Fixed-site Breeders' Cup loses sight of the point

In the May 15 issue of The Blood-Horse (and online), WinStar Farm co-owner Bill Casner, a board member of Breeders' Cup Ltd., touted the selection of Santa Anita as the sole site to host future Breeders' Cup "world championship" weekends.

Casner isn't wrong on all the facts. Only on the conclusion he reaches.

A fixed-site Breeders' Cup misses the point of holding a Breeders' Cup in the first place.

Casner's opinion piece deftly lays out numerous reasons why settling on one site -- and a warm, dry one, near a major urban market -- makes plenty of financial sense. He cites stability as a reason the U.S. Open Tennis Championships grew its sponsorships from $14 million to $60 million since establishing a permanent site. (Of course, that move to Flushing Meadows -- from Forest Hills a few miles away, where the tourney had finally settled in New York City 10 years prior after being held at various locations for decades -- was made in 1978, and Casner doesn't calculate how much influence inflation has played on that $46 million difference. He also ignores that the U.S. Open Golf Championship is successful despite being moved annually.)

Casner calls staging the Breeders' Cup at different sites each year a "daunting challenge" logistically. This I don't doubt. But that doesn't stop the NFL from moving the Super Bowl (a two-week tourist event these days) around the country every season. ... And the Super Bowl will soon be held in Jersey in February. We can't expect people to watch horse racing in 55-degree weather at Belmont in November?

Casner also thinks selecting Santa Anita as a permanent site will help the Breeders' Cup better compete as a global event with the ridiculously lucrative (for winners) Dubai World Cup held each March. But let's face it; how do you really compete financially against an event run by a guy who owns a whole friggin' country?

Bottom-line, Casner's arguments in favor of Santa Anita as the sole site for future renewals of the Breeders' Cup were about one thing: That is, the bottom line.

In a sport that is also a business, the money side of the equation surely can't be ignored. After all, no purse, no race.

But Casner's sales pitch pays only lip-service at best to a pair of crucial elements that -- without being put at the top of Breeders' Cup's priorities -- will defeat the very purpose of holding the races.

He all but ignores the fans and the "sport."

Casner's nod to the race-going public can be summarized thusly: Santa Anita is a great place to watch racing ("The morning experience of watching horses train at Clocker's Corner is second to none," etc.); and, Los Angeles has great weather, plus plenty for visitors to see, eat and do when the horses aren't on the track.

I can't contest these points. Though I've not yet been to Santa Anita, it's certainly on my racetrack "bucket list." And, presently living in North Carolina -- where no track ever to be chosen as a Breeders' Cup host site will be within "day trip" distance -- holding the event in Southern California, South Florida, Kentucky, New York or anywhere else is pretty much all the same to me. I'm having to book a hotel at least, if not also a flight and a rental car.

But it isn't the same to the Joe Pick-Sixes who are regulars on weekends at Monmouth, or Belmont and Aqueduct, or Churchill, or Calder. Casner's desire to hold the Breeders' Cup every year at Santa Anita would essentially be telling the sport's true fans everywhere in the country except Southern California that their favorite or nearest venue is permanently excluded from hosting what is allegedly racing's biggest weekend. Dyed-in-the-wool race fans in the heart of U.S. thoroughbred country, Kentucky, and in major breeding and racing states like Florida and New York -- not to mention those who patronize sites like Arlington Park in Chicago, Lone Star Park in Texas or Woodbine in Canada, all of which have hosted prior Cups -- would never again be able to buy tickets for both race-days of the Breeders' Cup while enjoying a good rest on Friday night in their own beds.

On the other hand, Casner does contend that siting the Breeders' Cup permanently at Santa Anita would bring back a certain type of fan: Celebrities.

"L.A. is the heart of the entertainment industry," he writes. "Bringing the stars back to the races will be a huge asset in stimulating fan interest and attendance."

I actually agree with Casner that racing could elevate its public profile across all demographics -- even among the People of Wal-Mart hoi polloi -- through greater patronage of the sport by the "People Magazine" set. Americans are notorious for their stargazing. Inquiring minds constantly want to know what's up with the George Clooneys and Scarlett Johanssons of the world.

But that stellar segment of the casual-race-fan set turns out in droves in "little" Louisville, Ky., on the first Saturday of every May for what is, without argument, America's biggest race. (And thus America's "race at which to be seen.") If the Breeders' Cup doesn't hold sufficient interest for the occasional (and famous and filthy rich) fan, delivering it to their doorsteps isn't really answer. Don't these people love to travel (for the right event), and can't they afford it?

