One of the last new foal photos you'll see this year

Pictures are in, and stepping into the light for his close-up is the birthday boy ... as yet unnamed. But it's early. He's only 18 hours old.

Sarah Warmack of Hilltop Farm VA said he was a bit slow to nurse, so she milked the dam and syringed colostrum for him. And his IgG test came in over 800 this afternoon, so he's well-stocked with immunities from mama. Good job, Sarah!

Mom did stand a bit soon and pulled on the umbilical cord, so they're watching him for development of a hernia, but he's begun nursing well, so all seems to be good for now.

"He's a handful," Sarah writes, "loves to whinny and likes to play in the water bucket. He's very intrigued about the water buckets. Very odd for a newborn."

Sarah also says he's a "pensive" foal, maybe a bit of a thinker.

That's interesting, because while I was expecting a filly, the name that I had settled on was "Innermost Thoughts." ... Remember, the sire is Inner Harbour (Capote-Blue Sky Princess, by Conquistador Cielo) the dam Lady's Wager, by Valid Wager, out of Lear's Lady, who was out of the mare Idiomatic (by Verbatim).

"Idiomatic" means "peculiar to," particularly in the case of language (i.e., "idiomatic English"), that is, an expression often hard or impossible to define except in its common contextual usage within that language. Example of an idiom: "Beat him to the draw," a North American English phrase derived from gunfighting in the Old West.

It also can describe someone able to speak a language fluently when it is not his native tongue: "Though raised in Los Angeles, he spoke idiomatic French."

A third applicable definition involves displaying a distinctive style, for instance, "an idiomatic composer."

Anyway, perhaps it was a stretch, but "Innermost Thoughts" seemed, to a degree, to play off both sides of the pedigree. But, at risk of sounding -- I dunno, chauvinistic? -- it sort of seems too touchy-feely for a colt or gelding.

A couple of names popped to mind, considering he's a chestnut and his dam's name is Lady's Wager.

First, and sticking with me all day, "Bet It All On Red." ... Per Brisnet, seems to have never been issued by the Jockey Club. But doesn't really pay any homage to his sire.

Then, just now it hit me, "All In On Red." ... We get some "In" for Inner Harbour, and the spirit of the "Wager," as well. ... Likewise appears never-issued by the JC.

Those who have never been the breeder of a foal, nor the purchaser of an unnamed foal at the sales who still needs to be registered, probably had no idea how much thought goes into the naming process. At least, how much can go into it, depending on the person doing the naming.

Paulick Report anniversary a time for celebration, contemplation

I noticed upon a visit to RaceDay360 that the "Paulick Report" is celebrating its first anniversary today. That's red-letter date, not just for Ray Paulick, former editor in chief of The Blood-Horse, who started his site after leaving that job, but also for all of racing journalism.

Paulick has noted that turf writing, as it's called, has long lacked the independence necessary to be a wholly reliable source of information on the industry. The Blood-Horse, for instance, is published by the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association and thus controlled by a board of directors that also includes members of The Jockey Club; obvious potential conflicts of interest there.

Regardless of ownership, at many trade publications there is an ongoing struggle between journalists and, as Paulick calls them, "bean-counting publishers," over whether honest, sometimes by necessity critical journalism compromises the publication's ability to sell advertising to the very individuals and businesses the newsroom is covering. In the case of turf writing, those businesses include racetracks, stud farms, wagering sites and other horse- and racing-related concerns.

But in one year of his site, Paulick has proven that good, honest journalism can attract an audience, and doesn't completely repel advertisers.

In a brief item on the front page of his Web site, Paulick reported that in May his site saw 135,786 user sessions. That's an average of 4,380 per day. Some of those might be the same people returning to read new stories later in the day, but for a year-old "maverick" online publication, it's healthy traffic nonetheless.

And, Paulick's pages are smattered with advertising from key players in the industry. A quick glance this afternoon shows support from Airdrie Stud, Walmac Farm, Liberation Farm, McMahon of Saratoga, Werk's eNicks, Buck Pond Farm, Margaux Farm, Team Valor and TVG, among many others.

This advertising appears despite the fact that Paulick for the past year has reported extensively on troubles, squabbles or even outright scandals in the thoroughbred industry, ranging from extensive coverage of the Ernie Paragallo horse-abuse case, the furor created by the Breeders' Cup's December decision (later overturned) to ax its special stakes program supplements and how the Breeders' Cup's "old guard" and "new guard" have struggled behind the scenes for control of the series. He's joked about TOBA giving an award to its own Sales Integrity Division, and either he or his guest writers have tackled issues like drugs in racing, the antiquated tote system, and machinations in track management from Magna's mangling of its holdings to Churchill's power-play to push wagering through its Twin Spires account-betting system.

Most of that coverage you wouldn't see from the mainstream publications; at least not in the depth and with the honesty Paulick has provided.

In the interest of depth and honesty, I'll confide that I e-mailed Ray Paulick on June 11 wanting to discuss precisely these issues (and the market for independent turf writing) and I haven't heard back from him yet. I still hope to. I'm sure he's busy and he doesn't know me from Adam.

