Belmont Day

In the 2nd, Love to Run (5-1) seems to have improved at three for the live Kimmel barn, and makes his third start of the form cycle.  Ran a close second in his 3yo debut to the Toddster's Street Brawl, who won impressively in allowance company in his next start; and the race has produced five winners and two seconds overall.  Last effort was a traffic disaster, uncomfortable on the rail throughout before checking and dropping back sharply.  Still gathered his senses and finished with a lot of interest.  Goes back to Alvarado here, and may like the stretchout in distance.  Son of Pulpit is out of a Quiet American mare who's a half to the dam of the multiple graded winner Sassy Image.  Wild Target (2-1) has had his chances for the red hot Kenneally barn.  Money-burner, or ready to break through here?  Escape Artist (3-1) has two good tries this distance for another ridiculously hot trainer in Chad Brown.

In the 4th, I like the form on Moonstock (4-1); don't mind the time between races given the steady series of drills on the Saratoga training track.  Ran second last out to Where's the Baby, who won his next in allowance company; and ahead of Arc Above, 2nd and then 1st in his next two. Two races back, he was way wide on both turns and did quite well to finish third in his first race in ten months.  I'm a little queasy on his chances because Mott has been really cold here lately, but maybe that's too much information.  (He's been really bad though, well-bet horses well beaten up the track.)  Ur (12-1) was carried wide into the stretch in his last and finished OK; could outrun his odds here with a kinder trip from a slightly better post.  Current Design (7-2) moved up on the Keeneland Poly, which bodes well for his turf debut for the aforementioned sharp Chad Brown barn.

In the 5th, Carbon County (7-2) has run well off a layoff in the past, and tries to do so here for Mike Hushion, 30% in the 61-180 day layoff category.  Moved up to allowance company at Tampa in his last, in February, and ran a close second against what's proven to be a very good field.  Under Control, the winner,  moved up in allowance class at Keeneland and just missed; and the 3rd and 4th place finishers won their next tries.  Ramon Dominguez wins at a 41% rate for this barn, so they must mean business here.  Adirondack Dancer (2-1) is the one to beat; will have to contend with an outside post.

In the 6th, Brimstone Island (5-1) continues to improve after being claimed for a mere $16k early this year.   Found himself head and head with Paynter last out; expect Xavier Perez to revert to the stalking style that served him better two races back, as well as in his prior one turn races.  Lots of trouble in his comment lines; think he can be there with a cleaner trip and at a fair price.   Inflation Target (4-1) has burned some money since graduating, and figures to be close again.  Teeth of the Dog (2-1) will get bet because he ran in the Preakness and ran 3rd at 53-1 in the Wood.  I just don't like him.

In the 8th, the G1 Just A Game, Hungry Island (5-2) looks like your typical Shug mare who starts to get really good as her four-year season wears on.  Comes off a career-best effort winning the G2 Churchill Distaff Turf Mile last out with a powerful brush in the stretch.  Sure to be second choice with Winter Memories (6-5) in the race, but I strongly prefer Hungry Island in this spot.  The favorite was fine winning her season debut against a moderate crew at best.  Think she could be running into a buzzsaw here.  Tapitsfly (3-1) continued gamely for 2nd as the top choice powered by at CD....could be worth a shot using her for second in the exacta if the price is right.

The Belmont lost much of its betting allure along with all its other allure when I'll Have Another scratched.  Favorite role goes to Dullahan (9-5) who, at first glance, may look quite logical at a mile and a half off his close for 3rd in the Derby.  Keep in mind though that, while it may have looked like he was closing fast, he came home in a lethargic 25 4/5 seconds.   I don't see any reason why Dullahan should thrive at this distance anymore than his half-brother Mine That Bird did.  Paynter (7-2) earned a freaky Beyer against a short field of moderate talent (the fact that I picked second place Brimstone Island notwithstanding) at a mile and a sixteenth.  Do you really think he's gonna stay this distance?   I don't.   Don't mean to pick on Michael Matz, but I just don't like Union Rags (3-1) either.  Has shown no sign that he's progressed from his two-year old form.  So, one might think I'd be psyched since I don't like the top three choices.   Problem is it's slim pickens amongst the rest.  So here's a not overly enthusiastic vote for Street Life (8-1), who at least is moving in the right direction, and seemed to like both Belmont and the addition of blinkers in his fast closing third in the Peter Pan.  Room for further improvement in only his 6th career start for Chad Brown.  He's been hot, did I mention that?  Best of luck everyone, and have a great Belmont day!

All the News That's Fit to Manipulate

I went to the NY Times website on Tuesday night.  I was looking for what I figured was the inevitable pre-Belmont front page article by Joe Drape and his partner-in-crime Walt Bogdanich; with their latest exposé in a continuing and, at least in Drape's case, long-running series of similar exposés on drugs, cheating trainers, and dead horses.  But there was nothing there.  Scrolled down and noticed down in the sports section nestled about 2/3rds down the home page this story here.  A little more on Doug O'Neill, but mostly about J. Paul Reddam, the owner of I'll Have Another as well as Cash Call, the predatory loan company with a shady record both ethically and in the eyes of regulators in some states.  Nothing new here to be sure, and I've made allusions to it on this site in the past.

So, I have to say that I was utterly flabbergasted when I saw the piece, by Richard Sandomir, who does a fine job commenting on TV sports coverage in his usual role at the paper, right there on the front page.  The article is perfectly legitimate and timely as a background piece about an owner of the Triple Crown prospect with a record of unsavory business practices.  But it's only front page news here because the editorial staff of the paper determined that it fits with its agenda of portraying the sport in the most negative light possible.  And the Times sure has no hesitation to make that agenda clear.  It's almost laughable at this point when you see a story like this hogging front page space.

Saw another article posted on the site on Wednesday night, this one in the City Room section and entitled At Belmont Park, a Clinic's Doctor Gets Track Workers Back on Their Feet.  And I thought, oh good, there's a positive, feel-good article, about a tireless doctor working arduously around the clock to help out people in need.  But it's not; it's really less about the doctor and far more about the miserable conditions that cause people to go see him - rat bites, bed bugs, bad air, bad food ("possibly from eating food left for hours in barns swarming with flies"), the flies, giant dung heaps, broken jaws from horses swinging their heads.  It's a bleak and depressing piece that paints a horrifying picture of conditions on the backstretch, and should I have expected anything else?  Figured it might even land on the front page (it didn't).

Profoundly worse in my view though is the way the paper is reporting on the revelation, first reported as the lead front page headline story on Tuesday and mentioned in the prior post, that the New York Gaming Association (NYGA) contributed $2 million to the Committee to Save New York, a pro-business group closely associated with Governor Cuomo, right around the time that he officially made expanded gaming a priority; within days in fact of a op-ed piece in favor of casinos that he wrote for the Times.  The paper followed that up with an article by Nicholas Confessore on Wednesday in which the Cuomo administration, and Mayor Bloomberg, defended the governor's ties to the group.

And today, Danny Hakim writes (based on a report in the Wall Street Journal) that three Genting executives personally pitched Cuomo on the now-dead Big A convention center at a fund raiser. 

The event was attended by real estate and gambling executives, as well as Jennifer Cunningham, a communications strategist who consults for Genting. The convention proposal was made by K. T. Lim, the chairman of Genting, and Christian Goode, the company’s lobbyist.

The fund-raiser was not originally disclosed on the governor’s public schedules, The Journal reported; the omission, a spokesman for Mr. Cuomo told the newspaper, was “inadvertent.” [NYT]

This is all well and good.  However, the Times fails, in any of these articles, to mention Cuomo's comments at his Monday news conference, which I imagine that Hakim and/or Confessore probably attended (and if they didn't, they surely are aware of what he said).  To repeat, the governor said of NYGA's hopes to gain exclusive rights for expanded casinos at its existing racetrack racinos: 

“I 100 percent oppose that. One hundred percent. I believe it should be an open competition where we bring in the best companies and I believe we should get the best deal for the taxpayer that we can get....I don’t believe the racinos have any claim for primacy.

And then he went on to call the current racino arrangement a "scandal," implying that taxpayers are not getting their fair share of the proceeds.

