horse names | Horse Racing Free Tips

‘Words Matter’: Owner Changes Horse’s Name From Royal Trump To Peaceful Transfer

When Thoroughbred owner Steven McCanne partnered with trainer Bob Hess Jr. to claim a 5-year-old California-bred gelding for $40,000 at Del Mar last Nov. 27, he said he was taken aback somewhat by the horse's name: Royal Trump.

McCanne assumed breeders Larry and Marianne Williams named the son of Ministers Wild Cat after Donald J. Trump, the 45^th president of the United States. The horse, produced from a mare named Royal Woodman, was foaled on May 8, 2015, a month before Trump announced his candidacy for president. He would have been named at a later date.

“I didn't want to make a political statement, but it just felt controversial,” said McCanne. “The election had just happened. Trump is a character, but I thought, 'It's a little like Covfefe” – a reference to the LNJ Foxwoods-owned runner named after a Trump late night Tweet. Covfefe, would go on to win six of eight starts including the Breeders' Cup Filly & Mare Sprint and be named champion female sprinter of 2019.

Royal Trump hasn't been quite as successful, though he won six of 24 starts, earning over $200,000, when McCanne and Hess claimed him last November.

Then the insurrection of Jan. 6 happened, when thousands of Trump supporters who refused to accept the fact that Joe Biden defeated Trump in the election, stormed the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.

At that moment, McCanne said, he wanted nothing to do with a horse connecting the term “royal” with “Trump.”

“He probably would like to be king,” McCanne said of the former president.

McCanne called Hess, asking if they could change the name. “I'm not that experienced as an owner,” said McCanne, a Northern California software entrepreneur who bought his first horses a few years ago. “Bob said, 'You have to make a request to The Jockey Club. So I sent an email.”

McCanne came up with an appropriate substitute: Peaceful Transfer. That name is a reference to what is supposed to occur between the time of the presidential election in November and inauguration day in January when a new president is sworn into office. The Trump-Biden transfer of power was a rocky one.

McCanne emailed The Jockey Club on Jan. 8.

Dear Jockey Club,

I am writing to request a name change for the racehorse “Royal Trump,” claimed by me and Robert Hess, Jr. at Del Mar this past November.

At that time, I understood the name had a controversial connotation but it seemed to me a harmless joke.

Unfortunately, things are different now. After the events of this week, I feel the name has become critically controversial. No matter what one's politics are, there are many strong emotions around the name “Trump.”

Names and words matter and their meaning and implications can evolve. I feel that the name “Trump” is now controversial enough that it may detract from the spirit and positivity of the racing culture. The last thing the sport (and the horse) need are loud boos from (some in) the crowd because “Royal Trump” enters the winner's circle.

For these reasons, I humbly submit to the Jockey Club this proposal to change Royal Trump's name to “Peaceful Transfer.”

Thank you for your consideration. Bob and I look forward to hearing from you soon.

According to The Jockey Club's Rule Book, names can be changed at any time prior to a horse's first race. “Ordinarily,” the rule continues, “no name change will be permitted after a horse has started in its first race or has been used for breeding (mating) purposes. However, in the event a name must be changed after a horse has started in its first race, both the old and new names should be used until the horse has raced three times following the name change.”

Royal Trump ran on Jan. 16, one week after McCanne's request, then again on March 21 and on May 9 – all under his original name.

After the most recent start, McCanne was curious why the name hadn't changed and sent another email to The Jockey Club. This time, he said, he received a response from The Jockey Club saying the change was approved.

Peaceful Transfer will be running under his new name for the first time on Saturday at Los Alamitos in Cypress, Calif., carrying a $40,000 claiming tag in an allowance race/optional claiming event.

This, incidentally, wasn't the first Royal Trump in American horse racing. A Nebraska-bred Thoroughbred by that name, born in 1993, was a seven-time winner from 57 starts over six racing seasons.

The post ‘Words Matter’: Owner Changes Horse’s Name From Royal Trump To Peaceful Transfer appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Campbell: What’s In A Name? Study Finds Bettors Unduly Influenced By Horses’ Names

This commentary originally appeared on HorseRacing.net on June 21 and is reprinted here with permission.

The handicappers of America are in a highly speculative business. It is not quite the lumber market of late, but … For some, it ranges somewhere between wildcatting out in West Texas, and base jumping off the KL Tower in Malaysia, figuratively speaking.

When it comes to “horseplayers,” they combine a strange concoction of superstition with past precedent. One would like to think that they are scientists more so than tarot card readers. Some are on the phone, pacing slowly; either doling out tips, or intently listening to a supposed qualified source. When the anonymous deliver, they are instantly known by all, a soothsayer of renown. Think town crier. When it doesn't — think the stocks in the square.