That stated, on the occasion of the Paulick Report's anniversary, for full depth and honesty I'll go on record with my one legitimate quibble about that online publication. Amid the mind-boggling array of dozens or even hundreds of links to Paulick's reporting and aggregated racing news stories and blog headlines is one link that gives me pause: "Donate to Paulick Report."

I hope Ray Paulick makes out well with his advertising sales and is richly rewarded for his renegade turf-writing efforts. But my personal journalistic code makes it difficult to accept "independent" and "donation" in the same conversation.

Advertising is a commodity. Even industry players who have quarrels with how Ray Paulick reports on racing might continue to advertise with him if they see that the readership he generates is a healthy market they can't afford not to reach. So a business deal takes place: Paulick Report's stories generate readership; that readership lures advertisers who pay Ray Paulick for space; the advertisers receive said space and thus reach Paulick's readers. ... End of transaction.

Yes, it's the very same business transaction that goes on between any of the racing industry pubs and their advertisers, with the lone difference being that Paulick as an individual can, and does, show more backbone in his reporting, in spite of the threat of lost advertising revenues as a punitive response to coverage that steps on toes or wasn't flattering. (Which does happen in the media business when advertisers get offended. Trust me.)

But donations are different. A donation is, by definition, a gift. And while in an ideal world, a gift is given without expectation of anything in return, we all know that isn't always the case. That's why, in my own journalistic code of ethics, I'd never leave myself open to the negative possibilities -- that a financial contributor would come back on me later expecting favorable coverage, or that readers could be left with any question in their minds whether my list of anonymous donors holds even the slightest sway over who and what I'm covering, and how.

In 20 years of newspapering, I've never let a source so much as buy me lunch. And I've grown to realize that sometimes, heck most of the time, even compliments come to me only as the thinly veiled precursor to the asking of a favor, like a request to write a story about their business, or to leave out of the police blotter someone's kid's DUI.

I trust my own integrity. It gets questioned all the time, but that goes with the territory. My greatest pride in journalism has come from the many times I've been criticized by both factions of a controversial issue for "taking the other side" against them. What that really means is that I've told both sides of the story well and completely, for my readers' benefit. I haven't shortchanged one side or the other.

Since I do trust myself, I could probably accept a city manager's picking up the tab after a business lunch and know that I wouldn't sell out for an $8.95 cheeseburger and steak fries. But in a career where my motives and actions are questioned every single day by somebody, I can't accept sitting in a restaurant surrounded by others -- readers of my newspaper, in our small town -- and let them see such an authority figure reach across the table and pick up my check.

Paulick's donor list is private, but I'm not sure that confidentiality adds any measure of confidence; it only leaves you guessing about who did donate.

I do know it's tough to make it in a new business venture. And I'm fully aware of hundreds of sites that accept donations as a means of keeping them alive on the Web. When it comes to journalism, if you're National Public Radio, that's your business model. If you're an independent source of industry coverage, accepting donations is something I recommend against.

Ray Paulick knows himself better than any of us know Ray Paulick. I admittedly don't know him at all, though I'd like to. (Don't know whether I'm helping or hurting my chances here.)

I'm sure that he has full faith in his own journalistic integrity, just as I have full faith in mine. And I'm not trying to knock Ray Paulick down a peg -- as if I could -- I'm merely recognizing that in the journalism biz, sometimes it's healthy to wrestle with this sort of philosophical topic as a means of keeping everyone on his (or her) toes; though admittedly I'm at toe-level in this field, while Ray Paulick stands tall.

What I do consider to be a good sign: Ray Paulick is a guy so dead-set against even appearing to have favorites that he had to be dragged against his will into a William T. Young horse's win-photo. So he's probably a better bet for readers seeking impartial journalism than anybody else in the turf writing field.

His writing for the past year at Paulick Report has pretty much proven that. And, my reservations about donations aside, I suspect that it always will.

Charitable Man bears Virginia's banner in Belmont, belies state's breeding weakness

Horsepeople in the Old Dominion were thrilled this winter and early spring when a Virginia-bred seemed a serious threat to become the fifth horse born in the state to win the Kentucky Derby.

That horse was Florida Derby-winner Quality Road, but his Derby trail ended with a nagging quarter crack. Commendably, his connections, including breeder and owner Edward P. Evans, decided they were willing to wait on a good horse, and he's being slowly brought back around to racing form for a summer campaign.

Virginia enthusiasts are excited, then, that another VA-bred has stepped in at the end of the Triple Crown Trail: Charitable Man. Coming in off a win in the track's Peter Pan S.-G2, he has a real shot to upset Mine That Bird this afternoon in the Belmont Stakes.

But, both he and Quality Road are evidence of just how far Virginia's breeding game has slumped.

While Charitable Man is owned and campaigned by Mr. and Mrs. William K. Warren, he, too, was born on Evans' expansive Spring Hill Farm near Casanova, Va. More and more, it seems, if you see a high-class Virginia-bred, it really ought to carry the "state tag" (EV), instead: Evans-bred.