Now, the Times is clearly raising fair and important points here.  It's surely disturbing that a company like Genting can get face time with the governor by virtue of their campaign donations.  And the idea of an advocacy group like NYGA donating unlimited and unregulated sums to a group closely allied with Cuomo reeks of the kind of same-old/same-old special interest influence that has ruled New York politics and that the governor has pledged to distance himself from.  It's only because of the Times' reporting that we even know about the donation, as they are not required by law to be attributed to the donator. 

However, it's clear that NYGA was formed for one purpose, and one purpose only - to get casino gambling for themselves.  On Monday....prior to the publication of the original article....Cuomo made it entirely clear that this is not going to happen on his watch.  To me, that changes the entire context of this story....and not in a way that the Times particularly wanted to see I'm sure, as it runs squarely counter to the point that they are obviously trying to make - that the governor is under the sway of groups donating to his cause.

So, the Times has apparently decided to simply ignore the governor's remarks.  And that is just wrong on many levels.  This just HAS to be reported - it's an integral part of the story, whether they like it or not.  To not report it is either incompetence, or, even worse but far more likely in my view, a case of the Times manipulating the news so that it better fits with its agenda.  Without trying to be too over-dramatic here, that's something I'd expect to find, for example, in the state-controlled Syrian press rather than in the most prominent newspaper in our country of unfettered free press and expression.  It's unfathomable and unconscionable.  In my opinion.

And now, enough of that.  13 races on Saturday, full fields galore, and you know me, I'm as excited (or more) for those restricted claimers on the grass as for the supporting stakes.  So, time to get to work.

Pop Goes the NYGA

If you heard a loud sound, like a giant bubble bursting, early Monday afternoon, it was probably that of the New York Gaming Association, whose hopes of exclusive control of expanded gaming in the state virtually went up in flames with these five words spoken by Governor Cuomo:  "I 100 percent oppose that."  The governor, whose impressive power was very much in display on a day when Mayor Bloomberg and NYC Police Commissioner Ray Kelly quickly fell into line on his proposal to stem the obscene volume of NYC marijuana arrests under their watch, was referring to the idea being pushed by NYGA that new casinos should be limited to current racino sites.  "You guys got that point?" he asked, almost mockingly, for emphasis before launching into his slapdown. 

  “I 100 percent oppose that. One hundred percent. I believe it should be an open competition where we bring in the best companies and I believe we should get the best deal for the taxpayer that we can get....I don’t believe the racinos have any claim for primacy.

  I can't imagine that the racinos have a prayer if this governor is so opposed.   And they surely must be lamenting the $2 million they gave to the Committee to Save New York, a business group with ties to Cuomo which actively campaigned for his economic program; that, according to today's NY Times front page investigatory story (Joe Drape's inevitable pre-Belmont bombshell will have to wait for another day I guess...I'd say Thursday).   (And, by the way, if the Times was trying to make the point that the governor was under the influence of that money, this statement pretty much blunted that, and just prior to its publication day too.  Wonder if the governor's men had advance word of the story?)

It will be interesting to read NYGA's reaction.  Thus far, all we've gotten from them has been a steady flow of smug, self-congratulatory canned propaganda about the revenue and jobs they've created and how socially responsible they are, but this changes the game and fast.  If and when it becomes apparent that the racinos will be excluded from the casino sweepstakes, you can expect that NYGA will pivot and become a vociferous opponent of the casino referendum.  With their very existence potentially on the line with the prospect of competing full-scale casinos, and with the Citizens Union decision permitting unlimited donations to SuperPACs also applicable to issue campaigns, a company with the resources of Genting could literally try to buy the referendum's defeat.  But hey, that's the way this Supreme Court says it should be, right?

Also during the press conference, I was reading tweets reporting that Cuomo referred to the current racino arrangement as a "scandal."  Of course, Twitter is highly limited as far as substantive reporting (though quite proficient in reporting out-of-context unsubstantive tidbits over and over and over again), so I was curious to hear exactly what the governor was referring to.  If you listen to the entire statement, as I did here, starting at around the 9:00 mark, it's quite clear what his point was. 

  "I do not want to be in a situation where the assumption is that these tracks have the casinos and we have to figure out how to get money from them.  The current racino situation in this state is a scandal, in my opinion.  You try to find the rhyme or reason on racinos, and why taxpayers get what they get, it defies logic." 

To me, this fits right into the context of his remarks a few months ago when he asked: "What is it worth to this state to have this industry? And how much do we subsidize them? And do we want to?"   Seems clear that the governor is irritated with the current arrangement.  Fortunately for the tracks, their revenue cuts are written into the law of the state and cannot be changed merely by executive edict.  It would instead take an act of a compliant legislature under the sway of a governor who seems to get most of want he wants, and mostly all of what he really wants.

Cuomo also spoke about the collapse of talks with Genting over a convention center at Aqueduct, which you can hear at the beginning of the abovelinkedto video.  Basically, Genting planned to subsidize the convention center with racino money, but wanted a guarantee that that money flow would not be threatened by a casino competitor in NYC.  Cuomo would have none of that.  Instead, he'll just find some other company who is willing to foot the entire bill for a money-losing convention center as long as they can operate a money-making casino.  Which I imagine shouldn't be too hard to find. 

Getnick and Getnick Again and Again

Before we were interrupted by the holiday weekend, there was the latest news item regarding NYRA, this one involving a dispute with their former integrity counsel Getnick and Getnick.  Longtime LATG readers and followers of the NY political scene are surely familiar with these guys; if you enter 'Getnick' in the search box in the upper left hand corner of this blog, you'll get a long list of posts, quite well-written if I do say so myself, going back as far as 2005.  I'd forgotten, until this reader mentioned it, about Neil Getnick's peripheral involvement in the Friends of New York/Empire Racing affair - he/she probably saw the same post that I did that came up on top of the search.  (Getnick had asserted that Tim Smith basically told him what Friends was up to back in 2004. Ah, those were the days, eh?)

Just about everyone was excoriated over Getnick's $125,000 per month contract as NYRA's integrity counsel.  NYRA was criticized for agreeing to pay anyone that much given their financial condition.  G&G was criticized for conflict of interest - it was after all their glowing report that allowed NYRA to emerge from a federal prosecution and go on to win the franchise....thus allowing Getnick to get the lucrative gig.  And, if you Google 'NYRA Getnick,' it returns, right on top (at least for me, could be different for you depending on what highly personal information of yours Google has), is a post of mine linking to a NY Post column in which Frederik U. Dicker breathlessly tells us how Joe Bruno was investigating Governor Spitzer's ties to the firm.  And haven't the lives of those two arch-enemies changed since then!  I would think that they could now perhaps find some common ground and share a laugh over a beer reminiscing over old times.  (Or....maybe not.)

Also, if we go way back to that abovementioned post from 2005, we see that Neil Getnick said that he was charging NYRA a mere $5 million for its work as the federal monitor during the prosecution. 

So, NYRA has been quite the cash cow for Getnick.  But now, the two sides are embroiled in a legal fight over NYRA's firing of G&G in March of 2011.  The two were squabbling over that $125,000 a month fee that NYRA had stopped paying in full after the arrangement was criticized by Comptroller Tom DiNapoli.   Matt Hegarty reports in the Form: 

  In court filings on Thursday, Getnick and Getnick’s legal counsel argued that the requirements of the franchise agreement NYRA had reached with the state prohibited NYRA from making a unilateral decision to fire the company. The company asked the court to reject NYRA’s argument and reiterated that Getnick and Getnick is still owed the money under the five-year agreement. [DRF]

The kicker here is a heretofore unreleased Getnick report purporting to contain details of two integrity investigations that were underway when the firm was fired.  Now, there is a dispute between the companies - and in newspaper reports I've read - as to when that report was delivered; whether it precipitated the firing or came afterwards.  However, Hegarty reports that Getnick's court filings themselves state that it was "delivered to NYRA’s board on June 13, 2011, three months after the firm had been fired."

