Don't you love those hard earned first quarters? They make for such exciting races and such was the case yesterday in the Cane Pace contested at Tioga Downs as Dynamic Youth took advantage of A Rocknroll Dance getting cooked in a fast paced mile to win the Cane in 1:48.4. Due to the fast first quarter and effort required to get to the lead before the half, A Rocknroll Dance ran out of steam in the stretch, allowing Dynamic Youth to score the upset victory..
Of course, when a race doesn't go the way you see it being run, your handicapping goes out the window like the drivers' preconceived driving strategy. As a result, it often results in some big prices. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your perspective Dynamic Youth was coupled in the wagering with A Rocknroll Dance.
As noted by some people, wouldn't it have been great if Dynamic Youth was uncoupled from A Rocknroll Dance? No doubt supporters of Dynamic Reward would have been collecting a sizable dividend for their investment but one must ask how many of Dynamic Reward's supporters would have wagered on him without having the 'security' of having A Rocknroll Dance as an entrymate? They also know they were going to get 2-5 because of being in the entry. Though it would be more valid if the horses were trained by the same trainer, how many people may have thought A Rocknroll Dance was sacrificed so the owner could make a score wagering if they raced uncoupled?
As we approach the Little Brown Jug, just two weeks away, it reminds you no horse is unbeatable and if you had A Rocknroll Dance in the first Little Brown Jug future wager, you may be feeling a little less confident, especially at the 7-5 odds you received. After all, while you handicap based on past performances, it is what happens on the track which matters. You just never know what may happen.
Meanwhile at Mohawk Racetrack, American Jewel raced the way it was expected at the start of the season in winning the Simcoe in a stakes-record 1:49.4, with the race going in a less eventfull manner. Being able to settle in fourth early and watching the front trio exert themselves while American Jewel bided her time before making a move to ensure she didn't get locked in. Once that happened it was all over.
These two races show you the exhiliration of what happens when a race goes the way you want and the sinking feeling you get when a race goes 'wrong'. This is what makes this game great.
It's on to Delaware, as stakes season starts building to its climax in the Breeders Crown. Harness racing becomes really fun now.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Regulating Sales Won't Work
There have been quite a few responses to my blog
entry regarding the horse sold injured through an auction, both on the blog
and elsewhere. One of the most vocal comments I received was "Where was
the USTA? How could they allow this to happen?"
It's easy, the USTA doesn't have control of auctions or who conducts a standardbred auction. This is the purview of the free market system and like it or not, horses are legally considered property and auctions clearly state horses are sold "as-is"; it is the bidders responsibility to examine horses before bidding. The USTA can't force auctions to refuse to sell horses who are injured.
Some would say, why doesn't the USTA operate its own sale(s)? First of all, operating a sale doesn't fall under the USTA's responsibilities. Ignoring this fact, even if the USTA operated their own sale with a standard which would have prevented this injured horse and others like her to go through the sales ring (and possibly require a minimum bid to discourage kill buyers), they could not refuse to register a horse sold through a non-USTA sale as you would be dealing with anti-trust issues.
The best the USTA could do is set voluntary standards for sales to follow and allow those who meet these standards to advertise they are "USTA Approved". Such a standard could require amongst other standards a requirement that the sale have a veterinarian examine each horse before they enter the sales ring and if sufficiently injured, declare them an 'Out'; refusing to sell it. To keep kill buyers from the sale, another standard could be to require a sale to have a minimum bid sufficient to discourage kill buyers.
Having a USTA approved sale designation may not be a bad idea but don't think this will solve the problem. Let's say a sale was USTA approved and an injured horse was blocked from the sale by the sale's veterinarian. It would be nice to think the owner would go back home with the horse and let it heal before trying to sell the horse once again, but what is to keep the owner from selling the horse to a kill buyer at the sale afterwards or sending the horse to a non-USTA approved sale? A minimum bid? Same thing; either a behind the scenes sale can take place or the horse may be sent directly to a non-approved sale or a grade sale where it is even more likely to end up in the hands of a kill buyer.
