Instead, Churchill announced Monday that Baffert's ban had been extended through the calendar year 2024. The decision, Churchill said in a statement, was “based on continued concerns regarding the threat to the safety and integrity of racing (Baffert) poses to CDI-owned racetracks.”

It was a stunning announcement, and not just because it was unexpected. To extend the ban, based on what are best described as flimsy accusations, is overkill. Baffert served his time, his punishment was up and it was time for him to prepare for his return to the Kentucky Derby next year. Justice was not served here.

Baffert's problems began before the 2021 Derby. He had accrued a number of positives over a short period, including one with Gamine (Into Mischief) in the 2020 GI Kentucky Oaks. When Medina Spirit tested positive for betamethasone, Churchill Downs clearly had had enough.

“Failure to comply with the rules and medication protocols jeopardizes the safety of the horses and jockeys, the integrity of our sport and the reputation of the Kentucky Derby and all who participate. Churchill Downs will not tolerate it,” read a statement issued by the track at the time.

A two-year suspension followed. Baffert's problems only mounted. He received a 90-day suspension from the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission and New York Racing Association banned him for what turned out to be a year.

Baffert vowed to fight the charges “tooth and nail,” and that's what he did. He and his legal team based their defense on the supposition that the betamethasone got into Medina Spirit's system, not through an injection. but through an ointment used to treat a skin rash. That, they contended, meant that the positive should have been excused. That never seemed like a winning argument. The betamethasone was in the horse's system. That's all that mattered, and not how it got there. But Baffert kept fighting and contested every one of the suspensions as what seemed like a never-ending series of appeals worked their way through the legal system. As late as this year's GI Belmont S., Baffert was still out there stating his case. In an interview with Fox he said that if he had to do things over again regarding the Medina Spirit matter he wouldn't have done anything differently and that he didn't break any rules.

That apparently didn't go over well in the Churchill Downs corporate suites.

“Mr. Baffert continues to peddle a false narrative concerning the failed drug test of Medina Spirit at the 147th Kentucky Derby from which his horse was disqualified by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission in accordance with Kentucky law and regulations,” Monday's statement from Churchill read. “Prior to that race, Mr. Baffert signed an agreement with Churchill Downs which stated that he was responsible for understanding the rules of racing in Kentucky and that he would abide by them. The results of the tests clearly show that he did not comply, and his ongoing conduct reveals his continued disregard for the rules and regulations that ensure horse and jockey safety, as well as the integrity and fairness of the races conducted at our facilities. A trainer who is unwilling to accept responsibility for multiple drug test failures in our highest-profile races cannot be trusted to avoid future misconduct.”

There's no doubt that Baffert could have been handled the situation better and that a more prudent strategy would have been to shut up, take his lumps and wait patiently on the sidelines for his suspension to run its course. Had he done so, it's likely that Churchill Downs would have reinstated him Monday rather than extending the ban.

Whether Baffert “peddled a false narrative” or not, no one deserves to be penalized–and penalized severely–for exercising their right to defend themselves. And that's what Churchill has done to Baffert. Put in the same situation, most anyone would have done the same. By no means does anything he did constitute a case of “continued disregard for the rules and regulations that ensure horse and jockey safety…”

Another troubling aspect to this latest twist in the Baffert-Medina Spirit saga is that there's no telling what Churchill will do next. In its statement, Churchill gave no assurances that it will drop the ban at the end of 2024. Rather, it said that it will re-evaluate Baffert's status at the time. Do we know that they will ever welcome Baffert back at their tracks? We don't.

Baffert is far from perfect and he never deserved to get a free pass for what he did. He should have been far more careful, not only with Medina Spirit, but with all the horses he had that tested positive. Instead, and at the very least, he was sloppy and took his eye off the ball. How did he and his veterinarian not know that treating Medina Spirit with the ointment Otomax could result in a positive? All of this would have been an issue with any trainer in any race, but when it comes to the biggest name in racing and the sport's marquee race, you definitely have a problem.

So maybe Baffert deserved some of the penalties, especially the one handed down by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission. But at some point, the crime and the punishment need to fit. We no longer need to debate whether or not Churchill Downs was justified in banning Baffert for two years. That ship has sailed. The relevant issue now is the extension of the ban and for what reason. Since the original suspension was announced, Baffert has done nothing wrong and has not violated any rules or had any more positives. He should be on his way back and that he's not suggests that Churchill Downs has a vendetta against him. It's not right.

The post Op/Ed: In Extending Baffert Ban, Churchill Downs Has Gone Too Far appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

I read your article about the St Leger in the TDN with interest and I agree totally that it would be a great loss to British racing to see the Leger distance changed. When I started training I had horses for Lord Weinstock and Dick Hollingsworth, who only bred middle-distance horses, and I really enjoyed being able to allow their horses the time to develop and mature; they also improved significantly from two to three, so if they showed any real ability at two they were going to be useful at three. 