In the process of making the "world championship" races a backyard-Hollywood affair, Casner and Breeders' Cup would be telling more devoted race fans across the country that they have to pack their bags, use up their hard-earned vacation and buy their plane tickets to see a Breeders' Cup -- no waiting for it to return to your area; it never will -- because the supposed biggest weekend in all of thoroughbred racing isn't a compelling enough event to convince the insanely wealthy Hollywood crowd to spring for a trip to such un-cosmopolitan cities as New York (Broadway) and Miami (South Beach).

And a key element of racing's fan base provides a convenient segue into the other half of the argument against Santa Anita as a fixed site for the Breeders' Cup: Horseplayers.

Racing might not be "nothing" without the men and women who gamble on it. But it would be a whole lot less "something" even than the shadow of its former self that horse racing in America has become. And I can't imagine all that many horseplayers eagerly anticipate handicapping the Breeders' Cup on Santa Anita's Pro-Ride. They just aren't honest races.

Take last year's Breeders' Cup Classic: The race was won by Zenyatta, a brilliant mare facing boys who also happened to be a homestanding, Southern California, synthetic-track monster. She was sent off as the favorite, but only at about 2.80/1; she won like she was 2/5. Second place went to Gio Ponti, the Eclipse champion turf horse of 2009. Third place was Twice Over, a British-bred making his first-ever start not on the turf. Fourth was Summer Bird, a Belmont Stakes and Travers winner also making his first start on synthetic.

Where to begin in figuring races that could annually be equal-parts dirt horses trying to cross-over to synthetic, turf horses likewise making a surface-switch, and horses with actual synthetic form from which to judge?

And if handicappers don't have a sporting chance at figuring out which horses might figure in a main-track Breeders' Cup race at Santa Anita, what about the horses and their connections? The fields themselves for the 2009 Breeders' Cup at Santa Anita disprove Casner's Blood-Horse contention that "the international racing community has demonstrated over the last two Breeders' Cup events that it will bring its best horses to Santa Anita."

Casner can't be completely right, considering the connections behind two of arguably the three best horses in the world last year, snubbed the 2009 "world championships" altogether.

Where was European sensation Sea the Stars? At home across the Atlantic, considering he'd already done more than enough to prove himself one of the best colts Europe had seen in decades and he didn't need to brave the ship to California and the Santa Anita heat (by British standards, with the horse's winter coat already growing in) to prove himself any further.

Or Rachel Alexandra? It's arguable whether she could've been made fit for the Breeders' Cup, considering how much her September Woodward Stakes win over males seemed to take out of her; she was rested for months after and has come back in 2010 to be narrowly beaten twice in as many starts. But Rachel's aggressive schedule was set out with no intent of being at Santa Anita for the Breeders' Cup anyway. Principal owner Jess Jackson refused to run his prized filly "on plastic" (Pro-Ride); she was declared a non-starter for the B.C. months before the race-draw.

And Rachel wasn't the only American horse held out of the 2009 Breeders' Cup because the "dirt" races would not be run on dirt. Although health and other reasons could be argued as part of the decision (especially for some of these who still haven't started since), the Pro-Ride track at Santa Anita was reportedly the reason behind the defections from the Breeders' Cup by at least three potential B.C. Sprint entries (Fabulous Strike, Kodiak Kowboy and Munnings), Filly & Mare Sprint hopeful Indian Blessing (who'd placed in the race over Pro-Ride a year prior), and top juveniles of both genders, Hot Dixie Chick (Spinaway S.-G1 at 2), Jackson Bend (four stakes wins at 2), and Dublin (Hopeful S.-G1 at 2).

Longtime Southern California fixture D. Wayne Lukas says artificial surfaces are, "just too unpredictable." That they, "(make) good horses average and average horses good." Even John Shirreffs, who trains Zenyatta, has told the New York Daily News that he "hates" synthetic tracks.

Lukas, last fall, on his trainee, Dublin: "If I don't run in the Breeders' Cup, he doesn't have to run on artificial surfaces the rest of his life."

Better think again, D. Wayne. Bill Casner wants to throw your best horses onto that Pro-Ride every year from (not quite) here on out.