This is not a knock on Mr. Evans. In fact, Virginia horse racing should be thanking God for "Ned" Evans. If it weren't for the love of his farm and his willingness to continue foaling mares there in spite of the presumed financial impracticality of the arrangement, Virginia thoroughbred breeding would have almost nothing. Evans keeps an estimated 90 mares at Spring Hill; the whole state of Virginia only foaled around 350 thoroughbreds in 2008.

Evans is the son of the late Thomas Mellon Evans, who owned Buckland Farm and was a noted horseman, breeding champion Pleasant Colony among many others. "Ned" Evans graduated with a degree in economics from Yale and an MBA from Havard, which pretty much punches a man's ticket in the business world. His chosen field was publishing, and while he maintains a residence in New York, as well, the 3,000-acre farm he bought many years ago in Virginia apparently still has a strong tug on his heartstrings.

That's apparent because Evans -- who is a member of the Jockey Club, owns an interest in numerous Kentucky stallions and could probably afford to buy a different farm or to board his mares anywhere -- keeps bringing them home to Spring Hill to live and to foal.

That likely isn't the most economical way to run a horse business, though I know others who take a stab at it, even smaller breeders. But ideally -- no, not ideally, rather necessarily -- if Virginia is going to save its thoroughbred breeding business, it needs a thriving, or at least surviving, stallion colony to do it.

Talk in Virginia Thoroughbred Association circles swirls around getting more off-track betting locations, particularly in Northern Virginia, which is a completely unserved population of around 3.5 million. Indeed, that is a big Step 1 to improving the lot of racing at Colonial Downs, and boosting the awards paid to breeders of winning foals; bonuses relied upon for ongoing income by those who make their living by selling a horse into racing hands. And the VTA makes a compelling case for the OTB expansion, including this pointed letter to Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine.

But unless the OTB revenues are also funneled into a stallion-specific bonus program -- specifically a VA-sired stakes program at Colonial Downs -- there will still be no incentive to choose a Virginia-based stallion. Breeders will continue to be much better off shipping out of state to quality stallions and returning to foal in Virginia, as Mr. Evans has chosen.

The alarming statistics showing the demise of Virginia's stallion ranks just keep piling up.

As I've already reported, of the 22 horses entered in this weekend's pair of VA-bred stakes races at Colonial Downs, 17 were sired outside Virginia and none of them -- though they're just 3- and 4-year-olds -- were sired by a stallion still standing in Virginia.

I've noted that Virginia's stallion and foaling businesses have plummeted just within the past 20 years. The number of Virginia stallions in service has dropped from 154 studs serving 837 mares in 1991, to 41 stallions serving just 123 Virginia mares in 2008. I have predicted that the numbers will be worse again in 2009.

On opening night at Colonial (scratch-filled, with the turf races moved to the muddy dirt track), there were but 18 VA-breds entered out of 83 horses in eight races. Of those 18, just one was sired by a stallion still alive and known to be standing in Virginia: If Its Meant To Be, by One Tuff Oop. Four others were sired by a quartet of stallions that once were at Virginia Tech University's MARE Center, but that facility was giving away many of its mares earlier this year and shows little evidence that its stallions, such as the capable Fred Astaire, are still in service. The others sired in Virginia, not just born there, were by horses now moved to other states (such as the accomplished runner and sire Black Tie Affair, now in West Virginia) or that have since died.

The signs of Virginia's breeding demise are almost entirely negative, and undeniable.

Virginia thoroughbred farms have produced the third-largest number of Triple Crown race-winners in history. Charitable Man could add to that number today.

But, almost by himself, Ned Evans can't keep Virginia-breds on the map forever.

Stop, thief! ... No, not the filly, the other guy ...

Talk about a run of bad luck with thieves. First Rachel Alexandra steals the Preakness and a potential Triple Crown from Mine That Bird, and now somebody steals the darned horse's papers.

The Blood-Horse reports that trainer Bennie Woolley Jr. awoke Tuesday at his hotel in Louisville, Ky., to find that his pickup truck -- the one with which he hauled Mine That Bird all the way from New Mexico's Sunland Park to victory at Churchill Downs (well, the horse ran the last 10 furlongs) had been burglarized overnight. A thief smashed out the passenger side window, stole the GPS that pointed Mine That Bird from Sunland to the site of his Kentucky Derby win (Calvin Borel directed the last 10 furlongs), and, in the process, also stole the little gelding's papers.

An interesting collector's item, I suppose. But could be tough to fence.

Since a horse can't race without official papers on file at the appropriate track's racing office, Woolley worked through Churchill Downs officials to get a new set from the Jockey Club posthaste so Mine That Bird would have documentation for the Belmont Stakes. Now that's been taken care of, and I presume the pickup's window has been fixed (Woolley is flying to NYC, not driving), soon all involved will be safe and sound in New York for the Belmont, with Louisville only a distant memory.