I remember, in the early days, having two two-year-olds for Dick Hollingsworth and not ringing him for ages, as I didn't know what to say. April came and I rang him one Sunday to say I was pleased with them and they were coming along nicely, to which he replied, “How on earth do you know? I hope you haven't done any work with them.” 

He went on to say that there was no point ringing him before July, as his two-year-olds shouldn't be doing anything before then. Not many owners would say that to you these days!

I love the St. Leger, not only as a test of stamina but as a test of a horse's bravery–they have to be tough to win it. It produces horses that go on and mature, having longevity, which is great for the sport and audience participation.

Best wishes,

Neil Graham
(Trainer of the 1988 St Leger winner Minster Son, now director of racing at Chelmsford City Racecourse)

Shortening Classic races, doping, railing against HISA, the US (more than any other nation, in my opinion) clinging to the ridiculous notion that fillies/mares can't compete with colts/geldings simply based on their gender–so many things sadden me in regards to racing these days.  

I don't want any races shortened.  If anything, I'd like to see some lengthened. This is especially pertinent in the US where many 'Classic' filly and mare races are shorter even than their male counterparts. I'd love to see both the Kentucky Oaks and Breeders' Cup Distaff (just to name two) go back to being 1 1/4 races.

One of the brightest spots (again, in my opinion) is Japan. They keep showing the rest of the world what proper breeding and care can produce–and all drug free. They keep my faith and hope alive.

For me, the biggest light is the horse.  Watching these beauties run (especially in the longer races) is what hooked me on the sport and keeps me coming back for more.

Jean B.

I read with interest your article of 8th March published in TDN.

This brought back memories because the question of the St Leger distance, and also if it should be open to older horses, was a much discussed question late 1970s and early 80s. In recent years I had just accepted the race as a NH stallion maker. Interestingly, I once read Tony Morris suggesting his love of thoroughbred breeding may not have developed if this had been the case in his earlier years.

I was always horrified by any thoughts of lowering the distance of the St Leger. However, I was never certain my argument was based on anything but being a traditionalist.  Although Peter Willett's argument is sound from a British breeding perspective, the move from the perception I had had in the 1970s that Australian racing was stamina laden to the current sprint-dominated racing and breeding seems to have worked in extreme and ultimately to, what Australians would consider, the detriment of their more prestigious races.

The other point of interest in your article was why a picture of The Minstrel should be on the copy of a June 1980 copy of Pacemaker. The indexing of my literature clearly works better than I thought and note it was a Richard Stone Reeves painting. Incidentally, on the changing face of racing, note the advert for Moyglare Stud selling a draft of yearlings at Keeneland (and they also sold in Europe as I recall).

Kind Regards,

Neville Sibley

EB replies: Yes, indeed, The Minstrel portrait was in regard to the publication of 'Decade of Champions' by Richard Stone Reeves and Patrick Robinson, a really special book.

The post Letters to the Editor: The St Leger appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

There were some throwbacks, such as an advert for Leslie Combs II's draft of yearlings from Spendthrift, and another for Rover cars (imagine that in a racing publication nowadays!), as well as items that served as a reminder that the more things change, the more they stay the same. To this effect, the first advertisement in the magazine was claimed by Coolmore and featured a large roster of stallions, while later in the publication the headline on the sales review exclaimed, 'Upward Trend Continues at Newmarket'. I think I may have used that one myself on more than one occasion.

There was one article, however, that stopped me in my tracks. Here was Peter Willett, bloodstock journalist of great repute and the man who, only a decade earlier, could be credited as being the architect of the Pattern, stating that the St Leger should be reduced in distance by four furlongs. 

If this piece had been written by almost anyone else, the magazine would have been swiftly consigned to the bin in disgust despite its rather lovely cover image of The Minstrel. But, along with Arthur Budgett and Lord Oaksey, Peter Willett happens to be one of my all-time racing heroes. His words are always worth reading and, typically, such a potential bombshell of a topic was dealt with in his knowledgeable, analytical and reasoned manner.

Willett had been prompted to write on this controversial subject after studying data put forward by Professor Paddy Cunningham showing a deterioration in race times for the St Leger since the 1930s. Willett then conducted his own examination, comparing the decades 1920-29 and 1970-79, which showed that the average Derby time was 2.5 seconds faster in the '70s, but the average time for the St Leger was more than 3 seconds slower.

Willett wrote, “The Classic Races…form a series of races suited to the purpose of indicating the best three-year-olds over various distances, and they have provided the criteria of selection on which the evolution of the British Thoroughbred rested for nearly 150 years up to the middle of the 20th century. But, when one race in the series ceases to be an automatic target for the best horses, that race is no longer acceptable as a 'Classic Race', according to the definition.”