Beyond the Pro-Ride itself -- which is more than enough reason to dismiss not just Santa Anita, but any synthetic main surface, as a fixture location for the Breeders' Cup -- the very nature of settling the "championship" weekend in one location, forever, turns up its nose at the notion of fairness in racing. If Santa Anita is the site for all future Breeders' Cups, then every horse in America not based in Southern California becomes a shipper for every Breeders' Cup. (Of course that's the case for foreign horses, but it always will be, hence the trouble with considering this a "world championship" anyway; some connections won't ship to the DWC, either.)

That could be a boon to SoCal trainers, as top horses would have to spend at least part of the year in Cali prepping for the Cup. It could swell the fields of races like the Pacific Classic. But it could causes horses to defect from training stables throughout the rest of the country. And might it eviscerate fields even for Grade 1 races on the opposite coast, like the Jockey Club Gold Cup at Belmont, historically a key prep for the B.C. Classic?

And wouldn't a horse like Lava Man have relished the home field advantage of Santa Anita? One of my all-time favorites, he wasn't able to finish ahead of much of anybody outside of Cali, but would have a short-price shot at two-time Horse of the Year if the B.C. had been run at Santa Anita in 2005-06 instead of 2008-09.

Bill Casner wrote 14 paragraphs on why Santa Anita should be the permanent site of the Breeders' Cup without any mention of equity or quality in the racing, nor even a cursory dismissal of arguments that a synthetic main track could cost the Breeders' Cup a slew of dirt-only horses defecting from its starting gates.

I can only presume that Casner believes locking-down the B.C. at S.A. would force folks like Jess Jackson to race there, whether or not they want to. But that potential conflict is not in the best interests of the Breeders' Cup specifically, nor of American racing on the whole.

Maybe it's time for the Breeders' Cup to admit it isn't the "world championships" of racing. Heck, last year it wasn't even the national championships. Rachel Alexandra (3-year-old filly, Horse of the Year) and Kodiak Kowboy (sprinter) won three Eclipse titles while snubbing the Breeders' Cup because of the venue and its Pro-Ride. Lookin at Lucky was champion 2-year-old despite a close beat in the Breeders' Cup Juvenile. Summer Bird was champion 3-year-old colt without hitting the board on Breeders' Cup weekend. Gio Ponti was champion older male despite losing the Classic to a girl, and champion turf horse despite running off the turf in the Breeders' Cup.

That's seven of 11 Eclipse Awards intended for horses running on the flat being handed to horses that didn't win -- or, in three cases, even run in -- a Breeders' Cup race.

If Bill Casner and Breeders' Cup Ltd. want their weekend to be all it can be -- maybe the world championships they hope for, but certainly the weekend every year in American racing for horses of all ages -- then the racing must come first; the fans and handicappers a close second. (And they will follow great racing).

That will never be the case on Pro-Ride at Santa Anita.

Laurel home to slots? Why the heck not?

A few days after my first-ever visit to Laurel Park Saturday, the Blood-Horse reports that the Maryland Jockey Club believes that the racetrack is "well-positioned" to be a site for alternative gaming in the form of slot machines.

From what I've seen, I certainly agree.

Saturday at Laurel dawned chilly, but clear and -- in the sunshine on the apron, particularly -- quite pleasant despite highs of only around 40 degrees.

And not very many people attended.

I'm having a hard time confirming what the attendance really was. Which is a shame, because if I'd known that I would want to report the number and would not be able to readily find it, I'd have just walked around between races and counted everybody.

Where I'm going with this is, a facility with gambling already taking place on-site -- a race track -- also happens to be, on an average winter Saturday, quite sparsely patronized. That suggests there's plenty of usable space on the property and in the grandstand area that could be converted to alternate gaming. And more than enough parking in the lot to accommodate slot-players.

It certainly makes as much sense (or more) to locate slot machines at Laurel than it does to develop a new, freestanding slot parlor in the Arundel Mills Mall area, which is presently the leading plan. Laurel management on Wednesday was set to detail about 20 permit approvals received in the past few years -- ranging from environmental studies, to road-widening plans, to a master sketch submitted the county -- that help illustrate Laurel's readiness to move forward.

The Anne Arundel County Council is expected to vote Dec. 21 on rezoning that would facilitate the Arundel Mills Mall location planned by the Cordish Companies.

The slots issue in Maryland is already mismanaged and behind schedule. Management of Ocean Downs, a harness track on Maryland's Eastern Shore, recently conceded that construction issues won't permit its slots parlor to open in late May next year as expected. And a contract for another proposed site in Maryland's western mountains only garnered one bid, and that bid was disqualified.