If that is indeed the case, you have to take the report and whatever it says for what it's worth.  I mean, since "corporations are people," in the view of the now official GOP presidential candidate, as well as the conservative majority in the Supreme Court (one of the keys in the Citizens United ruling that rules and roils today's elections....and you really might want to read Jeffrey Toobin's controversial New Yorker article on the subject), then think about how you would react if you were involved in a long, complicated relationship that ended in bitter acrimony with you as the jilted lover.  You'd be pretty pissed I imagine, even besides the $5million and $125k per month.   Who knows what you'd say and do in reaction.  We don't know what's in the report, and may never know if NYRA prevails in its argument that it constitutes attorney-client privilege.  So I'm not saying that what's in there isn't true.  Just that, again, it has to be taken for what it's worth.

NYRA meanwhile is going on its merry way preparing for the Belmont Stakes which will draw a large crowd that will mostly go home disappointed when I'll Have Another loses.  Plenty of promotions and contests, new transportation options, and, in keeping with the theme of the day, announcing a strict security and testing protocols being implemented by the Racing and Wagering Board.  The Board can't keep track of the right takeout, but they can sure put the hammer down on all those habitual Belmont Stakes cheaters.  A buddy suggested that these measures are aimed at Doug O'Neill; but I say the Board is doing anything and everything it can to distance itself from NYRA and distract everyone from their own incompetence in the takeout snafu. 

We won't be able to tell for sure, but I do wonder if the Belmont day attendance will be at all adversely affected by all the negative publicity surrounding NYRA.  Not that it should have much to do with it at all.  But, I dunno, when an entity is the subject of such a constant barrage of negative news (all portrayed in the worst possible light), and is bashed over and over and over again, by newspapers, regulatory agencies, and politicians at all levels going up to the governor himself, it has to create some kind of a stench.  Whether it's smelly enough to keep people (other than Governor Cuomo) away, we probably won't know.  But it sure as hell can't help.

Cuomo Gets the Crown

I think it took about ten minutes after NYRA got a one week deadline to agree to, for three years (unless everyone forgets about when it's supposed to sunset), cede control to Governor Cuomo. And I think it was both sides, not just NYRA, that was anxious to get it done.  "Lawyers have gotten rich on the relationship between NYRA and the state....We decided not to do that," the governor said.  I think I'll take some credit here for writing last week that the letter to NYRA was more bark than bite.  The state didn't have a sufficient case to revoke the franchise and they knew it.  With a bulldog lawyer in NYRA's corner, they used the letter to pressure NYRA into this deal rather than embark on what promised to be long litigation (that would have given me great subject matter for months if not years).  According to Jim Odato in the Times Union, Cuomo even threw NYRA a bone to encourage a settlement, promising a cut of casino revenues if the state ends up legalizing gambling halls via a constitutional amendment.

So, now, in the spirit of this new alliance, and with all the lofty talk of cooperation we heard at the press conference announcing the deal, Cuomo will definitely go to the Belmont, right?

The governor said he'll attend the Long Island race if his schedule permits.  [NY Post]

  Yeah, but....I mean....what else does a governor have on his schedule for a Saturday afternoon?

Besides, now, after getting what he wants, as he usually does, Cuomo can come and ascend to the announcer's booth (out of the way, Durkin), gaze down to survey his conquest, and bask in the adoration of his loyal and obedient subjects, including those who traveled to Albany on Tuesday to kiss his butt.  Such as NYTHA president Richard Violette Jr:  "We are excited we have a Governor who has announced he will champion our industry."  (I wonder what his harness counterpart Joe Faraldo would have said.)  And Barry Ostrager, president of the NY Thoroughbred Breeders: ""It is a great comfort to the New York thoroughbred breeders to know that Governor Cuomo has reaffirmed the State's commitment to support the New York breeding program..."   And NYRA Board member (for now) John Hendrickson: " Governor Cuomo is to be commended for his vocal support of racing, and for bringing all parties together for a positive resolution."

And indeed, the governor said (mostly) the right things. 

  "As the upcoming Belmont Stakes shows, the racing industry is a vital part of New York State 's culture and economy, attracting millions of dollars in tourism revenue from across the nation and supporting thousands of jobs,"

He did also refer to $675 million issued by the state to subsidize the industry; and while it may be a matter of semantics as to whether the tracks' share of slots money constitutes taxpayer or corporate subsidy at this point, Cuomo has obviously succeeded in framing it his way.  But, in any event, has the governor suddenly become enlightened as to the "net positive" that the industry is to the state?  Or is he simply giving himself three years to manipulate the finances more to the state's advantage and place casinos in the locations of his choosing before he's off to bigger and better things?

I certainly know how a buddy who is an owner/breeder of NY-breds feels. 

This is what can be accomplished in the first six months, god knows what else they can do in three years:

goodbye Big A, convention center scam full speed ahead

Racing season April-November,

spa season expansion 6/15-labor day

Increase in takeout

Elimination of "subsidy"

Reduction in purses.

reduction in breeders fund

Belmont Stakes run on Polytrack

unilateral elimination of Lasix

3 day race week

restriction in frequency of horses running

multi billion dollar backstretch "improvements" made by NYS Dormitory Agency or some other politically connected entity 

Maybe you can quibble with some of these points - a reduction of race dates, though maybe not to the extent expressed here, actually makes some sense, so you can probably cross those ones off.  But I'd surely wager that you can kiss the Big A goodbye.  And I wouldn't be at all surprised to see any of the other predictions come to pass, not a one.  Would you?

Just amazing that we've reached this point, and that things at NYRA deteriorated so quickly.  I don't know what could have done about the breakdowns....though, in hindsight, NYRA surely could have acted quicker when it became apparent that something was amiss instead of merely acting puzzled and insisting that the track was safe.  Something, anything, to show some concern, even a symbolic one - a one-day shutdown of racing to inspect the track, or an investigation along the lines of the one in which it was pressured into.  But the final straw was that ridiculous takeout snafu, a lousy 1%.  I know you takeout guys don't like when I minimize that by referring to it as dribs and drabs that most affected horseplayers didn't even miss (and likely lost it back if they did).....but its impact on New York racing, and on the career of at least one good man who had the best interest of the game at heart, has been far, far, far more profound than that $8.6 million figure was made to sound.   Oh, man.

One Person Not Excited About the Triple Crown

"Aw, fuck," I can just hear New York Governor Andrew Cuomo mutter disgustedly when he learned that some horse won some race after winning some other race thus setting up some really big race at Belmont Park on June 9.

For one thing, I mean, he's just gotta be there, doesn't he?  I know that NYRA is the evil empire and all which has, in Cuomo's estimation, been involved in scandals every other week over the past ten years.  And yeah, it'll sure be rather awkward...especially in the light of the latest reported meeting between Cuomo and the NYRA Board on Friday. 

  Last Friday, Cuomo advised NYRA Chairman C. Steven Duncker, and vice chairmen — Michael J. DelGiudice, the speaker's appointee, James P. Heffernan, a Pataki appointee, and Charles Wait and Stuart Subotnick, NYRA appointees — that state control of NYRA is coming, including selecting the next chairman and nominating the next CEO. [Albany Times Union]

  Will he smile and exchange pleasantries with Ellen McClain, whose appointment infuriated him to the point of his invoking a legally questionable hold on NYRA's share of casino money? 

However, being at a Triple Crown race is just a governor-ly thing to do.   As always, we saw the Kentucky and Maryland governors at the post-race ceremonies of their states' big races.  So wouldn't it be even more awkward for the governor should there be a Triple Crown winner and he's not there?  Besides, given his presidential ambitions, I'd think he'd want to have his smiling mug up there before a large (we hope) national TV audience.  Most of those viewers around the country don't know anything about the so-called 'scandals' at NYRA.  And it's not like C. Steven Dunker is the equivalent of Jeremiah Wright or anything.  Who else would he send anyway?  Well, we know his Lietuenant Governor likes the races.  And there's always the smarmy Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos, whose district borders that of Belmont; and who I'm sure would be willing to compromise on something he professes to stand for in order to get his mug on TV and try to take credit for everything that Cuomo has done.

Who knows, maybe Cuomo will go and actually get caught up in the excitement like most normal human beings would, have a beer with Duncker, establish a rapport, usher in a new period of detente, and not even be mad that they made him pay 10 bucks to get in?  Nah...