After suggesting a swingeing cut to 1m2f, he added, “This distance would complete a Classic series designed to assist in adapting the British Thoroughbred to a trend which, whether we like it or not, is firmly established in the final quarter of the 20th century. British breeding now accounts for only a tiny fraction of the world Thoroughbred population, and cannot exist out on a limb.”

Stirring stuff. We are now firmly established in the first quarter of the 21st century and, arguably, the sliding scale of horses being bred for a certain distance has moved even more significantly towards a great proportion of them now not even being able to stay a mile. But the St Leger is still run at one mile, six furlongs and 127 yards. Is tradition holding sway over sense?

I had only just celebrated my first birthday when Nijinsky won the Triple Crown. Since then, the only horse who has come close was Camelot in 2012, an heroic attempt that prompted a very early departure from Newmarket to Doncaster on Leger day to get a spot on the rail by the winning post in the hope of witnessing history in the making. Alas, it was not to be, but that hope remains.

Camelot is the only Derby winner this century to have run in the St Leger–a scenario that would have been unthinkable 100 years earlier– and perhaps if he hadn't won the 2,000 Guineas he would have followed a number of the others by being dropped back in trip for their next runs, for the Eclipse, or Juddmonte International, and swerved Doncaster altogether.

The list published on Tuesday of the 83 horses remaining in the reckoning for this year's Derby showed that 29 of them are in training with Aidan O'Brien. There are two ways of viewing this. On the one hand such domination of major stables, on the Flat and over jumps, dilutes some of the interest of racing's 'narrative', to use a loathed term. But on the other, here is an operation which, despite standing stallions across the range of distances and disciplines, still appears to have winning the Derby as its central aim. One could say, at its heart.

And amen to that, because we know that, if an O'Brien-trained and Coolmore-owned Guineas winner goes on to land the Derby then there is a very good chance that colt will be set on a path towards following one of Ballydoyle's greatest incumbents in attempting to achieve what is starting to seem more and more like the impossible. Perhaps though, these days, it is not so much mission impossible as mission undesirable, especially when considering the rarity of a St Leger or Gold Cup winner being given a spot at a major Flat stud. Stradivarius is a shining outlier in this regard.

There is, however, at least one glimmer of hope to be gleaned for those in favour of retaining the status quo when it comes to the St Leger, and that is when considering another of Willett's comments in the article.

Nijinsky, Lester Piggott, and Vincent O'Brien at Ascot | Getty Images

“The trend away from stamina is evident in important racing and breeding countries as diverse as the United States and Australia,” he wrote. “[…] It would be unrealistic to try to isolate the British Thoroughbred from this trend in an age when the racehorse has become a kind of international currency.”

To an extent the British (and Irish) Thoroughbred has not been isolated from this trend in the intervening years, but the continuing prestige of Europe's middle-distance races has meant that among owner-breeders at least they remain the key targets. And, as sales returns in recent years have shown, there is a growing number of American and Australian buyers flocking to Europe in pursuit of more stamina-laden blood, both in the form of proven horses in training and, increasingly, as young stock. The Thoroughbred is indeed an international currency.

This trend in itself presents an entirely different problem in raising the possibility of an eventual drain of key bloodlines in Europe, but it also suggests that in some ways our friends in those nations have gone too far in their pursuit of speed. 

Another change since 1980 has been the emergence of Japan as a major force in world racing. The difference in Japanese breeding compared to other regions is that there has been no move away from producing horses along middle-distance and staying lines. In fact, Japanese breeders' adherence to these principles has seen their horses playing an increasingly dominant role at international meetings, which in turn has increased the general appreciation of stamina. 

Let's not forget that Deep Impact ran to the top level over two miles, and if his son Auguste Rodin manages to clinch the 2,000 Guineas and Derby this season, you know exactly where you will find me on the afternoon of Saturday, Sept. 16.

In the matter of reducing the distance of the St Leger, I do not agree with Peter Willett, despite his very well argued piece which provides much food for thought. But I would be interested to hear the views of TDN readers if you feel agreeable or disagreeable enough to drop me a line on emmaberry@thoroughbreddailynews.com.

The post Op/Ed: Long May The Leger Run appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Sadly, some in the industry have chafed at Congress' mandate that Thoroughbred racing must be safe, clean, and fair. Since the passage of HISA, the Authority has been attacked on all sides through meritless lawsuits that willfully ignore more than 80 years of binding legal precedent.  Nothing about HISA or the Authority's structure is unique, let alone legally questionable. HISA is modeled after a law called the Maloney Act of 1938, which designated what would later become the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) to oversee financial regulation under the oversight of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Like FINRA, the Authority is self-funded, independent, and overseen by a federal agency. In other words, the Maloney Act and HISA are constitutional for the same reasons:  Congress is well within its power to delegate its regulatory authority to private entities so long as a government agency retains ultimate decision-making authority as to rules and enforcement; Private organizations such as the Authority and FINRA are not subject to constitutional restraints on appointments and removal of board members; and Private self-funding of such organizations does not unconstitutionally compel states to enforce federal law.