Advocates say the Maryland horse racing industry could receive up to $100 million a year once the state finally gets all five of its planned gaming locations under operation. The slots don't have to be located at tracks to benefit horsemen. And there is some disagreement over whether the Arundel Mills location might eventually prove to generate more revenues.

But if Maryland is wanting to get those one-armed bandits in action quickly,

On the subject of less being more ...

The Blood-Horse and Delaware Park say it's so.

Delaware Park reports that despite running 27 fewer dates in 2009, total handle was up 1.9 percent in 2009.

Frankly, handle being up at all in this down economy is impressive. The other numbers -- detailed below -- are no doubt positives for Delaware Park's profitability, but I don't think they say all that much about strengthening the quality or fan base of racing.

For example, Delaware Park's average daily handle on live racing was up 27.1 percent over 2008 -- a huge amount. But with only 1.9 percent in actual handle increase, Delaware Park in effect has focused its (very slightly better) earnings over fewer dates, spiking the average daily handle by what seems an astonishing amount.

That has to be a plus for the track's bottom line. Making the same amount of money while being open on fewer dates -- thus paying everyone from tellers to concessions workers to the gate crew for 27 fewer work days -- is pure profit.

If my newspaper could print four days a week instead of six and still charge the same subscription price and attract the same amount in advertising revenue, we'd make out like bandits, too. Typically for a business, that isn't the case.

The same scenario is true at Delaware Park for racing revenues. The Blood-Horse reports that "year-over-year racing revenue was unchanged" at the track, but by making no-more-money on fewer days of racing, the revenue "per racing day" was up 24.6 percent.

On the track, the average number of starters per race rose from 6.94 to 7.73 and the average number of races per day went up from 8.96 to 9.74. This of course makes perfect sense: Give horsemen fewer dates on which to compete and they have no choice but to show up for the races you do run.

Again, from a track-profitability standpoint, that's probably good business. It can be argued those also become better betting races; and that's a plus.

But I'm still not convinced that reducing the perceived over-scheduling of race-dates would be any significant improvement for the overall image and popularity of horse racing. ... Making the same amount of money for working less notwithstanding.

Has the Blood-Horse purchased USA Today?

Perhaps I'm an old fogey and The Blood-Horse is actually cutting-edge.

I poked fun at that horse racing industry standard back in July when it reacted to the scratch of the late Barbaro's brother, Nicanor, from the Virginia Derby by headlining a blog post with the common text-messaging exclamation OMG!

But today, I look like a putz.

Why? Because that bastion of U.S. newspapers, with its roots anchored in the fertile soil of American journalism history as deep as 1982 -- USA Today -- has jumped on board the Blood-Horse train.

McNewspaper's McWebsite posted a news brief about the cancellation of the Kanye West/Lady Gaga "Fame Kills" tour with the headline, "Kanye and Lady Gaga's Tour Canceled ... OMG!"

And, just as before, I'm effing serious.

Now, USA Today has a minor excuse. It was just trying to drive traffic to its Web site in any way it can by co-opting headlines and copy from other sources. This particular "story" is actually an abbreviation of a "17 Buzz" item posted at seventeen.com; half-regurgitated by USA Today, right down to the headline.

Obviously all, including The Blood-Horse, are trying to reach a youthful audience by attempting to speak "their language," rather than realizing that, yes, even 13- to 17-year-old girls can (and probaby will) read actual English, provided the content is interesting.

Today's revelation further proves two truths of journalism as we near the second decade of the 21st Century:

1. There is little or no worthwhile online reporting that could be done well with your own paid staff that isn't better done (that is, cheaper and more profitably) by passing along someone else's work, with a small credit to them and surrounded by your ads.

2. There are few standards of journalistic professionalism that can't be turned into dusty relics by a teenage girl, her two thumbs and a cell phone keyboard.

Printed Daily Racing Form wins by a length

It's findings are the result of a poll in which the response is the very definition of a "small sample." And it's impossible to say that the survey was exhaustive or that the statement respondents made with their answers was beyond any doubt.

But I think the results of my recent poll probably are a fair picture of the horse racing fan and handicapping market: Roughly half of those who watch and bet the sport still place value on the print edition of The Daily Racing Form. And probably on the print editions of other industry publications, as well, such as Thoroughbred Times or The Blood-Horse.