While a USTA approved sale may be a good idea as it would allow the USTA to make a policy statement, it isn't going to solve the shortcoming sales may have. That responsibility falls to the state and federal governments. Until the government steps in and decides horses deserve special protections, someone determined to unload an injured horse or sell a horse at a price low enough to attract kill buyers will be able to do so,
It's easy, the USTA doesn't have control of auctions or who conducts a standardbred auction. This is the purview of the free market system and like it or not, horses are legally considered property and auctions clearly state horses are sold "as-is"; it is the bidders responsibility to examine horses before bidding. The USTA can't force auctions to refuse to sell horses who are injured.
Some would say, why doesn't the USTA operate its own sale(s)? First of all, operating a sale doesn't fall under the USTA's responsibilities. Ignoring this fact, even if the USTA operated their own sale with a standard which would have prevented this injured horse and others like her to go through the sales ring (and possibly require a minimum bid to discourage kill buyers), they could not refuse to register a horse sold through a non-USTA sale as you would be dealing with anti-trust issues.
The best the USTA could do is set voluntary standards for sales to follow and allow those who meet these standards to advertise they are "USTA Approved". Such a standard could require amongst other standards a requirement that the sale have a veterinarian examine each horse before they enter the sales ring and if sufficiently injured, declare them an 'Out'; refusing to sell it. To keep kill buyers from the sale, another standard could be to require a sale to have a minimum bid sufficient to discourage kill buyers.
Having a USTA approved sale designation may not be a bad idea but don't think this will solve the problem. Let's say a sale was USTA approved and an injured horse was blocked from the sale by the sale's veterinarian. It would be nice to think the owner would go back home with the horse and let it heal before trying to sell the horse once again, but what is to keep the owner from selling the horse to a kill buyer at the sale afterwards or sending the horse to a non-USTA approved sale? A minimum bid? Same thing; either a behind the scenes sale can take place or the horse may be sent directly to a non-approved sale or a grade sale where it is even more likely to end up in the hands of a kill buyer.
While a USTA approved sale may be a good idea as it would allow the USTA to make a policy statement, it isn't going to solve the shortcoming sales may have. That responsibility falls to the state and federal governments. Until the government steps in and decides horses deserve special protections, someone determined to unload an injured horse or sell a horse at a price low enough to attract kill buyers will be able to do so,
Monday, September 3, 2012
The Solution - A Post Script
I recently wrote about the problem harness racing was having with too many coupled entries as a result of partnerships; a nine horse field with three wagering interests in the Zweig Memorial Filly Stakes being a prime example of the issue being caused by too many partnerships and large stables controlling the ranks of racing's elite. I offered The Solution in an effort to mitigate this problem in the future; by basically making it more attractive to have owners purchase yearlings instead of going with ready-made horses which leaves the blue blooded yearlings to these stables and owners to rule over.
That's fine but realistically, it will not solve the problem tomorrow. What can be done now? Clearly having too many coupled entries is a disaster for racetracks; it hurt the Meadowlands numerous times this past meet in late closing and overnight series where purses were under $100,000 as well as this now classical example of the Zweig Filly Stakes.
Uncoupling all entries is one option; it is done in California for all races and in New Jersey for high-value stakes where the racing commission allows horses to be uncoupled for super stakes (i.e., Meadowlands Pace, Hambletonian), and for major races ($100,000+) if there is bona-fide separate interests. But as Jay Bergman writes in the DRF, it is naiive to assume to uncoupled stablemates will race as if trained and/or owned by totally different people; when was the last time you saw an uncoupled stablemate hang out another?