Whatsmore, whether the governor realizes it yet, the occasion of I'll Have Another coming to New York to try and win the Triple Crown will give NYRA the opportunity to shine on the grand stage, and show the state and the country what it does best - conduct high quality racing and handle big events such as this without a hitch.  Well, as long as the bathrooms are working, anyway.  The country will see the track in all its bucolic glory (via selective camera shots in the backyard area), with racing fans and casual observers of all ages basking in the sunshine (hopefully!!) and enjoying food and drink (that they didn't bring into the track with them unless they sneak it in as I will).  And all those people who have heard or read all the rhetoric from the governor, and who have read all those ignorant NYRA-bashing editorials over the years, will wonder, what's so bad about these guys?  "We anticipate a spectacular day of racing three weeks from now, and look forward to welcoming fans to beautiful Belmont Park," said Duncker in a press release issued shortly after the Preakness.  Indeed!

It was as if on cue that the Post and the Daily News chimed in with said editorials this past weekend.  The News referred to "New York’s publicly subsidized racing industry," referring, I guess, to the industry's share of slots money.  That echos a theme sounded by the governor a few weeks ago when he questioned if the industry should continue to be "subsidized."  I suppose one can claim that that share should go to the state for other purposes instead, but to equate it with taxpayers money as the News does is just a misleading stretch.  The News also calls for "Management that would consider fresh ideas, such as closing Belmont or Aqueduct and turning one of the properties into a revenue-generator."  Huh?  Year round racing at Aqueduct?  Comical, as Peter DeBoer might say.  And the Post is no better, having already jumped to conclusions about the investigation of the takeout snafu that has yet to be completed.  When Cuomo said last week that NYRA did not have the public trust, well it's little surprise when folks who otherwise no little about the issues are constantly fed crap like this.

 - I'll Have Another earned a fine Beyer figure of 109, but we didn't need to see any numbers to know that his effort was an extraordinary display of persistence and courage (not to mention some deft riding by Mario Gutierrez),.  For the son of Flower Alley to be able to catch a quality lone speed frontrunner who, under expert guidance himself, got enough of a breather to be able to skip away and open up daylight turning for home was truly the stuff that classic Classics are made of.  I'll Have Another was relentless in getting the last 7/16ths in 43.54, a rate of 24.88 per quarter.  That surely qualifies as "racehorse time," more and more an exception rather than the rule these days.  You can certainly disparage the rest of the field, nine lengths back to third and depressingly gapped out beyond back to last place Pretension.  But the top two and, with no disrespect to Bodemeister, especially the winner, surely proved to be worthy.  It will be a deserving horse coming to New York (he's actually already here) with a legitimate chance to end this Triple Crown drought.

  - And regarding Peter DeBoer, if you don't think the Devils are throwing elbows and setting illegal picks,watch here.  Let's Go Rangers!!

NYRA Response Just the Prelim

By now, you may have read NYRA's response to The Letter which represents a potential first salvo in a bid by the state to revoke its franchise.  The statement deals strictly with the accusation that NYRA acted improperly, and in violation of unnamed regulations and by-laws, in appointing Ellen McClain as the new CEO President (CEO position is still open), and Kenneth Handal as General Counsel.  Not only, according to NYRA, were the appointments part of its "fiduciary obligation to exercise its business judgment to protect the best interests of racing and the income stream that pari-mutuel wagering provides to the state," (good one!), but, NYRA claims, they were actually encouraged by Racing and Wagering Board Chairman John Sabini. 

  On May 1, 2012....Sabini sent a letter to the NYRA Board of Directors, which stated “…it is imperative that you provide an interim operational plan to the Board, especially who will be performing functions as Chief Executive Officer and Counsel.”  This letter contained no indication of any concerns or limitations with respect to these appointments.

However,  Chairman Sabini shot back that he never told NYRA to appoint a president and secretary, but did urge it to promptly set up interim leaders. [Albany Times Union]  Looking at the (clumsily worded) May 1 letter from Sabini, it's really a matter of interpretation and intent of the language, and each side can make a case in my view.

But that's just a pissing match, really.  For one thing, NYRA was fully within its rights, if not acting out of its "fiduciary obligation" (I love that phrase), to appoint Ms. McClain as CEO - interim, acting, or otherwise.  Reasonable people can surely argue over the wisdom, or even the appropriateness, of appointing the person who was the Chief Operating Officer while the takeout was too high as the new CEO President.  But the investigation into the takeout mess will run its course, and look, heaven help NYRA should it determine that Ms. McClain was involved in any improprieties whatsoever regarding the takeout being 1% too high on certain exotic wagers.

What will be of far more interest and significance is how NYRA responds to the most explosive elements of the letter - the withholding of its share (not, we're told, the horsemen's or breeders') of slots money, and the point-by-point accusations of material and/or non-material violations of the Performance Standards laid out in the Franchise Agreement and/or the Racing Law that could in theory lead to revocation.  Matt Hegarty writes in the Form: 

In contrast to portions of the letter pointing to its authority to revoke the franchise, the letter did not cite a section of racing law in which the state had the authority to suspend the casino payments, so it was unclear how the state arrived at that position. As a result, it’s likely that NYRA’s attorneys are exploring whether the state has the right to authorize the suspension of the payments, either under the franchise agreement or the state’s racing law.

   And you can sure expect NYRA to push back strongly considering that its attorney is Brendan V. Sullivan, Jr. - a Washington, D.C. defense lawyer considered one of the top in the business - that, according to James Odato in the Times Union.  Sullivan has represented, and quite successfully, such illustrious characters as former Senator Ted Stevens, Oliver North (“I'm not a potted plant. I'm here as the lawyer."), and Richard Grasso (in approximate ascending order of contemptibility).  Not only did Stevens get off, but the prosecution ended up being accused of prosecutorial misconduct in a scathing report by a special prosecutor earlier this year.  That might be something for Racing and Wagering, and the Franchise Oversight Board to think about considering their own failures, as the ultimate regulators, to themselves correctly regulate the takeout rate.

 - Here's a story about Pepsi dropping its sponsorship of the annual Tennessee Walking Horse championship in the light of horrifying allegations, some backed up by video evidence, of not only abuse, but outright torture of horses.  That video led to a federal indictment of a leading trainer. 

  The tape shows McConnell and his stable hands beating horses with wooden sticks and using electric cattle prods on them as part of a training protocol to make them lift their feet in the pronounced gait judges like to see. [ABC News]

It actually gets worse if you read on.  Sounds like this guy could use Brendan V. Sullivan, Jr.  But what I'd like to know....considering how so very concerned they've been of late about the treatment of the equine breed, why hasn't this been on the front page of the New York Times?  (Or on any page of the New York Times for that matter?)

Going Nuclear on NYRA

Here is the link  to the "nuclear letter," as described by Tom Precious on Bloodhorse.com, sent to NYRA Chairman of the Board C. Stephen Duncker by John Sabini, Chairman of the NY Racing and Wagering Board, and Robert Megna, Governor Cuomo's budget director and the head of the Franchise Oversight Board.  It was sent on the governor's stationary, as if it already wasn't serious enough, coming as it does from the heads of the two bodies empowered to revoke NYRA's franchise. And it constitutes the first specific threat to do so.  Once again, this is the relevant language in the Franchise Agreement: 

The franchise oversight board shall notify the franchised  corporation authorized  by  this  chapter  in  writing of any material breach of the performance  standards  or  repeated  non-material  breaches  which  the franchise  oversight  board  may  determine  collectively constitute a material breach of the performance standards.

The agreement grants NYRA the "reasonable opportunity" to cure any such violations.

Interestingly, the letter comes a week after Governor Cuomo himself expressed doubt as to whether the franchise could indeed be revoked. 

"I don't know that NYRA can lose the franchise....There is a contract ... the question is how you make it better." [Albany Times-Union]

The governor sounded there like a man who was speaking after having explored the possibility of revocation, perhaps concluding that the state didn't have a sufficient case.  And when I see that one of the three violations cited in the letter is: "The failure of NYRA to provide basic living conditions to the backstretch workers in its dormitories in Saratoga," I'm thinking that that may indeed the case.  If the state is resorting to playing that card at this point, then they must know they don't really have enough to make a clear-cut case for revocation.  We all know that the backstretch at Saratoga needs renovation, and Hayward always maintained that this would be the first use of the 4% share of VLT revenues designated for capital improvements.  And, if you go to the NYRA website, there's a 'Capital Projects Information' link at the bottom of the left-hand margin that discusses those plans as a project for later this year.  Of course, since that VLT money is now being held by the Lottery, NYRA would be denied their reasonable opportunity to cure any breach.  And, in fact, the "Backstretch" clause in the Performance Standards section of the Franchise Agreement specifically ties NYRA's obligation to make such improvements on its receiving that money.  So the state may run into a Catch-22 situation there if it continues to hold the funds.