My poll was posted in response to a lengthy and detailed survey I completed upon being queried for my opinions during a visit to drf.com. Obviously their survey's findings are going to carry significant weight in the direction of DRF products from 2009 forward, and from the structure of the questions, I got the impression that proprietors of the Form were trying to weigh whether they should -- or, perhaps, how abruptly they could -- begin abandoning the print product.

I'd say "now" is far too soon, that "soon" is far-fetched, and that I think my little poll supports the notion.

I understand my survey's limitations. It was only answered by voluntary response of this blog's readers. Not a lot of them, in fact -- 29. And just one question was asked: "Do you still appreciate and buy the print edition of The Daily Racing Form."

But I think that's the question that needed to be asked. As it does for me, does the print edition of The Daily Racing Form still hold value to you as a fan and handicapper, and do you purchase still it?

Essentially 50 percent of people -- that is, Internet-using horse-racing-fan people -- said that they do value and buy the print edition of The Daily Racing Form. A total of 14 respondents (48 percent) buy the printed form; 10 respondents (34 percent) answered "No, print is dead;" and five respondents (17 percent) said they didn't use any DRF products at all.

Despite the tiny size of the sample, the fact that 82.7 percent of its respondents do buy DRF products hints at that company's strength in the past-performances and handicapping market. And the fact that 14 of the 24 -- 58.3 percent -- still want the option of buying the DRF every day on paper should at least prompt some pondering about whether print really is all that "dead."

After all, it isn't. And despite all the naysayers and the relentless carving away at its market by alternative media (beginning with that fantastical device known as "radio" in the 1920s), printed newspapers remain among the most widely accepted and purchased sources of news and information in the world.

Scarborough Research reports that this nation's roughly 1,400 daily newspapers and 8,000 non-dailies boast some 100 million adult readers. According to comScore, only this January, for the first time, did Google-owned sites (which include YouTube and comprise nearly two-thirds of the entire online video market) reach 100 million total viewers for an entire month. (And, seriously, how many of those were children?)

Newspaper readers spend time with the product; an average of 20 minutes per weekday and more on Sundays. ComScore reports that in January the average Internet user watched six hours of video online (11.6 minutes a day). Sure, the Internet users aren't only watching videos online. They're accessing other content, too. (And discount time spent on porn.)

O.K., so oldsters are keeping newspapers afloat, you say. Of course it's younger folks who are abandoning print. That's why it's doomed, eventually.

But wait. No, they're not.

Again according to Scarborough Research, more than two-thirds of people ages 18 to 34 read a newspaper during the average week. That's the print edition; not any of the newspaper's digitized versions. And a 2006 study by Y2M: Youth Media and Marketing Networks revealed the conventional-wisdom-flipping news that while 77 percent of college undergrads were reading their printed campus paper during a given month, just 57 percent of those students were reading the campus paper's Web site. Even more surprising, 57 percent of those allegedly wired-in, print-disconnected college kids were reading the local town's daily paper at least once a month, too, while only 45 percent chose to view news on that paper's Web site.

But that can't be, you say.

Regardless whether it can't be, it just so happens to be.

And a crucial statistic, particularly for publishers who rely on advertising revenue and not just on selling past-performances: Printed newspaper readership increases with education and income. Again, Scarborough: More than two out of three college grads and over half of those who hold only a high school diploma are regular newspaper readers.

In other words, the market segments advertisers ardently hope to reach -- those with the most money to spend -- are more likely than anyone else to be print-edition readers of a given news source.

This also seemingly flies in the face of everything that's up to date in Kansas City. After all, wouldn't the well-educated and wealthy also be tech-savvy and able to afford the best computers and portable electronic gizmos to access content on the Web? (Sure they would.) So why would they buy the stupid dead-tree edition of any newspaper, including The Daily Racing Form? ... Because it's familiar, chock full of information, well-formatted, trusted, (insert your reason here).

It's easy to see why DRF or any other company that disseminates news for profit would love to find cause to just ax the whole print operation. Why some of them, maybe even the DRF, are looking for ways to drive more readers to the Web site first or instead (even willfully driving them away from print). ... Imagine all the pressmen who could be handed pink slips, and a few of the journalists, too. Not to mention unloading the burdensome ballast of enormous bills for paper, ink and various modes of delivery.

There's just one problem for the print media as some of us actually try to hasten our own demise: People still want to buy our inky little papers and magazines.