For those keeping score, the Authority is winning the battles against its detractors. Two Federal District Courts–one in Kentucky and another in Texas–have soundly rejected the constitutional challenges lodged against HISA and the Authority, and the reviewing appellate courts are expected to affirm these decisions. No court has found HISA unconstitutional. Having lost their challenges to the Authority's constitutionality, the Authority's opponents have resorted to nitpicking the Authority's implementation of its rules. Thus far, these attempts have also failed. In one case, filed in Louisiana Federal District Court, the plaintiffs argued that the Authority failed to satisfy certain technical requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act. Significantly, the Louisiana Federal District Court found zero constitutional violations, but it did initially agree with the plaintiffs that the Authority's definition of “covered horse” and its search and seizure rule expanded beyond the scope the statute ever so slightly. Practically speaking, this portion of the ruling has no impact, because the Authority has already revised one of the rules and the other rule is revised in the ADMC rules. The District Court also questioned the Authority's rule on funding and the length of the notice and comment period, though it recognized that any of the claimed deficiencies could be easily remedied by the Authority even if the Authority is ultimately unsuccessful on the merits. It was perhaps not surprising then that the Authority recently sought and received an emergency stay of enforcement of a Louisiana Federal District Court's order halting implementation of the Authority's rules in Louisiana and West Virginia. This stay makes clear that the Authority's safety rules will continue to be enforced nation-wide.

Unfortunately, during the interim, the Authority's enforcement of its rules in Louisiana and West Virginia was delayed. Racing in both states suffered. For example, one jockey in Louisiana whipped a horse 17 times in one race, 11 times more than the Authority's strike limit. Under the Authority's rules, such behavior is prohibited and would have been swiftly and uniformly punished. But horses are not the only ones suffering as a result of these meritless lawsuits. A fourth federal lawsuit challenging the Authority and HISA was filed in Texas at the end of July. It recycles many of the failed legal claims. Like the cases that came before it (and those that will come after it), the new lawsuit merely serves as a distraction and a waste of industry resources. Ironically, under HISA, horsemen and racetracks will be the ones who bear the brunt of these additional legal costs. It is clear that litigation against the Authority will continue to burden the industry and threaten the safety and integrity of our equine and human athletes. The Authority is doing this good work despite the distractions of the ongoing litigation, and it continues to win the courtroom battles. Sadly, the Authority's legal costs to defend these lawsuits will only increase the costs to all racing participants, horsemen included.

Beck is an equine lawyer and member of Stites & Harbison, PLLC in Lexington, Kentucky. He previously served 7 1/2 years as the Chairman of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission.

The post Op/Ed: Robert M. Beck, Jr. appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

But is this the end of his story or a precursor to what's to come? Are the arrests of Fishman, Jason Servis, Jorge Navarro and some 25 others just the first chapter in scandal that will bring down dozens, maybe even hundreds, of others? Some say that is inevitable.

“I have no doubt there are many arrests pending,” Jockey Club Chairman Stuart Janney III said at the 2020 Jockey Club Round Table. “Fortunately they will happen, just not as soon as we would like.”

Despite Janney's assurances, nothing is certain here. Nothing is clear cut.

Fishman is a key figure. Surely, he was dealing performance-enhancing drugs to far more people than those who were targeted, indicted and convicted of doping horses by the federal government. It can't just be Servis, Navarro and a handful of others.

In February, a list of Fishman's clients was released. But that raised more questions than it answered. There were more than 2,000 individuals on the list, and virtually all of them were from the Standardbred industry. The list included hundreds of people whose integrity has never been questioned and who have spotless records. That may be because some of those whose names were on the list purchased legal medications from Fishman. We just don't know.

So the list did not answer the key question: who was buying performance-enhancing drugs from Dr. Fishman? Fishman may decide to answer that question, to tell all. Maybe he already has. Then again, maybe that's not necessary. Is there a paper trail of not only who he sold drugs to but which drugs? One would think that would be the case. There's also the case of Louis Grasso. Another veterinarian who dealt primarily with Standardbreds, he entered a guilty plea in May on the charges of one count of drug adulteration and misbranding conspiracy. What does he know? Who, beyond those already caught up in the scandal, was he dealing his drugs to? Will we ever find out? Nailing a bunch of other cheats would seem to be a case of low-hanging fruit.

“I hope there will be more arrests and indictments,” said Meadowlands owner Jeff Gural, who has played a large part in the effort to catch the worst of the worst when it came to racing's cheats. “I would hope we will be able to find out who bought what from Fishman and Grasso. Because, clearly, they know who bought what. I am sure people bought legitimate medications, but I'm also sure others bought performance-enhancing drugs. I don't think this is the end of it at all.”