What else is there?  There's NYRA's failure to produce documents related to the takeout investigation, which can easily be cured....the investigation itself, which I expect will show that NYRA acted out of oversight rather than malice....and the question of the spate of breakdowns on the inner track.  Regarding the latter, I think it's a stretch to frame that as a violation of the Jockey and Equine Safety clause in the Performance Standards section, which requires NYRA to weigh the installation of synthetic tracks and to "consider other steps in consultation with industry experts to ensure jockey and equine safety."  In fact, the latter is exactly what NYRA is doing with the investigation into the breakdowns (even if it was pressured into doing so), and that probe is of course still pending.  We don't yet know what caused the breakdowns despite what Joe Drape says, and it's surely unclear and subjective as to whether NYRA can be blamed no matter what the conclusion is, short of outright negligence.

And the criticism of NYRA's appointment of Ellen McClain as the new CEO is unfounded.  Section 2.5(d) of the Franchise Agreement reads, in its entirety: "New NYRA shall determine all officers of the corporation."  Period.  With the Belmont Stakes coming up, it's only natural and sensible that NYRA would want to have someone familiar with the organization running things for now.  Her appointment does not hinder the investigation of Takeout-gate, nor exempt her from being a subject of it.  However, surely the governor would like to have some kind of a say as to who runs NYRA and I suppose he doesn't like the fact that they went ahead and appointed one of their own.  I'm sure he'd prefer to have some tool in place there.  There's always Larry Schwartz.

So, to me, this may be more of a hissy fit by the governor and two men who have a direct personal and professional interest in deflecting any scrutiny whatsoever of their own roles in failing to notice that the takeout was too high, rather than a substantive threat to the franchise.  Unless, of course, Cuomo has changed his mind from his statement last week.  Surely, if NYRA is to stay, the governor will demand control of the Board, and this seems a tactic to ensure that he gets that, and whatever else he wants.  As he usually does.

 - Regarding the withholding of slots money, the letter refers to"racing support payments."  According strictly to the letter of the law, this would include all of the Genting money, including the funds earmarked for purses and breeders.  However, Precious reports in his piece:

Government sources confirmed the diversion of VLT proceeds to the lottery will not affect the breeding fund and purse accounts.

Coming Out

Members of the NYRA Board of Trustees met privately and directly with Governor Cuomo on Wednesday to discuss reforms to the racing association.   The governor was reported to have expressed doubt that the state could indeed take the franchise away; that despite the language in the franchise agreement that would allow the Franchise Oversight Board to recommend such a termination in the event of material or non-material violations; unspecified violations to be sure, but ones that a determined person could certainly frame NYRA's recent transgression as qualifying for.  So perhaps the meeting with the trustees and his comments represent a slight softening in Cuomo's position.  Still, he kept up the harsh, and misleading, rhetoric. 

"It seems like there is a never-ending list of the problems at NYRA. It’s not one incident. It’s an incident every couple of months for the past 10 years. [Bizjournals.com]

Well, I'd say that's more than a just a bit of an exaggeration.  It's a bunch of crap, in fact.  But in any event, the governor surely has other priorities; his latest involving taking the lead on increasing protections for disabled people, directly or indirectly under state care, from the kind of abuses that have been reported upon, by the NY Times in particular, over recent years.  (You see, the Times can have an influence, both good and really really bad, over matters that are, let's face it and with all due respect to the humans involved, far more profound than dead racehorses, when it's not wasting front page space on Joe Drape's various agendas.)  For Cuomo, it's the latest dance in his meticulously choreographed journey towards the presidential election of 2016.  His term in office will be a ready made marathon campaign infomercial by the time he's done with us, the citizens of New York who, along with the once powerful legislative leaders who are merely along for the ride, are just supporting players in his personal saga.  Here's the governor delivering balanced budgets on time; there he goes taking on unions and special interests; here he is making the tax code fairer without inordinately picking on the wealthy; protecting the most vulnerable around us; promoting gay marriage.

And,regarding the latter, it's apparently just a coincidence of timing that President Obama's coming out on the right side of that issue immediately followed his trip to Albany.  In any event, as a man with clear presidential ambitions, Cuomo can now claim that he led the way on an issue which won't be quite so controversial by the time he's running to succeed either Obama or that flip-flopping bully who now hilariously claims credit for saving the auto industry.  By then, gay marriage will be well on its way to becoming one of those anachronistic civil rights issues that people will wonder what too so long, and what the big deal was.

By the way, did you catch the governor behind the presidential lectern up in Albany the other day?

Looks right at home, doesn't he?

 - Quite obviously I didn't have much to say about the Derby.  Most of that is due to time constraints I've alluded to from time to time, including the project I'm working on outside of my full-time job; one that I think you guys will think is really cool once I get to tell you more.  And, oh yeah, also the matter of my beloved Rangers' now quite-imperiled run at the Stanley Cup.  But a lot of it too reflected my weariness with the hype and buildup that goes on for far too long.  The Kentucky Derby is one of America's greatest spectacles, still, and to be sure.  Saturday had the usual special glow, I had a great time drinking mint juleps at a party at a friend's house, and pissed away a mere $20 on Creative Cause (one of the handful of horses who ran decently).  However, the Derby has become, and quite quickly, almost overnight in relative terms, far more spectacle as opposed to a horse race of any sporting or historical significance.  I would think that those people who spent months - months! - obsessing over top ten lists, Haskin columns, the occasional times the horses actually raced, all the rumors and innuendos, workout reports, didn't quite get the bang for their buck.  Well, if you had the winner you did to be sure.  But, when a race goes the first half in 45.1, the last half in 52 flat, and only one horse can even come close to passing the leader, that race kinda sucks.  And, when I'll Have Another fades into the kind of insignificance that other recent Derby winners have, the 2012 Derby itself will be further diminished  I greatly appreciate those who wrote to express their disappointment at the lack of posting.  But in truth, I really couldn't possibly have added anything to the trove of information already available online from great sites like Hello Race Fans.  Well, except maybe using my selection as another horse for you to throw out.

Crist Responds

Steve Crist issued a statement on the Form's website regarding his involvement in the Racing and Wagering Board's investigation of takeout-gate.  Here's the link if you haven't seen it.

My understanding from my Twitter feed is that the comment section has been, let's say, cleansed.  What's left are some mildly worded posts mostly in support with some polite skepticism mixed in.  Not sure what was there before, but probably not too complimentary.  The fact is that, strictly from a  journalistic point of view, Crist is fair game here, and I'm sure he realizes that; in fact, he writes: "With hindsight, I regret that I didn’t follow up on the issue."  If the aggrieved horseplayer had contacted Jim Odato instead, I imagine that Odato would have investigated himself, discovered that bettors were being overcharged, confronted Hayward with his findings, and published an exclusive with or without his comment.  But here there were relationships and human nature involved, so that's not what happened.  As I said in the last post, Crist was in a difficult spot.  I feel bad for both guys; not because mistakes weren't made....and let those who have never erred be the first to throw stones in glass houses (or however that goes).....but because they're both advocates for those of us who love the game as much as they do.  When the good guys start going down, it's not good, especially in this environment, with an openly hostile governor advocating for drastic expansion of gaming.

As for Crist's suggestion that Hayward similarly was under the impression that NYRA merely had the option, rather than an obligation, to lower the takeout, we haven't heard anything from the NYRA CEO; but it doesn't really matter.  The buck stopped at his desk in terms of getting it right either way (as well as at the desk of general counsel Patrick Kehoe, as explained here by Steve Zorn on his Business of Racing blog).  And besides, however it went down, NYRA's enemies in Albany will have free reign to frame it in the most damaging way possible.  And Hayward and NYRA will be powerless to fight that.