Racetrack culture is full of genuine and original “wildcatters,” who are just waiting for you to ask them the “Question.” That question being, “Who do you like?”

Betting methods are endlessly fascinating. Participants devour the Form in all sorts of ways. Some wait right up until the race goes off to look at it, while others prepare days in advance, hoping to unearth some numeral or meaningful sign that their selections can lead to cashing tickets. Everyone who participates in making a wager receives a permanent record, either on paper or digitally, of an opinion that at one point they thought might be correct.

At different points in the year, casual horseplayers arrive on the scene like tourists. Wearing their shiny white tennis shoes, cameras around the neck at the ready, and holding up their trifold maps like in one of those string of Chevy Chase Vacation films. They are hoping to “stump the chumps.” If they win, exuberance is a tidal wave, but if they lose, they might not return — at least until next year. More professional track-goers know better, and they can temper wins and losses.

Over the course of my own experience in different betting milieus, I have often wondered about how much the names of horses can influence the wide spectrum of those that place bets. Are they really as good as they think they are, those novices to the veterans, when it comes to dealing with this issue? Could they be unduly influenced by such an arbitrary thing as this appears to be?

A recent article in the Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics entitled, “Sonic Thunder vs. Brian the Snail: Are people affected by uninformative racehorse names?” probed some of these questions. In other words, turning to those that examine behavioral economics might provide some intriguing answers.

In this particular study, a triad of scholars from the Department of Business Administration at the University of Zurich (Oliver Merz, Raphael Flepp, and Egon Franck) wanted to take a deep dive into the world of “effects.” That being how decision-making and market efficiency play in the world of horse racing. Our sport, they tell us, is particularly interesting because data is readily available to measure things like investment, choice, and result.

What they uncovered was some fascinating material about the habits of mind when it comes to choosing horses. Betting decisions they say are affected by uninformative racehorse names. They looked at over 400,000 contests between the ten-year span of 2008 to 2018, developing a long list of words from the Oxford Dictionary to cover anything that related to the word “fast.”

What they mined from countries across the globe (including the U.S.), is that when a “fast-sounding” horse was entered in any given race, the probability of them winning was “overstated.” To put it another way, the returns, the ability to cash a ticket, were actually lower compared to bets on others.

Wait, what, you say? A horse with the name “speed” was overly bet when compared to one with “slow” in it?

Correct. With all the collective knowledge available in the sport of horse racing, and with all the professional supposed “opinions” that are out there, something as trivial as this could have a major impact on the betting market. I find that both disturbing and captivating.

Of course, betting on a horse always has elements present where bettors do not have all of the knowledge at their disposal they could to make could be called an “informed wager.” But choosing a horse based on its name only, I would say is universally scoffed at by those that consider themselves “in the know.” Ask any of the National Horseplayers Championship (NHC) players in Las Vegas when they attend the tournament there, if they make their selections based on names, and you would probably get some wry smiles along with legions of shaking heads. It is simply not done, they will say.

However, we are talking about the depths of the human mind here, aren't we? It has twists and turns, fissures like a maze. As Freud and Jung began to tell us in German over a 100 years ago, the subconscious is a tricky business.

That is why we need departments in colleges and universities that examine topics such as behavioral economics. It can follow lines of inquiry, cross-pollenate, and uncover truths we might not have thought existed. By the end of the piece, the authors make some rather sweeping suggestions about society at large, and whether this kind of “effect” plays out on a larger scale. They are on to something. Has horse racing once again provided the world with a window into actions of a much broader audience? Perhaps.

What we do know is that track culture has a niche of behavior that is intimately tied to one's own pocketbook. Just like buying on Amazon during “Prime Day,” or purchasing a stock on Robinhood, those decisions about why we do what we do, reflect greatly on who we are as both individuals, and as a collective, “people.” We might not want to admit it, but sometimes those choices turn out to be pretty uninformed.

The next time you are out at the racetrack, surveying the PPs for a race at say, Belmont, watch out for those “speed” horses. As for those names, your mind might be leading you down the wrong path. That goes double for you, wildcatters. Knowledge in this case, is not as apparent as it might seem.

J.N. Campbell is a turfwriter based in Houston.

The post Campbell: What’s In A Name? Study Finds Bettors Unduly Influenced By Horses’ Names appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

‘Toxic Words And Divisive Behavior’: Guillot Banned Over Horse Name, Social Media Posts

Respect for All.

That's the new name given to an Uncle Mo gelding owner Lawrence Roman claimed for $25,000 out of Friday's first race at Aqueduct racetrack in Ozone Park, N.Y.