One school of thought is that the government is waiting, that it wants to first resolve all the cases against all the alleged cheaters from the original March, 2020 indictments. That includes Servis, who is set to go on trial in January. After Servis' trial is over and, if he is found guilty, and his sentence has been announced, maybe that's when there will be a fresh and lengthy list of additional horsemen, trainers and vets that have been indicted.

But here's another scenario, one that I believe is most likely.

The government probably already has a laundry list of people who bought PEDs from Fishman and Grasso. It wouldn't be hard to come up with one. And maybe Fishman and Grasso, in hopes of getting a lighter sentence, have cooperated with the authorities and named names. That's entirely possible, if not plausible. But that doesn't mean that the government has to act on that.

Does the government really want to use up even more resources on something, that in the grand scheme of things, isn't that big of a deal? Every minute they spend trying going after people who may have cheated in what is not a major sport is one less minute they can devote to going after drug dealers, money launderers, gang leaders and the likes of Ghislaine Maxwell. As much as we care about our sport and as much as we want to rid ourselves of the cheats, we really are small potatoes.

The hope is that there are a bunch more bad guys out there who are going to face the consequences for doping horses. I just don't think that's going to happen. Sure hope I am wrong.

The post Fishman Has Been Sentenced. Is That the End of This Story? appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

But maybe the biggest problem isn't the spacing of the races but that the purses for the races, especially the Preakness and the Belmont, are not what they should be and haven't kept up with the times. If you want your races to always get the best horses and to be considered to be among the most important, most prestigious races on the calendar you're going to have to pay for the privilege. The Triple Crown tracks haven't bought into that premise.

The purse of the Kentucky Derby is $3 million. The Preakness and Belmont are worth $1.5 million each. While that may seem like a lot of money, in a sport where purses have exploded over the last 15 years or so, it's not. There are nine U.S. races that have a larger purse than the Preakness and Belmont, eight of them Breeders' Cup races and the other the $3-million GI Pegasus World Cup. That's not to mention the riches thrown around in Saudi Arabia and Dubai. Or that the Preakness and Belmont are worth only $500,000 more than four Kentucky Derby preps, the GI Blue Grass S., the GII Louisiana Derby, the GI Florida Derby, and the GII Rebel S., and just $250,000 more than the GI Arkansas Derby.

The Triple Crown races, as important as they are, should be the richest races run in the U.S. or at least the equal of any other race. To make that happen, they should all be worth $6 million, the equal of the GI Breeders' Cup Classic. It can be done. Let me explain.

With $6 million total now paid out in the three races, the Triple Crown tracks would have to come up with an additional $12 million to be able to pay out $6 million in each race. That probably wouldn't be much of a problem for Churchill Downs or NYRA, but, at Pimlico, it would be a lot to ask for them to come up with that kind of money. Simply asking the tracks to increase the purses on their own isn't going to happen.

So, why not copy what the Breeders' Cup has done?

One of the reasons why they can give away so much money at the Breeders' Cup is that, in order for a horse to be eligible to run, their sire must be nominated and they must also be nominated as foals. If not, the owners must pay a hefty fee to supplement them into a Breeders' Cup race. It costs $400 to nominate a foal. To make the progeny of a North American-based stallion eligible, a payment equal to 50% of the horse's published stud fee is required.

In the fiscal year that ended on Jan. 31, 2021, the Breeders' Cup took in $8.4 million from domestic stallion nomination fees and $2.7 million in fees for foreign stallions. Foal nomination fees added up to $4.1 million with 9,822 nominated foals. That adds up to $15.2 million.

The Triple Crown is not going to equal those numbers. There would be little incentive to nominate fillies or foreign stallions. But could asking owners and breeders to pay fees similar to what they pay to make their horses and stallions eligible to run in the Breeders' Cup yield $10 million or so? Probably. Finding another $2 million out of the track's pockets to bolster the purses and get to the $12 million figure wouldn't be asking that much.

There's also the matter of what it currently costs to make a horse eligible for the Triple Crown, a payment now due in late January of a horse's 3-year-old year. Not only would that payment still be required under this proposal, but it should be increased. It currently costs just $600 to nominate a horse to the Triple Crown. There were 312 noms this year, which adds up to only $187,200. You could raise another $500,000 or so by upping the fee to $2,500, which doesn't seem unreasonable.

The days of owners being sportsmen is long gone. The owners who dominate the top levels of the sport are businessmen and businesswomen and no matter what they may say, their decisions ultimately come down to money. The end goal is to maximize their profit on their horses and the way to do that is to create a stallion who can command a large stud fee. It is not to win as many races as possible. To get there, you need only have to have a horse with a strong pedigree who has won, perhaps, a single Grade I race. Trainers believe that the best way to have a horse primed to win a major race is to have plenty of time between starts.