Sorry Charlie

As they say, the cover up is often worse than the crime, and man, is it ever in this case for NYRA. The 1% takeout snafu was made into a big deal by politicians and the press with the attention-getting "$8.6 million taken out of horseplayers' pockets," but truth was it consisted of dribs and drabs that most horseplayers - including this one - didn't notice and haven't to this day.

But now, the Racing and Wagering Board (which surely has its own incentive to pin the blame on somebody else) has determined that NYRA knew far more than it was letting on. And once you get to the cover-up part, the question is always "What did he know, and when did he know it." In the case of NYRA President Charles Hayward, it's apparently spelled out in black and white. He knew everything. And he had for quite awhile. If you haven't seen the email exchange between Hayward and Steven Crist:

“Later on August 1, 2011 Hayward responded to Crist: “This gentlemen [who contacted Crist to alert him to the takeout error] is correct. Off the record, we have been working on this for some time. We originally had thought that we would announce this for Saratoga but political forces intervened. Since we are showing substantial losses in 2010 and 2011 and we have been smacked around by Cuomo (and he could check the SRWB from approving), we decided to wait. Also, the regional OTBs who collectively lost money in 2010 will scream like stuck pigs and that would provoke Skelos who is very tight with the guys who run Nassau OTB to introduce anti-NYRA legislation for the benefit of the OTBs. Finally, we are quietly working on a plan to open 10 or so restaurant/bars in the city and we did not want the politicos to block this effort. We have some internal debates on how much to lower each pool and how we would present this to our simo customers, the consumers and the politicos. I would appreciate it if you could keep these details confidential. I would also welcome a further discussion on this topic with you before the meet is over.

 “On August 1, 2011 Crist emailed Hayward: “Will keep it confidential and would love to discuss possible reduction schemes with you off the record whenever the time is right.” [Capitol Confidential]

At the time, last December, when the error was revealed to those of us other than the sharp guy whose query to Crist precipitated all of this, NYRA explained that the sunset of the temporary takeout increase "was unintentionally overlooked due to the complexity of the takeout provisions in the Racing Law." But that was...simply not the case. [Going to stop using "allegedly" or "apparently" as long as nobody disputes the existence or accuracy of the reported emails, which....apparently....is not going to happen.]

Look, as I've written before, I think Charlie Hayward is a great guy who genuinely loves the game. He brilliantly maneuvered NYRA through the franchise process when everybody, including this occasional blogger, counted them out...and continued to successfully guide the association through subsequent financial and political pitfalls to get to this point where the slots money is finally flowing. Whatsmore, given the constant criticism and scrutiny from Albany, I can't even really blame him for retreating into the kind of bunker mentality that led to the tactics and thinking described in his correspondence to Crist. But no doubt this is the end of the road. The unpaid administrative leave that he and Sr. VP Patrick Kehoe have been placed on by the NYRA Board of Directors is merely the first step out the door. No way in the world that he survives this. NYRA's very existence is in peril at this point, as Franchise Oversight Board chairman Robert Megna has made quite clear.

"This is not an isolated instance." Megna continued: "A failure to meet this most fundamental obligation puts into doubt the continued efficacy of the state's franchise agreement with NYRA."

So you can be sure that the NYRA Board will soon distance itself from those responsible as quickly as possible.

As for Steve Crist, the consequences are less dire, though surely embarrassing. He explained to the Daily News that he didn't quite grasp the fact that NYRA was overcharging contrary to the law. Whether or not you buy that, the fact is that he was surely put in a tough position here by a former colleague. Off the record is off the record; so whatever Crist did or did not understand, I don't know what else he could have done. Unfortunately, his credibility on matters pertaining to New York racing, which he has reported on so expertly and admirably for so long, is unquestionably compromised at this point.

 - Little surprise to wake up yesterday, the Monday kicking off Derby week, to find yet another damaging front page article in the NY Times on equine breakdowns courtesy of Joe Drape. Big Purses, Sore Horses, and Death. Maybe they need a new headline writer there at the Times....that's the kind of thing I might resort to for a blog post when I just can't think of anything more clever or succinct. However, I have nothing else to criticize; it's a pretty solid piece; quite disturbing as you might imagine. Drape however...apparently...had nothing better to do late last night than to parse through Twitter posts from earlier in the day, take one completely out of time context and reply sarcastically in an...apparent... attempt to make the poster look stupid. And that's pretty pathetic.

- Thanks to all who have written to see if I'm still alive. 

The Wood

In the Wood, Street Life (4-1) has sure relished the extra ground since stretching out to two turns on the inner track after floundering in a sprint first time out. Subsequent graduation was not without its obstacles, as the son of Street Sense had to alter course sharply on two occasions. Stepping up directly into stakes company, he seemed hopelessly beaten turning for home, and even halfway down the stretch before he took off like a shot to catch Copy My Swagger. That one was trying a route for the first time, so one could quibble about who Street Life beat; but he did set a slow pace, and has an interesting pedigree for distance. And besides, that was a pretty decent field behind those two; I'd match them up with the horses that Alpha (5-2) beat in the Gotham for sure. Out of a Grindstone half sister to graded route winner Brilliant, this is also the distaff family of the G1 winner Furiously. Well suited to continue improving here at nine furlongs, and race figures to have a lively pace for him to close into.

My Adonis (8-1) comes off his second place Withers finish to Hansen, who's just plain better than these, I think. Best races have come on tracks with at least a bit of moisture, and there won't be a trace of that on Saturday for sure. Still, he's returned at age three with two efforts faster on the Beyer scale than anything he ran last year, and always love to see improvement from two to three like that. Will use top and bottom in exactas with top choice, and hope the top two morning line choices run out...

...which could be wishful thinking, but worth a shot here I believe. Alpha (5-2) is two months and about a dozen changes in plan from his last race, which I guess doesn't mean all that much these days. He won the Gotham easily, but, as mentioned above, didn't beat a field anymore accomplished than did Street Life in his last. Gemologist (8-5) is quick, unbeaten, and scary for Pletcher. Not only that, he showed in the Kentucky Jockey Club last year that he can stalk the pace and win too. But his one race this year wasn't much more than a workout in a paceless field on a wet track he's bred to like. Should be busy up front with The Lumber Guy on his outside, Teeth of the Dog and My Adonis to his inside. And I think he's going to be way, way overbet here.

- Quickly, in today's Transylvania on opening day at Keeneland, I was gonna stand against the morning line favorite Monastic (5-2) until I took a look at the replay of his last two races. I don't generally come on here to pick favorites. But man, this horse is a monster - not a surprise of course given that he's a son of Rock Hard Ten...this is daddy's boy! He just towered over his hapless opponents in his last race at two, at CD last November; and rolled by them after being caught in an uncomfortable spot throughout the backstretch. He faced similar traffic, pinned back of the field on the rail amongst horses, in his three-year old debut last month at Tampa. This time, he had too much to do with the pace scenario against him, but was still impressive rallying for third nonetheless. I think it will help this massive colt to not start from the rail as he did in his last two, and I wouldn't want to be in his way once he starts rolling with Leparoux today with an extra sixteenth mile to run this time. Trainer Thomas Proctor is hot, with four winners and two very close thirds with his last nine starters. Tough field though; State of Play (3-1) returns to grass for Graham Motion and gets Johnny V, who wins at a 30% clip for the barn; and Icon Ike (7-2) was a million wide rallying to beat weaker in a shorter race at Fair Grounds.

Useful Prep for Union Rags

While some people might be jumping off the Union Rags bandwagon in the wake of his third place finish in the Florida Derby, maybe I'll hop on to some vacated space. After all, the race was a prep for the Kentucky Derby, and not a race that he had to win in order to qualify on earnings. And how better to prepare a horse for the Derby than subjecting it to the kind of race conditions he's likely to encounter on the first Saturday in May? So, instead of excoriating himself for having Union Rags too far back as he has, perhaps Julien Leparoux should be patting himself on the back. Son of Dixie Union was pinned squarely into a box in and amongst horses for the length of the backstretch, thanks in part to the efforts of Javier Castellano, who may have been more interested in justifying his much-maligned selection of Algorithms over Union Rags as his Derby horse than doing the right thing on El Padrino. Turning for home, finally extricated from traffic, horse and jockey found themselves behind a wall of horses and with much to do. Finally put in a decent late run for third, in an effort that reminded me somewhat of the third and second place Wood Memorial finishes of Genuine Risk and Monarchos, respectively, prior to their Derby wins. He got the final furlong in a race-best 12.45 seconds (according to Formulator, 12.58 according to Trakus), and earned a Beyer of 93.