Darn the luck.

Jokes by the humorless: The 'OMG' saga

With 24 hours or so to reflect on the oh-so-slight Internet phenomenon (within the horse racing world only) that one post of mine has become, I'm compelled to try and wrap it all up in a tidy package with ribbon and a bow and set it aside. But I'll admit, bows are for decoration only, and a little tugging at the ends later could result in reopening the box.

I'm more than willing to believe that Ron Mitchell, who writes the "Tracking Barbaro's Brothers" blog at bloodhorse.com, was making a joke when he relaxed his journalistic formality for a moment (as we all do occasionally) and clacked-out the headline "OMG! Nicanor Scratched Due to Leg Injury when reporting the scratch of Barbaro's baby brother, Nicanor, from today's Virginia Derby.

Whether I wasn't amused is a result of my just being dumb that way, or the joke's being a clunker, or a measure of both, I'll leave for you to judge for yourselves.

And I know quite well that jokes by journalists -- even jokes by comedians -- sometimes land with a thud.

Sometimes readers just don't get it. Writing for a general audience as I do daily, attempts at humor can't be too obscure or you're leaving the bulk of your readers on the outside of an inside joke. That's frustrating at least for the reader; it can even become offensive.

A well-written, prudently timed and carefully calculated joke agitates primarily those who were its butt, and they're usually madder the more they had it coming.

The very worst of a writer's jokes are those that offend most everyone. Or those that end up turning the joke on the writer.

Clearly I lobbed the joke back toward that venerated publication, and in a way that seems to have been more amusing to readers than was the original joke, posed as a headline.

Comments on my earlier post, and some readers in private e-mail to me, have suggested that the Blood-Horse knows good and well the type who usually frequent the "Barbaro's Brothers" blog. Its audience is composed of Barbaro fanatics (duh, I guess), some or even many of whom are youthful, female and perhaps don't care much, if at all, about horse racing otherwise.

Having read some of the comments over there -- and there are usually lots of comments on that blog, though often from the same users -- I think there could be some truth to that theory.

And certainly some Blood-Horse patrons have no use for the "Barbaro's Brothers" bit.

Wrote "TomasinNM" responding to my prior post: "The Bloodhorse recently sent out a survey to ascertain I assume, where they could improve. ... One of my comments dealt with the blog issue -- it seems that they're pandering to 13 yr. old horse-crazy girls. Good grief."

Other, anonymous posters here suggested the blog moderator screens out any comments from those who might poop on the "12-year-old" Friends of Barbaro party. (Though some posts he or she mentions being ignored or deleted, such as one comparing Barbaro's and Nicanor's injuries now seem to be present ... a change of heart from reading comments over here? Still, other critical posts that were mentioned, are not.)

"If you like the Nicanor saga (zzzz), this was actually a two-sided blog before a new moderator took it over," that person wrote on my blog. "... Now it's but hearts and flowers with NO racing interest, or knowledge. ... It's a joke, and real race fans know it."

Well, not everyone agrees. At least one person thought I was unfair -- among other things -- in making fun of the Blood-Horse's treatment in blog form of the Nicanor scratch.

The commenter who took me to task for my comic criticism of the Blood-Horse fired off a few personal shots about my writing here lacking creativity and substance. That's fine; I think he's wrong, but I was taught not to dish it out if I can't take it, and I'm a big boy (a very big boy) who has learned to withstand criticism. Turnabout is fair play.

But how about the Blood-Horse? According to that critic, the "OMG" headline was posted as an attempt at sarcastic humor, so when I in turn crack wise about the headline, where's their own sense of levity? ... Even Nixon could play a credible straight man on "Laugh In."

Former Daily Racing Form bloodstock editor Sid Fernando, now president of ematings.com, speculates that my critic was Blood-Horse President and CEO Stacy Bearse. (Note for the sake of full disclosure that Fernando has his own issues with Bearse, and is very open with his disdain.)

The critic being Bearse makes sense, because the poster also took an unwarranted and somewhat non-germane swipe at Ray Paulick and his independent racing news and content aggregation site, paulickreport.com. Much as newspapers are at odds with Google over aggregation, and considering Paulick's site is garnering thousands of user visits daily and cashing a few precious racing industry ad dollars in a weak economy (a huge concern of Bearse's), in part by linking to Blood-Horse content, the frustration of Paulick's ex-boss is practically palpable. And Bearse when prodded is known to be a loose cannon at the keyboard.