Some will argue there is nothing wrong with uncoupling these horses, feeling experienced gamblers will figure a certain amount of teaming by uncoupled entries in their handicapping so it mitigates the problem. While this may be true, what about the inexperienced gambler; the one we are trying to get interested in racing? There needs to be some type of protection for them, suggesting they pay their dues before learning through experience so there is dumb money in the pools just doesn't work; it's not a good business practice. After all, it is one thing when you have dumb money because a person is not proficient in handicapping; it is another thing to have dumb money because these people don't know the dirty secrets of the game. After all, no one is going to offer a handicapping seminar and tell novices that they need to watch for the possibility of uncoupled entries helping each other.
In addition to limiting the number of stablemates in a race, Bergman offers a unique suggestion of guaranteeing a certain number of wagering interests in a race and allowing as many horses as necessary in the race to get to that number. In the case of the Zweig filly stakes, getting nine wagering interests would have required fifteen horses in the race necessitating a second tier. I like this idea but unfortunately there are problems with it, specifically the fact in a mile dash you would be hard pressed to get a horse in the second tier involved in a race that full. So while you may have fifteen horses, odds are those in the second tier would be going off close to 99-1 which for all practical purposes negates Bergman's plan. Also, just having a second tier alone would not solve the problem because the draw may put all the stablemates on the first tier while another trainer ends up in post position fourteen.
If we are going to guarantee wagering interests, the conditions would have to explicitly state only one horse per stable will be allowed in the front tier, forcing multiple stablemates to the second tier. While this would be a good solution on the surface, is the industry ready to face the unavoidable pseudo-boycott of these stakes races, the drop-off of nominations and payments by owners unwilling to make $5,000 in payments to possibly end up in the second tier?
The truth is you are damned if you do, you are damned if you don’t. The current situation is untenable. Rule changes either limiting the number of entries a stable may enter or sending multiple stablemates to the back of bus is going to hurt nominations to these stakes races which will result in spending purse money for races not worth wagering on. Treating the symptoms is not going to work in the long run; short term solutions seldom do. Fixing the problem's cause may take longer but it is the only way to solve the problem in the long term. Getting new owners into the yearling market is the key to fixing the problem.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Sunday Miscellanery
Cane Pace/Shady Daisy Selections - Monday afternoon, Tioga Downs hosts the Cane Pace and the Shady Daisy stakes races with a first post of 1:30pm. My selections for the Shady Daisy (Race 8) are: 4 - Bettor B Lucky (3-1), 2 - Major Look (5-2), 3- Blackjack Princess (8-1). My selections for the Cane Pace (Race 9) are: 1A - A Rocknroll Dance (8-5), 5 - State Treasurer (15-1), 7 - Heston Blue Chip (2-1), 6 - Steelhead Hanover (10-1). Also on the card are two RUS exhibitions, one occuring after the third race with the other following the fourth race.
You Got to Be Kidding Me Part I - A group of horsemen want to bring an extended pari-mutuel meet to Leamington Raceway in Ontario. This fair track, which held one day of racing this year during the local fair is the subject of a group looking to bring ten days of racing to the fairgrounds in 2013. A business plan would need to be established and of course, they would need to obtain some of that transitional funding from the provincial government to make a go of it. Whomever is part of this group must be related to Rip Van Winkle or it is clear they have no grasp of what is going on in racing these days. I understand they want to keep harness racing in the Windsor area but really, is this the time?
You Got to Be Kidding Me Part II - The NYSRWB has given permission for Oswego Racing to incorporate, allowing them to compete for the eigth and final standardbred permit to conduct harness racing in New York State. Oswego Racing intends to build a dirt track which would be used for auto racing as well as harness racing in Hastings, New York. Of course, while they are not the only group trying to get the final license, they are the only ones who are willing to operate without a racino though being the last track authorized to conduct racing, there is nothing to stop them from applying for a casino down the road. Let's make the assumption (more likely a naive leap of faith) that they truly are looking to make a go of horse racing without a casino. Does New York need an eighth harness track? More importanly does New York need another racetrack a mere thirty miles from Vernon Downs? After all, even if they raced only four months a year, I am sure there would be simulcasting all year long. But let's ignore the simulcasting issue for a moment and assume they would race their four months before and after the Vernon Downs meet without casino revenue,does New York need a track where the average daily purse distribution would be around $10,000?