Having said all that though, I do think Union Rags seemed a bit short. I'd classify his trouble more as nuisance than catastrophic (bad word to use these days) debilitating - indeed, not a single mention of trouble in the chart call - and he didn't suffer significantly from any ground loss compared to anyone but the winner. I'd have thought he could have been more explosive in the final sixteenth than he was. And, let's face it, he's still never run all that fast, at least on the Beyer scale. The difference to me between Union Rags and the aforementioned Derby winners is that those horses had the kind of foundation that made me believe at the time (did I mention that I had both in the Derby?) that they could build on their Wood efforts and progress to a career-best effort. With Union Rags, not to mention with virtually every other three-year old these days, their running records are so spotty in terms of frequency, spacing, and level of competition, that one really just doesn't know. Now though, the odds on Union Rags may make finding out worthwhile in this uncertain season. (How much lower than 7-2 do those betting him at that price in the futures pool think he will be at post time?)

As for Take Charge Indy, LOL at the thought of him winning the Derby. Clever rating job by Borel on the front end on a day on which that seemed to be the place to be. Got in breather quarters of 24.11 and 24.38 after a first quarter of 23.60. allowing him to pick up the pace to 23.87 to the 1/8th pole, which gave him the margin for tiring that he needed to hang on at the end. But this horse, previously eligible for entry-level allowance conditions and winning his first race ever on dirt, strikes me as being on the mediocre side, and it would be a depressing commentary on the quality of these horses, and another losing Derby for me, should he prevail. Should take a boatload of money with Borel though, the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned.

- In the "better to leave well enough alone" category, the Dubai Gold Cup turned out to be a double disaster on Saturday. Re-run after the World Cup after it was halted mid-race following a fatal breakdown shortly after the start, yet another horse perished during the second running (and yet a third had to be pulled up). Can't blame medication for these accidents, as they are strictly prohibited in Dubai. Sometimes this stuff just happens.

And as we pause for the idiotically anachronistic Palm Sunday break here in New York, nine days of racing on the main track at the Big A have now passed without a catastrophic event....and that before the new condition book with lower purses for cheap races takes effect. So....was it the inner track? Is it possible, as I've seen speculated about from time to time on Twitter, that the unusually warm weather caused problems on a surface constructed specifically to withstand the cold? Increased scrutiny since then by the track vets resulting in more scratches? Or, was it all just a statistical quirk?

Mangled Journalism

A bit late to the game (as has been the case on this blog of late) on the NY Times article entitled Mangled Horses, Maimed Jockeys that graced the front page of the Sunday edition. Was up on a mountaintop on Sunday (Monument Mountain in Great Barrington, MA) and got a late start! I'll post a couple of photos more pleasant than the ones in the Times.




So I don't know what I can add to what's already been discussed thus far. The consensus, at least amongst what I've seen, seems to be that, despite the obvious sensationalism, the article makes legitimate points and addresses issues that we all wish that the industry was addressing instead of the NY Times. And I would wholeheartedly agree with that. But even if we agree with the message, the end doesn't always justify the means when the press manipulates facts and twists the truth to fit its own agenda. So if I repeat ideas expressed before, it's for a good cause. So, with that, a few comments and observations:

- As has been mentioned by others before, the most insidious thing about the article is the way is flows back and forth between issues affecting the thoroughbred industry, and graphically tragic stories involving mostly quarter horse racing in New Mexico. There's little attempt to distinguish the two here - only one of the incidents is specifically identified as being a quarter horse race, even though all but one of them was (I Googled them). For one thing, that makes for a clumsily constructed article; as if there are really two different stories. And, in my own opinion, they probably were. Seems to me that the Times had this story about racing in New Mexico in the can for awhile, but for some reason found it unfit to print. It refers to accidents that occurred late last year, and was probably - again, just my impression - written around that time (and thus the multiple writers it is attributed to). Could be that when the Luck cancellation and the Aqueduct breakdowns became news, it was dusted off - either to add some sizzle to these new stories, or to make the old one more relevant.

Either way, and even if my notion about the construction of the piece is wrong, it's an obvious and blatant attempt to skew the figures and inflame the emotions. It's like writing an article on steroid use in baseball while including a section on alcohol poisoning in some beer league softball circuit. As others have pointed out, if this was a story about horse racing in general, then why not also discuss harness racing? That, of course, would have tilted the article in the other direction given that sport's better record when it comes to safety. So I guess that wouldn't have worked for the Times.

The rest of the article is mostly non-news; Joe Drape's usual rantings - not at all unjustified in themselves, mind you - about the evils of medication and their contributions to the prevalence of fatalities in this country as opposed to jurisdictions with stricter rules; along with criticism of the industry for being unable, in its fractured state, to deal with the problem in a comprehensive manner, and a recap of the recent record of industry dysfunction. Nothing new there. There are however two new twists here....but both of them are bogus in my view:

- I guess NYRA can call off its investigation of the inner track breakdowns and instead just submit this article to the governor's office. Because Joe Drape seems to have concluded in his ultimate wisdom that the problem was caused by owners and trainers being induced by outsized racino-fueled purses to run their unfit animals in the lower claiming ranks. I'm attributing this to Drape because it's not the first time he's jumped to an unfounded conclusion to make his point - recall the article last year in which he declared, based on the scant evidence of a couple of Triple Crown races and visual observations, that the banning of steroids had already resulted in slower but sounder horses. (That article was also deemed worthy of front page placement by the eager Times editors.)

The theory that the large purses is behind the breakdowns at Aqueduct is a logical one and it may (or may not) be supported by the statistics from the Big A, and from the Times' own flawed study, which we'll get to momentarily, that indicate that horses in cheaper races are more likely to break down. But it remains, for now, just a theory, and a relatively recent one at that. One spate of injuries over the course of three months does not make for any conclusions to be definitely drawn, and it is in fact irresponsible to do so. The inner track deaths could have been a statistical quirk...or maybe it was indeed the track despite NYRA's protestations otherwise. Let's allow the investigation to run its course.

- And then there's the Times' study itself which, as I'm sure you've already read, was based not on careful study, but rather by uploading chart calls into a computer and spitting out the ones with comments like 'broke down,' 'lame,' or 'vanned off.' The last two in particular of course do not necessarily indicate a catastrophic injury, or even, necessarily, a serious one. However, though these are referred to as "incidents" rather than "breakdowns," nowhere in the article is that point emphasized. While this analysis may still be useful in pointing out overall trends in a specific state (assuming that vanning standards in that jurisdiction have remained the same over the years), its use to compare problems amongst different states may be flawed. A buddy pointed out to me that "NYRA is extremely cautious in this regard vanning off any horse in distress." If they are indeed more vigilant than in other states, than the Times' method becomes less meaningful in making state-to-state comparisons. Indeed, NYRA in response cited the more comprehensive Jockey Club study that indicated that Belmont and Saratoga were below the national average in fatal injuries.

Whatsmore, there's little analysis or discussion of the Times' statistics other than the one mentioned above regarding claiming races. Not a single word as to how many "incidents" occurred on what kind of track surface? What serious article about racetrack safety these days would not include a single mention of the words "synthetic track?" This is even more glaring considering the mention of the impressively low incident rate at Woodbine, which races only over turf and Polytrack....not to mention the Jockey Club study which indicated that the artificial surfaces may be safer. Instead, we got death and destruction from New Mexico. More than anything else here, that omission clearly shows that this is not at all a serious piece of news reporting intended to analyze and discuss, but rather an example of schlock journalism intended to shock and alarm. And a pretty clumsy one at that.

Scratched

I wrote yesterday that nothing will have changed at Aqueduct on Wednesday other than the switch to the main track, but that was not quite the case as it turned out.

Eighteen of the 73 horses carded for Wednesday’s nine-race program, or 24.6 percent, were scratched – a high number considering conditions were dry and the track was labeled fast throughout the day. [Daily Racing Form]

NYRA of course tried to portray this as business as usual.