A Kentucky Derby win is important, but not the be all and end all. Wins in the Preakness and Belmont are less important.

But there has to be a tipping point somewhere, where the purses are so large that the right business decision becomes running in, and not passing on, the Triple Crown races. Put up $18 million for the series and $6 million per race and people will run, even if the three races take place over a five-week span. That's how you can fix the Triple Crown.

The post Op/Ed: The Triple Crown Woes…Maybe It’s the Purses? appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

But, in this case, dig just a little bit deeper and apply just a modicum of common sense to the situation and you'll likely conclude that Gazer did nothing wrong. Unfortunately, when it comes to the Gaming Commission common sense seems to be in short supply.

Thanks to the reporting by Dave Grening in the Daily Racing Form, we know what happened. On May 1, Papi On Ice was credited with a five-furlong work in 1:04.60 over the Belmont Park training track for trainer Randi Persaud. The work was important because the horse needed to have a satisfactory workout in order to get off of NYRA's poor performance list. The poor performance list was created in 2015 and was part of an effort to increase safety at the New York tracks.

If a horse is beaten by 25 lengths or more, the stewards have the option of placing the horse on the list. On April 16, Papi On Ice was beaten 26 3/4 lengths in a maiden special weight race at Aqueduct, finishing fifth in the field of five. To get off the poor performance list, a horse must come back with a subsequent four-furlong workout in :53 seconds or better. For whatever reason, workouts longer than four furlongs do not count.

Because, by the letter of the law, Papi On Ice had not done what was needed to come off of the poor performance list, the NYRA racing office would not accept the entry when Persaud tried to get the colt into a race. The racing office had no choice because it had to adhere to the rule, even if the rule makes no sense. If a four-furlong workout is sufficient to make the horse eligible, why would a five-furlong workout not be? The longer the work, the better the gauge of a horse's fitness and their ability to be competitive in a race.

Gazer did indeed change the workout, but not the time. He changed the distance. Gazer checked with the clockers assigned to the training track and was told that during Papi On Ice's May 1 work, the horse went the first four furlongs in :51.33, fast enough to get off the list. So, knowing that only a four-furlong workout would get the horse eligible to run again, he changed the work from five furlongs to four.

Maybe Gazer should have left the workout alone. Since the May 1 work, Papi On Ice has had two four-furlong works, one coming May 11 and the next May 25. Both were faster than the :53-second criteria, meaning the horse would have found himself off of the list in short order if the May 1 distance had not been changed. Everyone involved could have just waited it out.

But he chose to change the distance and is now facing a penalty that in no way fights the “crime.” A veteran of some 40 years clocking horses on the NYRA circuit, Gazer, in no way, was trying to deceive gamblers, the racing office or anyone else. Probably, he thought that what he did was no big deal..and it wasn't. And if the rule was not so poorly conceived this never would have been an issue. At the very worst, Gazer deserved a phone call from someone at the Gaming Commission telling him not to do this again. Nothing more.

This isn't the first time we've seen head-scratching rulings or decisions from the New York Gaming Commission. This is the same commission that ruled that aspiring jockey agent and recent college graduate Philip Miller couldn't be an agent because he had no hands-on experience on the backstretch. That doesn't make any sense. You don't need to have been a trainer, a jockey or a groom to be an agent and if the same rule had been applied over the years probably half the agents working the New York tracks now would not meet the criteria to be a jockey agent. Apply a dose of common sense and that rule goes away.

Then there was the case of jockey Trevor McCarthy and his wife, Katie Davis. Thanks to a nonsensical Gaming Commission rule, when both appeared in a race the horses they were on had to be coupled in the wagering. The rule was in place to prevent married jockeys from conspiring to alter the outcomes of races, which is preposterous. The rule, widely criticized as being outdated and sexist, led to fewer betting interests in some races, costing NYRA handle. Apply a dose of common sense and that rule never would have existed in the first place.

(The New York Gaming Commission has taken steps to change the married jockey rule, but the rule remains as it has yet to clear a number of bureaucratic hurdles. A rescission of the rule is expected shortly).

There's nothing wrong with a gaming or racing commission being vigilant and going after-rule breakers. If anything, that's the type of thing the sport could use more of. But pick the right battles. Don't go after married jockeys or a clocker who merely changed a five-furlong workout to a four-furlong workout. Not everything is so black and white. Gazer has appealed his suspension, and, hopefully, once his case is heard he will be exonerated. There was no real harm here. There should be no foul.