In Testing We Trust? - Bill Finley in Harness Racing Update has been covering the three day NYSRWB hearing of Lou Pena. As Pena's attorney Andrew Turro asked in the second day of the hearing, how come Pena didn't come up positive for Robaxin and Robinul, two drugs New York State has effective tests for? Some people will say Mr. Pena figured out away to give a dose within 24 hours and not get detected. Poppycock I would say. Ever get blood work done for yourself and noticed your results vary? Horses, like people have good days and bad days which means a certain level of a drug may not be detected one time but the same level would show up another time. You can't tell me Pena had the luck of not getting detected every single time. This tells me if you believe Mr. Pena was cheating, it shows drug testing is seriously flawed.
Pull the Pocket last week talked about the possibility of doing blood profiling of horses, whereas you don't test for specific drugs but the presence of an abnormal blood test (outside of a certain variance) would be sufficient to prove doping. Sounds to me like a more practical way to police drug abuse.
Say What? - NYSRWB Attorney Rick Goodell asked the hearing officer Clem Parenti to rule that Pena's refusal to testify was an adverse inference, claiming in refusing to testify, Pena must be guilty. I can't believe the hearing officer is taking this position under advisement. I realize this is not a court hearing, but when did not testifying become grounds for a finding of guilt?
Tell Me This is Not a Witch Hunt - Well, this is the third and final bullet point regarding Mr. Pena's situation. Pena will be found guilty by the NYSRWB and with electronic filing, the appeal to the New York Court System will be on its way as soon as Mr. Goodell hits the 'enter' key on his smartphone before he leaves the hearing room when the decision is announced. I'm all for getting drug cheats out of the sport, but I have a real problem with witch hunts. No one can tell me this tell me this was not a witch hunt to get Pena. After all, can you name me a trainer in New York (or New Jersey) for fact which has been cited for a violation as a result of medical records since this case has occured?
Ending On A Good Note - Congratulations to Foiled Again for becoming the richest ever pacer (at least in the Western Hemisphere) by winning the Canadian Pacing Derby last night at Mohawk Racetrack in 1:48.3, bringing his lifetime earnings to $4,356,511. Here is the replay of his record breaking victory:
You Got to Be Kidding Me Part I - A group of horsemen want to bring an extended pari-mutuel meet to Leamington Raceway in Ontario. This fair track, which held one day of racing this year during the local fair is the subject of a group looking to bring ten days of racing to the fairgrounds in 2013. A business plan would need to be established and of course, they would need to obtain some of that transitional funding from the provincial government to make a go of it. Whomever is part of this group must be related to Rip Van Winkle or it is clear they have no grasp of what is going on in racing these days. I understand they want to keep harness racing in the Windsor area but really, is this the time?
You Got to Be Kidding Me Part II - The NYSRWB has given permission for Oswego Racing to incorporate, allowing them to compete for the eigth and final standardbred permit to conduct harness racing in New York State. Oswego Racing intends to build a dirt track which would be used for auto racing as well as harness racing in Hastings, New York. Of course, while they are not the only group trying to get the final license, they are the only ones who are willing to operate without a racino though being the last track authorized to conduct racing, there is nothing to stop them from applying for a casino down the road. Let's make the assumption (more likely a naive leap of faith) that they truly are looking to make a go of horse racing without a casino. Does New York need an eighth harness track? More importanly does New York need another racetrack a mere thirty miles from Vernon Downs? After all, even if they raced only four months a year, I am sure there would be simulcasting all year long. But let's ignore the simulcasting issue for a moment and assume they would race their four months before and after the Vernon Downs meet without casino revenue,does New York need a track where the average daily purse distribution would be around $10,000?