NYRA president Charles Hayward, in an e-mail, stated “any vet scratches that are announced are the direct result of the NYRA vet pre-race physical exams, a procedure that has been in place for some time.”

Well, what else is he going to say? Only human nature though for everyone involved - not just NYRA, but the horsemen too - to take a more proactive approach given the circumstances. Five scratches were said to be the track vet's decision according to David Grening's above-and-belowlinkedto piece in the Form. Not clear whether or not that includes the two that David Jacobson withdrew "in consultation with the veterinarian."

“We both agreed these two horses needed to be scratched today,” Jacobson said. “They’re not being scratched for any other reason.”

That doesn't sound like business as usual to me.

White Knuckle Time at the Big A

There are going to be some white knuckles for sure in the executive offices at NYRA today as racing at the Big A resumes, and moves to the main track two weeks earlier than originally planned. Of course, everyone involved will be watching a little closer, and most other than Andy Serling won't even have a bet; this in the wake of the bizarre spate of catastrophic equine injuries that we saw on the inner track, 18 in total, which doesn't count a fatal heart attack, nor a horse who suffered a fracture on Sunday, about which Jerry Bossert writes in the Daily News, NYRA didn't reveal the horse’s fate yet. Who knows, maybe even Governor Cuomo, who barely knew racing existed before the issue was brought to has attention, might be watching on the Capitol OTB station. (Or maybe not.)

NYRA officials, as well as jockeys and trainers, insist that the inner track is as safe as can be, and had nothing to do with the deaths. But I can't help but think that, at least at some level, they're going to be hoping that they're wrong about that as they nervously watch the races today. Because the change of track surface is the only thing that will be different today and until April 4. That's when a new condition book comes into effect that will eliminate the lowest claiming class and cut purses for races with claiming prices of $20,000 or less in an effort to dissuade trainers from running unfit horses for outsize purses, the reigning theory of what's behind the problem. So, if it's indeed not the track, then what other than some self-imposed restraint and respect by owners and trainers and the law of averages will prevent the tragedies from continuing?

As a matter of fact, the very first race on Wednesday is exactly the kind of race that is being blamed - a $7500 claiming race with a $29,000 purse, which means that the horses are racing for a winning purse more than twice as much as the horses are theoretically worth. You'd think that maybe NYRA would have instead scheduled something safe in that spot. Like, maybe, a steeplechase race.

Big A Fatalities Draws Unwelcome Attention

Hillsboro Bay, euthanized following the 9th race at the Big A on Wednesday, was the 16th fatality thus far on the inner track, and the 7th since Feb 25th. Jeez! It's actually the main track about which I've heard safety concerns in the past, but NYRA officials now can't wait to get back on that surface, moving its date of operation up by two weeks. That announcement was termed as "coincidentally" by the Form's David Grening, but I'm not so sure about that. NYRA insists that the inner track is safe, and personally I have little reason to doubt that. These unfortunate streaks happen, and are, more often than not, a statistical oddity that's bound to occur from time to time.

The bizarre spate of catastrophic injuries has even captured the attention of Governor Cuomo, who sent a letter to Charles Hayward demanding that NYRA conduct an investigation into the breakdowns. Really? I mean, how the hell did Cuomo even know about this? Is he following Grening on Twitter while he's not working on the budget, pension reform, DNA databases, and giving in to the Senate Republican goons and the laughable redistricting lines he'd previously pledged to veto?

The letter, on Cuomo stationery, was signed by Bennett Liebman, Deputy Secretary for Gaming, and Robert Megna, Director of New York State Division of the Budget. Megna is also the chairman of the Franchise Oversight Board, which oversees NYRA's operations. [Daily Racing Form]

Ah. Been wondering what Ben Liebman has been up to since he disappeared into the Cuomo Administration. Hadn't heard from him lately, but good to see he's helping to look out for the governor's political interests. Because the governor, while he might be a nice guy and a family man who's for equal rights and world peace, surely doesn't give a rat's ass about dead horses at the track. If you look a bit closer at the letter (without even having to read between its lines), you'll see that this all fits in with his narrative questioning the viability of the sport and the slots revenues currently being diverted to it.

"Everyone understands that horse racing poses risks....but that cannot be an excuse for our inaction. The status quo in all aspects of horse racing is not working, and we need to develop procedures now that work for the horses, riders and the racing public in New York."

Additionally, the letter states that NYRA should pay for the investigation, pointing to the fact that it has received some $15 million in slots revenues from Resort World thus far. That fits right in with Cuomo's recent comments that questions how much, and if, the state wants to 'quote-unquote' subsidize the industry. This governor has shown more outright hostility towards the sport than all of his recent predecessors combined, and, as far as NYRA and horse racing in the state goes, his expected run to succeed President Obama in 2016 can't come soon enough.

- The agreement between the legislature and the governor on casino gambling calls for the addition of up to seven non-Indian facilities across the state. So it surely should be quite interesting how the New York Gaming Association (NYGA) of the existing racinos reacts, because that math doesn't add for them. You see, NYGA has been advocating for casinos to be located at their nine facilities. So, even if these existing facilities are tabbed as the casino locations, two of them are going to be left out. So there surely could be some infighting within what has heretofore been a tight-knit group, at least outwardly. Can't quite see Genting going: "Oh, it's OK Yonkers and Jeff Gural, you take it." The governor says that decisions on the locations won't take place until next year....and I'd guess that's at the earliest. So, this should be fun.

Going to the Dogs

There was an article in the Times late last week about dog racing, and the efforts by their associated racino ownership to eliminate it.

Complaining that they are being forced to spend millions of dollars a year to subsidize a pastime that the public has all but abandoned, greyhound track owners in Iowa, Florida and Arizona have been lobbying for changes in the law that would allow them to cut the number of races, or even shut down their tracks, while keeping their far more lucrative gambling operations. [NY Times]

Well, that's the doomsday scenario for horse racing I've long expressed fears for on this blog...the day that owners of the racinos that were spawned by the tracks start to question exactly why they're "subsidizing" a money-losing business. Dog racing is of course way further along in its decline than horse racing; and, in fact, I do not believe that our sport will ever reach the edge of extinction that the greyhound industry has reached.

However, it took all of about three days after this article was published for a comparable situation to present itself in horse racing, as the province of Ontario announced that it will be ending payments to racetracks through the slots-at-racetracks program in March 2013. [Bloodhorse] That's in addition to moves to cut slots money for tracks in Pennsylvania....as well as the recent comments by New York's Governor Cuomo that seemed to question racing's viability while he supports the notion of expanded casino gaming.

The Times article also explores the reasons (that we all know) behind the decline in racing's popularity as compared to the mindlessness of slots.

“All live racing is declining in popularity,” [some gambling "expert"] said. “It’s just not as impulse-oriented, as convenience-oriented as most gambling is today.”
.....
“You really have to pay attention to the background and history of the dogs,” [some slots addict] said. “That’s a lot of work to do. You won’t see very many guys my age up there.” [NYT]

The Daily News reports that Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver would not be supportive of the constitutional amendment to permit full-fledged casinos outside of existing Indian facilities, unless it specifically spells out where such casinos would be located. The governor prefers to punt that question to a separate measure which presumably wouldn't be dealt with until after the main question is settled by a referendum in November 2013 (much to the delight I'm sure of the lobbyists involved, as well as politicians seeking campaign contributions).

That's not good enough for Silver, who fears such a move would make it easier for the state to add more New York City casinos in the future, those close to him say.
.....
"He's very concerned about having a casino in Manhattan," one source said. "That's something he would not want to see."...Silver says he supports a single casino as long as it's located in a less densely populated area such as the Aqueduct racino in Queens. [NY Daily News]

Writing the casino locations into the amendment would send groups like NYGA and the associated lobbyists into an absolute frenzy, effectively compressing what would be a two-year process into a matter of months or even weeks. And it seems hard to believe that Manhattan would remain a "no-fly zone" for casinos indefinitely. As the dependence on gambling revenue grows, the fact that it's a densely populated area only makes it more attractive, and the idea that those in Manhattan need more "protection" from the dangers of gambling than those in Ozone Park will start to fade away.