Editorial – November 2009 – Breeders’ Cup
Breeders’ Cup
by Bernie Dickman
For 25 years, the Breeders’ Cup provided the sport not only with the greatest day in American racing, but with a modicum of sanity in an era where “insane” has become pretty much the norm.
From Gate Dancer’s infamous stretch bumping duel with Slew o’ Gold in the first Classic; to Personal Ensign’s impossible score over Winning Colors in the ’88 Distaff; to Dayjur’s shadow-jumping that blew the ’90 Sprint; to Arazi’s unbelievable stretch run in the ’91 Juvenile; to Arcangue’s $269 shocker in the ’93 Classic; to Curlin’s improbable fall at 4/5 in last year’s Classic – the Breeders’ Cup more than lived up to its billing as the ’Super Bowl of Racing.’
It didn’t need tweaking.
But the braintrust that controls the high point of the yearly American racing calendar has done just that – a massive tweaking that has evoked severe criticism from two important groups that racing’s hierarchy doesn’t needs to antagonize, but always seems to – the fans and the media. In the “What were they thinking” category come three highly relevant decisions, and each has been attacked from the moment they were announced.
1. This is the second year that all the races for fillies and mares will be held on the Friday before the main event. There was a monumental amount of screaming about this blatant blunder last year for reasons that were obvious to everybody but the members of Breeders’ Cup Ltd. At a time when most people in racing have major concerns about what they perceive to be a dwindling fan base, Breeders’ Cup ensures that people who work on Fridays can’t get to see the first day of the extravaganza. And, not getting to see it translates into not getting to wager on it for most of the betting public.
The Friday races at Santa Anita in ’08 drew a crowd of 31,257; Saturday’s program drew 51,331. Every race on Saturday had a much higher mutuel play than the corresponding races on Friday, when total handle reached more than $47 million. But Saturday’s handle was a blockbuster $107,610,778.
To further muddle the picture, those who didn’t get to watch on Friday missed the opportunity to see several sterling performances – by Ventura, Stardom Bound and the incomparable Zenyatta, in particular. They did get to see one dazzling performance by a female, but it was on Saturday when Goldlikova captured the Mile with a brilliant late run. This year, Zenyatta and her unbeaten record will again be relegated to minor status, and that’s a major black eye for racing. How can an unbeaten filly who brings back memories of the great Forego not run on Saturday with all the world watching?
2. ‘Win and You’re In’ is the second lamebrain idea that has drawn the ire of horsemen and fans alike. Participation in the Breeders’ Cup has always been a reward for outstanding performance from Jan. 1 until BC time. It has never been meant to include one-hit wonders, unless they were able to sneak into a race that for whatever reason didn’t draw a full field. And that includes one-hit wonders of a Gr. I race, like Lahaleeb, the Irish-bred filly who captured the E. P. Taylor Stakes at Woodbine on Oct. 17. This was her first race on North American soil after 15 starts in Europe. This season, after winning the G2 Fred Darling Stakes at Newbury by a head on April 18, she lost her next five, including the last three by a combined total of 20 lengths. She doesn’t deserve a free pass because of one victory, unless the field comes up short. There are several other examples of ‘win and you’re in’ types who may or may not belong on racing’s biggest stage.
3. Which brings us to the biggest controversy of all involving Breeders’ Cup XXVI – two successive years racing over the synthetic surface at Santa Anita. One of the beauties of the event in the past has been its moving parts – from New York, to California, to Kentucky, to Florida (at one time), to Chicago, to New Jersey, to Texas, to Canada, etc. Two successive years at Santa Anita not only gives an unfair ‘homefield advantage’ to West Coast horses, but also favors those who have flourished on its synthetic surfaces. Not to mention the shipping and other logistical problems encountered by owners and trainers from across the country.
However, in the case of the year 2009, the law of unintended consequences has reared its ugly head. The unintended consequence that the world will not get to see a long-awaited match-up of Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra. Jess Jackson, owner of Rachel, soured on Santa Anita’s Pro-Ride last year when Curlin stopped to a walk and finished fourth in the Classic, leaving the door open for 13-1 Raven’s Pass, 19-1 Henrythenavigator and 15-1 Tiago. Whether or not the Pro-Ride was the real problem has been debated for the past 12 months, but the fact remains that Rachel Alexandra, a very special filly, has been put away for the rest of the season.
A confrontation between the two would have made the Ladies Classic, or the Classic, if their owners so preferred, a very special event. Who knows if the two will ever get a chance to settle the debate? And who knows if Breeders’ Cup Ltd. will heed the cries of those who put on the game by visiting the mutuel windows, and not make the same mistakes again?