The post Op/Ed: NY Gaming Commission Gets It Wrong..Again appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Horse racing is under real pressure to enhance safety, with many critics seeking to outright abolish the sport. But it would be a mistake to believe that this conversation is limited to traditional critics or fringe voices. The attacks on our sport are gaining wider support and becoming more strategic. In October 2021, the San Diego Democratic Party passed a resolution calling to ban gambling on state-sponsored horse races in California. The group said they have both a moral and financial obligation to phase it out. Just weeks ago in New York, horse racing opponents in the state legislature challenged the economic benefits of the industry and proposed ending critical state subsidies. Understand, their goal is to eliminate the sport, not through an outright ban but by starving it of revenues.

Our industry has taken steps toward better regulation through the adoption of such initiatives as the Horse Racing Integrity and Safety Act, but high-profile scandals and equine deaths remain weekly headlines. As we have witnessed in these turbulent times, the pace of change in our world is accelerating, not just technologically, but socially. The world can and does literally change overnight. Dating back to the colonial era, horse racing, America's oldest sport, is more at risk than ever of being relegated to the dustbin of history.

It is time for bold action to address horse safety. It is long overdue. And why shouldn't we do what we can to secure the health and safety of the horses we love; that touch our very soul. It is time we implemented a program to transition dirt tracks to safer synthetic surfaces. Synthetic tracks are indisputably safer and yet instead of growing in use, they have been phased out over recent years. Del Mar, Keeneland and Santa Anita, early adopters of synthetic surfaces, have all converted back to dirt and since then have all experienced a rise in equine injuries.

Industry leaders must make this a priority. If we don't get our head out of the sand and take action, I fear the end of our sport.  Ironically, COVID and the complete shutdown of almost all sports for a period of time gave our industry an opportunity to shine. Sports fans old and new, locked down at home, found refuge in horse racing, engaging more tracks here at home and around the world. The fact is with the wide adoption of mobile betting, our industry is poised for an economic and popular renaissance. Horse racing and its wide availability is becoming an essential part of the offerings that sustain mobile betting. Industry leaders are increasingly integrating horse racing into their mobile sports betting platforms. It is the future of our sport, but to realize this revival we must first save it.

Which brings us to our logical conclusion. Churchill Downs Incorporated, a publicly traded company that in addition to owning Churchill Downs and the Kentucky Derby, also owns multiple tracks, including Fair Grounds and Turfway Park, as well as several casinos, and TwinSpires, a leading mobile betting app. TwinSpires players in some jurisdictions are able to bet on professional sports, including the NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL and PGA, as well as collegiate sports and events from around the world–as well as horse racing. Churchill Downs Inc.–listed on the New York Stock Exchange–relies upon the content generated by a healthy racing industry and as such their board of directors and officers must recognize their responsibility to take the lead in advancing this cause and the overall cause of horse safety. This is not some altruistic plea. Churchill Downs's shareholders have the most to gain and everything to lose.

Kentucky is the economic and emotional epicenter of horse racing in America. Its legendary farms and breeders are a part of the folklore of our sport. The Kentucky Derby is the most famous and important horse race in the world. But there is a long-held cultural and business resistance to synthetic tracks in Kentucky.  It makes sense. Like agriculture, the sport of horse racing is elementally tied to the earth. For a sport as old as America, steeped in our agrarian roots and rich in history and tradition, it is easy to understand why change is difficult. But change we must, and Churchill Downs Corporation, an entity synonymous with the most glorious of horse racing traditions, must lead the way. We're the King of Sports. Let's keep it that way.

The post Op/Ed: The King of Sports appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Like the author, I relate deeply to that experience of the first time at the track and getting “hooked.” As a sports fanatic kid growing up in Melbourne in the 1980s and 1990s, I was ambiently aware of racing, but it wasn't until I experienced the roar of the crowd at the 1999 Caulfield Guineas and an epic battle between the champion colts Redoute's Choice and Testa Rossa that I was transformed forever. Or as the author puts it, “spiritually fed.”

Sadly, nothing about the author's recent experiences and decision to get out of the game entirely surprised me.

A few observations:

Racetrack Experience – American racetracks, even the bigger ones, are generally decrepit. While there may be little motivation to invest given the sport is played for TV and online wagering, it's a stark contrast to the magnificence of a Flemington or Royal Randwick on a clear day. Not to mention the hundreds of picturesque racecourses that make up Provincial/Country fixtures. Where my father lives in Kyneton, about an hour's drive from Melbourne hosts a brilliant “Country Cup” day each year with entertainment and great food options. In other words, a way to get people who aren't necessarily racing fans to enjoy a day out and perhaps also place a few wagers.

Wagering Experience/Bet Types – The user interfaces for American parimutuel betting are, in my view, very poor and don't reflect what younger generations would regard as a good user experience. While wagering types are mostly common between North America and Australia, the existence of “Flexi” betting options whereby a bettor can invest wagers of their choosing in return for a calculated % of the dividend are far more enticing than the rigid unit options available here. Additionally, many young people don't grasp parimutuel totalizator concepts. The option for “Fixed Odds” betting in Australia attracts a different type of player.

