derby result. The victory of Medina Spirit has not yet been adjudicated so how is it illegitimate as it stands? Safety? Medina Spirit ran two weeks later in the Preakness without incident. Where did the notion that Medina Spirit was not “safe” to race Derby Day come from?

A Pandora's Box was opened. About that time, a friend called me up and said, “Hey, I heard they gave steroids to the Derby winner, just like Lance Armstrong.” Medications and the levels therein will take time to work out. The rules have just been put in place. The industry must be patient. The rules must be tried and tested and workable for horsemen also. And let's find out what really happened before we denigrate a Derby winner. Let whatever litigation take place that needs to take place in the courts.

The sport of U.S. racing is its history. And Triple Crown history is its ultimate statement. The overreactions of Churchill have disparaged its own product and unfortunately fueled the film noir view of racing promoted by the critics. There is no mechanism to step in and help a racetrack deal with the fallout of critical circumstances. The industry needs a permanent, day-to-day, public relations and political entity that can respond in the industry's general interest. Such a body can also proactively educate the public and the general press about horse racing today.

It is time for the industry to exhale and tell its story. Safety? Horse racing is much safer today. Say so. Time for racing to recount its tradition to a new generation and disseminate its renewed story to everyone. Time to again be proud. Time to take the narrative about racing away from the critics.

Armen Antonian holds a doctorate in political economy and political philosophy and is a lifelong racing fan.

The post Letter to the Editor: Time for Horse Racing to Exhale appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post