(A brief aside here: An e-mail like that one apparently from Bearse to Paulick -- if sent by me to anyone, particularly to a former employee whose personnel records and privacy I'm obliged to safeguard and respect -- would have gotten me fired on the spot.)

But it isn't Stacy Bearse -- if he does happen to have been the harsh critic -- that has intrigued me the most since comments on my post started coming in yesterday. It was the very first response in the thread; the one whose contributor I can no longer track because my Sitemeter counter was (emphasis on "was") the free variety, and only maintained information on the last 100 visits.

Others have hinted that this author's comments also originated in-house at the Blood-Horse. I can't research or prove it, but I do wonder.

That writer chided me a bit for not being in on the "OMG" joke. But it's impossible to miss the animus toward the blogosphere itself -- I'm guessing specifically the Thoroughbred Bloggers Alliance posts that now are, by some sort of agreement, also imbedded at bloodhorse.com to help drive traffic and justify advertising rates.

The post reads: "I don't know if you caught the irony that the Blood-Horse is well aware of what a joke these nutty people are to the industry -- certainly not to themselves, as they are too obsessed to realize they are embarrassing. They do bring hits to the Bloodhorse.com site, however, so Blood-Horse is very happy to feed the fire, all the while joining in the snickering at these fools."

Whether that author is in-house at bloodhorse.com or not, the implication is that the Blood-Horse doesn't take blogging (or specifically TBA bloggers?) seriously, and by extension, could also not really respect the users who visit bloodhorse.com specifically to read those blogs. They're probably all "nutty ... fools" whose embarrassment must be suffered in order for bloodhorse.com to pay the bills. But it's OK, because the Blood-Horse is laughing at them, too.

I'd love to know, though likely never will, whether that was written by a BH staffer. And exactly toward whom the writer's disdain is directed (all bloggers, some bloggers, only the people who read the "Barbaro's Brothers" blog?). But the negative sentiment is unmistakable.

On the topic of new media, blogging (to which I'm a newcomer), and the need to attract more and younger fans to horse racing, I happen to agree with one of my more recent commenters, who identified himself (or herself) as a journalist, though not of the turf variety.

"I must say ... that racing needs all kinds. Even annoying kinds," the individual wrote. "We have to take them wherever we can get them and if that means we get the Barbaro-obsessed types, then fine.

"I'm of the opinion that (part) of our job in the press ... is to find out what people are interested in, what they want to read, and (within reason) give it to them. ... If they want to read a gushy blog, then give them their gushy blog."

From a business sense, I largely concur. But then don't make fun of the reader for liking what you gave them.

The Critic-Who-Could-Be-Bearse wrote: "The Nicanor blog that had 'OMG' in the headline was an attempt at sarcasm. The people who follow that blog are pretty obsessed with anything Barbaro related, so it was an attempt at humor."

And that's where my bigger problem lies now with the joke in the blog headline. It wasn't just a clunker of a joke that I for whatever reason didn't appreciate. It was a joke seemingly aimed at -- rather than for -- the readers of the blog itself.

There's a not-so-fine line between laughing with your readers and laughing at them.

One is great for business. The other -- unless you're Triumph the Insult Comic Dog -- probably not so much.

OMG, Blood-Horse, are you effing kidding?

Nicanor is out of the Virginia Derby with a leg injury. And that's a big deal. But should that prompt racing journalists to behave like 16-year-old girls updating their Facebook status?

The headline on the brief blog posting at bloodhorse.com announcing Nicanor's scratch from the race was -- I kid you not -- "OMG! Nicanor Scratched Due to Leg Injury."

OMG? ...OMG!?!

You're The Blood-Horse, for heaven's sake. Not LOLcats.

Srsly.

Lasix works: No cheerleading necessary

A groundbreaking study proves that furosemide (often known by the brand name Lasix) does just what its proponents always touted: It enhances the racing performance of thoroughbreds by reducing the incidence of exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage.

That's more like what the lead paragraph should be of a story reporting that study's findings at The Blood-Horse online. Instead, the magazine/Web site adds a phrase to its lead for which there is no claim made by the study and little or no actual evidence from the study to support: "furosemide does more than enhance performance in thoroughbred racehorses; it also has beneficial effects on the health and welfare of those horses."