Integrity & National Regulations – I am not suggesting that Australia doesn't have its own issues with integrity, animal welfare, and scandals. To suggest otherwise would be untrue. But as recent examples show, public outrage against exposed corruption and animal cruelty has led to swift and decisive action by regulators. The bad guys do get disqualified for extended periods. While there may be minor state differences, on the whole, there are national rules of racing for medication and horse ratings/classification systems that promote certainty for participants and the wagering public.

Mainstream Interest / Media Platforms – Finally, while racing remains niche in Australia, engagement in some form is much more common there, particularly amongst younger generations. While only a handful of my friends follow racing daily, a large cohort will get together with their mates for the occasional “weekend quaddie” (a Pick 4 equivalent) as a social activity at pubs and sports venues across the country. A lot of this has to do with the prevalence of excellent media and digital platforms like Racing.com.

— David Salter
Owner, fan, and horseplayer

Want to sound off about something you've seen in the Paulick Report? Send us a letter at info at paulickreport.com. Please include your contact info so our editorial staff can reach you if they have questions.

The post Letter To The Editor: An Aussie Perspective On Being An American Racing Fan appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

As a kid growing up in Detroit in the 1970s, my days and nights were filled with following and watching football, baseball, basketball and hockey. I wasn't a casual fan, I was the true meaning of fan – fanatical. Watched and played sports 24/7, read the sports page front to back, traded cards, listened to the Tigers broadcast on my transistor radio well past bedtime and became a sports encyclopedia that could tell you Denny McLain's ERA the year he won 31 games, but couldn't recite the presidents of the United States.

As I became an adult, I continued to be an avid sports fan and had season tickets to the Miami Dolphins, the San Francisco 49ers, the Dallas Cowboys and, for the past 25 years, the San Antonio Spurs. I was in Candlestick Park for “The Catch” and in the arena when the Spurs hung five championship banners. Talk about a run. I thought to myself, 'It doesn't get any better than this.' I couldn't have been more wrong!

I had always been intrigued by Thoroughbred racing, but I was just a casual fan who went to the local racetrack occasionally or watched the Triple Crown races on TV. Then something happened about 15 years ago that changed my sports world forever! I decided that I wanted to own a piece of a racehorse and went in search of a syndicate and a horse that looked good to me. I didn't know anything about anything so going in search of a racehorse is nothing short of hilarious to me today. Anyway, I fell into safe hands and I was off and running.

Those early years were a blast – surrounded by great people that were truly passionate about the game and lived it morning, noon and night. I was having a ton of fun, but after a few years the numbers on the circuit I was running just didn't make sense. In other words, my expense to purse ratio was not good enough to sustain my stable. I had graduated from the syndicate ranks a few years earlier and the expenses can mount up if you aren't careful. A change had to be made if I was going to survive in the game that I was now so passionate about.

That took me to the West Coast and what was, in my eyes, the mecca of racing. You only need to sit in the stands of Santa Anita Park once looking out over the track at the San Gabriel Mountains or stand in the saddling paddock of Del Mar to know you don't want to run anywhere else in the world. To make a long story shorter, my move to California was a game changer for me. I had the good fortune of some graded stakes wins and Breeder's Cup appearances that I thought were reserved for only the top players in the game.

I don't take winning for granted. It's a tough game and winning is the culmination of a lot of hard work on the part of a lot of good people. Horsemen and horsewomen committed to their trades and working tirelessly to achieve results in a sport where losing 80% of the time is considered a success. I have found that most are motivated by passion and not by money or greed. But maybe the best part of all is the friendships that you make in racing — the kind that will celebrate you when you win and are there to pick you up when you lose.

So, whatever happened to the sports I followed for 50 years?  While “Name Withheld” wrote about horse racing changing, so has MLB, NFL, NBA and NHL. I guess the $150 million contracts, the outrageous tickets prices, and the $15 hotdogs and beers contributed to my change, but it was the greatness of racing that ultimately changed the sports landscape for me.

While change is inevitable in all sports, it doesn't have to be a negative. Let's evolve our game to be more inclusive and let's work together to make it better. It's easy to tear something down, but it takes real commitment to make racing something we can all be proud of.

I'm in – how about you?

In closing, I would like to thank my trainers, my partners, my jockeys, my agents, my veterinarians, my fellow owners, the racetracks and my horse racing friends that have contributed so significantly to giving me the opportunity to take the ride of a lifetime. It truly is The Greatest Game!

–Mark Martinez (Agave Racing Stable)

If you would like to submit a letter to the editor, please write to info at paulickreport.com and include contact information where you may be reached if editorial staff have any questions.

The post Letter to the Editor: Why I Choose Racing Over The Sports I Loved For 50 Years appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post