In Testing We Trust? - Bill Finley in Harness Racing Update has been covering the three day NYSRWB hearing of Lou Pena. As Pena's attorney Andrew Turro asked in the second day of the hearing, how come Pena didn't come up positive for Robaxin and Robinul, two drugs New York State has effective tests for? Some people will say Mr. Pena figured out away to give a dose within 24 hours and not get detected. Poppycock I would say. Ever get blood work done for yourself and noticed your results vary? Horses, like people have good days and bad days which means a certain level of a drug may not be detected one time but the same level would show up another time. You can't tell me Pena had the luck of not getting detected every single time. This tells me if you believe Mr. Pena was cheating, it shows drug testing is seriously flawed.
Pull the Pocket last week talked about the possibility of doing blood profiling of horses, whereas you don't test for specific drugs but the presence of an abnormal blood test (outside of a certain variance) would be sufficient to prove doping. Sounds to me like a more practical way to police drug abuse.
Say What? - NYSRWB Attorney Rick Goodell asked the hearing officer Clem Parenti to rule that Pena's refusal to testify was an adverse inference, claiming in refusing to testify, Pena must be guilty. I can't believe the hearing officer is taking this position under advisement. I realize this is not a court hearing, but when did not testifying become grounds for a finding of guilt?
Tell Me This is Not a Witch Hunt - Well, this is the third and final bullet point regarding Mr. Pena's situation. Pena will be found guilty by the NYSRWB and with electronic filing, the appeal to the New York Court System will be on its way as soon as Mr. Goodell hits the 'enter' key on his smartphone before he leaves the hearing room when the decision is announced. I'm all for getting drug cheats out of the sport, but I have a real problem with witch hunts. No one can tell me this tell me this was not a witch hunt to get Pena. After all, can you name me a trainer in New York (or New Jersey) for fact which has been cited for a violation as a result of medical records since this case has occured?
Ending On A Good Note - Congratulations to Foiled Again for becoming the richest ever pacer (at least in the Western Hemisphere) by winning the Canadian Pacing Derby last night at Mohawk Racetrack in 1:48.3, bringing his lifetime earnings to $4,356,511. Here is the replay of his record breaking victory:
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Not for the Faint of Heart
"The absolute witch hunts that are carried out on some horsemen who have medication overages or withdrawal time infractions yet THIS nonsense gets a blind eye turned on it", said a standardbred trainer, obviously in frustration after learning what happened to a standardbred mare who recently went through an auction ring in North America. For reasons you will soon see, I am keeping the facts specifically vague. I do need to tell you the pictures about to be shown are graphic.
This past winter, the horse was sold to someone as a riding horse/broodmare prospect for money which made it clear this horse was not heading to slaughter as the amount paid was too much. Well, as is too often the case, the person who got the horse sold it and apparently she was sold several times.
Well, the horse ended up in a sale. Not a grade sale, but a sale which receives coverage in the various trade journals. It turns out for this horse, there was good luck as an acquaintance of the former owner's family was there checking out the horses and called the original owner telling her the horse was in the auction. When the horse was going through the ring, the price was so low the former owner told the person to buy the horse and bring the mare back to her so the winning bid was made.
After the sale, the person was giving the horse some feed and water when they discovered something wrong, with one of the legs.
The person called the old owner back and told them about it and asked if they should still buy the horse. The former owner made it clear to go through with buying the horse as she didn't want anyone else touching this horse. The only good thing to say about the situation was the horse didn't seem to be in any obvious discomfort and was eating her feed well.
Now, before we go further. I have no way to know what happened to this horse or when it occurred. For all I know, it could have happened in transport, in the stall, or its way to the sales ring. Not knowing all the facts, I can not and will not speculate as to what happened to the horse.
In the next picture, you can see what the wound looked like after sale before a vet was called in to clean it.