Bred by Southern Equine Stables LLC, the 3-year-old won the race, his debut, under the name Grape Soda, for owner Cypress Creek Equine and trainer Eric Guillot.

Following the race, an outcry ensued on social media that referenced an earlier Tweet from Guillot showing he gave the horse its original name – which can be interpreted as an offensive racial stereotype – in “honor” of a TVG analyst he has since admitted to be Ken Rudulph, who is Black. The Tweet included a emoji of a Black fist.

Guillot falsely claimed on Twitter after the race he named the horse “after my favorite drink when I was a little boy.”

By then, Rudulph had already called Guillot out on Twitter, saying: “The winner in race #1 from Aqueduct is the perfect example of my issue with horse racing. The winning trainer is a disgusting and racist man. But, if you want to make money in this game you have to be able to ignore that stuff. I can't do it. But y'all carry on with your $11.”

Guillot has posted bigoted or racially tinged comments in the past, including a Tweet in August 2020 saying he had given another horse the name “Uncle Ken's Cabin,” an obvious reference to the Harriet Beecher Stowe novel about slavery. When asked, Guillot said he didn't recall the Tweet.

On Saturday morning, The Jockey Club issued the following statement: “The Jockey Club was notified yesterday that the name Grape Soda, which was approved for a 2018 gelding, was potentially offensive. Upon review we have confirmed that the name is ineligible under Rule 6.F.11. of the Principal Rules and Requirements of The American Stud Book, and we have begun the name change process in consultation with the current owner, which must be completed as soon as possible.”

By early afternoon, the horse's new owner, Roman, told Daily Racing Form's David Grening that the name Respect for All had been approved by The Jockey Club and that he will donate 10% of the gelding's future earnings to the Backstretch Employee Service Team at New York Racing Association tracks. Within hours, the name change was reflected at Equibase, the industry's official database.

But the ripple effects had just begun.

David O'Rourke, president and CEO of the New York Racing Association, issued the following statement: “Racism is completely unacceptable in all forms. NYRA rejects Eric Guillot's toxic words and divisive behavior in the strongest terms. At this time, he will no longer be permitted to enter horses at any NYRA track nor will he be allocated stalls on NYRA grounds. In addition, we will review what further steps may be available to us. Our racing community is diverse, and we stand for inclusion.”

Rudulph's employer, TVG, took its Guillot ban one step further, saying it would not televise any races in which Guillot is participating.

“TVG commends NYRA for taking swift action on the matter involving Eric Guillot,” a company statement said. “There is simply no place in society for racism and we condemn his behavior, a deliberate attempt to slur one of our employees, in the strongest terms. Our network will no longer air races in which he has an entry. We also commend the action by new owner Larry Roman to change the horse's name. We will continue to work toward making racing more inclusive and to attracting a new generation of fans to the sport.”

The Stronach Group and 1/ST Racing chief operating officer Aidan Butler also said Guillot would not be welcome at the company's tracks in California, Maryland or Florida.

“1/ST Racing stands firmly against the inexcusable actions of trainer Eric Guillot,” Butler said. “There is no place in the sport of Thoroughbred racing for racism in any form. Our company will not tolerate the use of hateful and divisive language or behavior.

“1/ST Racing agrees fully with the New York Racing Association's move to ban Mr. Guillot from racing and will take the same action,” added Butler. “Mr. Guillot is no longer welcomed at any 1/ST RACING track.”

Guillot, who only started nine runners in 2020 and 19 the year before that, posted a video on Twitter on Saturday saying that he has now retired from training. Licensed since, 1991, Guillot has won 259 races from 2,348 starts. He's won 19 graded stakes, the most recent coming in 2016 with Laoban in the G2 Jim Dandy Stakes at Saratoga.

When reached by the Paulick Report, Guillot said the entire matter has been overblown, stating nothing would have happened if the horse had finished second in Friday's race.

“I didn't do anything wrong,” said Guillot, who insisted that he is not racist.

When asked why he gave the horse that specific name and said it was “in honor” of TVG's Rudulph, Guillot said, “I was just teasing him. It wasn't meant in a harmful way.

“I did nothing wrong but be a common comedian, and my skin's a little too light to be joking about grape sodas, that's all,” Guillot said. “If Chris Rock or David Chappelle had said it, it would be OK.”

Guillot went on to blame Rudulph for starting a feud with him, calling him “pompous” and the “most privileged Black person I know. … He plays the 180-degree Black Lives Matter racist card and is as condescending as you get. It has nothing to do with me being racist. This is what he wanted; I just fueled the fire is what I did.”

Rudulph declined to comment.

The post ‘Toxic Words And Divisive Behavior’: Guillot Banned Over Horse Name, Social Media Posts appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post