It is important in the name of fairness that the mare came back with good weight, muscle tone, shiny coat, and otherwise in good health. She was also freshly clipped and shod. Later, the consigner offered to buy the horse back but the old owner declined the offer.
What I don't understand is how this auction didn't pull the horse from the sale, didn't call for a vet to tend to the horse when the injury was discovered? After all, we are not talking about a grade sale where many horses end up going to slaughter. Would the commission loss have been that great to let it pass?
Again, not knowing when the injury occurred, you could wonder why the previous owner or broker as the case may be didn't have the horse tended to if it was before the sale. Maybe it was too expensive to treat. While I can accept that, why wasn't euthanasia considered?
I will not cast judgement on the previous owner for I don't know their circumstances, perhaps they sent the horse through the sale anyway figuring someone else would take the horse and have it treated being the expense was so great. Perhaps they were over their head with this horse. Not knowing the whose, whats, hows, or whens, to pass any judgement would be unfair without having all the facts.
Yes, at an auction one is supposed to inspect a horse prior to bidding, though one would think a horse injured to this extent at a mixed sale would have been pulled. Fortunately in this case, the former owner happened to have an acquaintance there who stumbled upon her. The horse is presently being treated by the new (old) owner's vet and a rough guess is this will likely be a $1,000+ vet bill when all is said and done; this with the owner's vet working with her. Assuming all goes well, the original owner likely has a pasture ornament at best. The owner learned one thing from this lesson. No horse gets sold in the future without a contract.
This past winter, the horse was sold to someone as a riding horse/broodmare prospect for money which made it clear this horse was not heading to slaughter as the amount paid was too much. Well, as is too often the case, the person who got the horse sold it and apparently she was sold several times.
Well, the horse ended up in a sale. Not a grade sale, but a sale which receives coverage in the various trade journals. It turns out for this horse, there was good luck as an acquaintance of the former owner's family was there checking out the horses and called the original owner telling her the horse was in the auction. When the horse was going through the ring, the price was so low the former owner told the person to buy the horse and bring the mare back to her so the winning bid was made.
After the sale, the person was giving the horse some feed and water when they discovered something wrong, with one of the legs.
 |
| The leg pre-vet clean up |
Now, before we go further. I have no way to know what happened to this horse or when it occurred. For all I know, it could have happened in transport, in the stall, or its way to the sales ring. Not knowing all the facts, I can not and will not speculate as to what happened to the horse.
In the next picture, you can see what the wound looked like after sale before a vet was called in to clean it.
It is important in the name of fairness that the mare came back with good weight, muscle tone, shiny coat, and otherwise in good health. She was also freshly clipped and shod. Later, the consigner offered to buy the horse back but the old owner declined the offer.
 |
| The same leg after the vet cleaned the wound up to promote healing. They yellow is the Cannon Bone. |
Again, not knowing when the injury occurred, you could wonder why the previous owner or broker as the case may be didn't have the horse tended to if it was before the sale. Maybe it was too expensive to treat. While I can accept that, why wasn't euthanasia considered?
I will not cast judgement on the previous owner for I don't know their circumstances, perhaps they sent the horse through the sale anyway figuring someone else would take the horse and have it treated being the expense was so great. Perhaps they were over their head with this horse. Not knowing the whose, whats, hows, or whens, to pass any judgement would be unfair without having all the facts.
Yes, at an auction one is supposed to inspect a horse prior to bidding, though one would think a horse injured to this extent at a mixed sale would have been pulled. Fortunately in this case, the former owner happened to have an acquaintance there who stumbled upon her. The horse is presently being treated by the new (old) owner's vet and a rough guess is this will likely be a $1,000+ vet bill when all is said and done; this with the owner's vet working with her. Assuming all goes well, the original owner likely has a pasture ornament at best. The owner learned one thing from this lesson. No horse gets sold in the future without a contract.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)