I will go on record as being a fence-rider at this stage on the subject of Lasix. I'm not against it outright and I'm certainly not among those who fear that Lasix is the hidden factor that is leading to fragile bones in thoroughbreds. But I do believe it would be best for horses and for the sport if there were some way to race without any race-day meds. (And they do race without meds in virtually every jurisdiction other than the U.S. and Canada.)

But The Blood-Horse's lead paragraph reads to me -- and I do this for a living -- like someone plugging for the drug's use and not the work of a publication that is simply trying to factually report the study's findings. And maybe that isn't surprising, considering The Blood-Horse is operated by the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, whose board of directors has considerable membership and influence from the The Jockey Club. And, the Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation was among the contributors that financed the study; small degrees of separation that should be noted for readers when The Blood-Horse reports on the study's results.

The Daily Racing Form's reporting of the study -- which is more thorough and objective (The Blood-Horse calls its unbylined piece an "edited press release") -- goes into the study's specifics in greater detail. The headlines on the two are also an interesting contrast. The Form is direct and factual: "Study finds that Lasix reduces bleeding." The Blood-Horse's headline is considerably less specific, open-ended and reads more like a drug company wrote it: "Study shows furosemide has beneficial effects."

This is not to say that the research is flawed or offers fraudulent information. That appears not to be the case.

I've read the study as it will be printed in the Journal of American Veterinary Medicine myself, as you can online.

For the first time, researchers set out to specifically study whether furosemide had the intended beneficial effects of controlling pulmonary bleeding (which some horses suffer under extreme exertion) on a controlled population of racehorses, when administered on race day.

And it did.

Researchers included: Kenneth Hinchcliff, professor and dean of the faculty of veterinary science at The University of Melbourne; Paul Morley of Colorado State University (who undertook earlier research of furosemide's effects by simply reviewing past-performances of horses on- and off-Lasix); and Alan Guthrie of the University of Pretoria in South Africa.

The study used 167 thoroughbreds racing in South Africa. Each horse was raced twice, in fields ranging in size from nine to 16 competitors, once using furosemide and once without. And researchers determined that "horses were substantially more likely to develop EIPH" when racing without the furosemide than they were when administered the drug.

Case closed, at least in the debate of whether administering Lasix helps EIPH-prone horses -- known as "bleeders" -- perform better when racing.

But where is the evidence -- as The Blood-Horse's story reads -- of having "beneficial effects on the health and welfare of the horse?" ... It isn't there, certainly not in so many words. And such claim was in no substantial way inferred by the authors of the study. (How their press release, received by The Blood-Horse and not by me, happened to be phrased, I don't know.)

If The Blood-Horse reports that "furosemide does more than enhance performance in Thoroughbred racehorses; it also has beneficial effects on the health and welfare of those horses," I need to see evidence in the study of precisely that.

To me, that passage reads as though there was some additional, surprising finding in the study, perhaps that furosemide unexpectedly protected horses from some airborne contagion or healed them of a seemingly unrelated malady. That isn't the case.

In fact, the term "welfare" appears nowhere in the entire study, and the word "health" only appears once, when researchers state that "EIPH is believed to adversely affect the overall health of racehorses." I suppose it is not, then, a quantum leap to say that treating a racehorse with furosemide for his propensity to suffer EIPH is better for the health of that racehorse. And from there, the next hop, skip and jump apparently lands the writers on the words "and welfare" as tagalongs for "health."

Treating a racehorse for his EIPH is good for the health and welfare of that horse.

But you know what foreign jurisdictions have found is also beneficial to the health and welfare of the racehorse who happens to be a bleeder?

They don't race bleeders.

Not racing horses who are prone to EIPH (and whose performance suffers greatly as a result) likely has the additional effect of not chemically-inflating the performance of horses who have a significant physical flaw -- the predisposition to bleed in the lungs under exertion. Thus, top runners in Europe, Japan and elsewhere are more likely to be those whose track performance wasn't restricted by their suffering from EIPH. And it isn't much of a stretch, then, to wonder whether that means the horses who are champions and destined for stallion careers overseas are thus not bleeders, and not as prone to passing along to their foals a predisposition to suffer from EIPH.

That should be the next study.

But back to the subject of neutrality in reporting this study.

While The Blood-Horse leads with a phrase implying that furosemide is good for the overall welfare of the horses who take it, the study's "Conclusions and Clinical Relevance" -- in effect, the what you should know about this study part of the document -- does not attempt to make that case.

It reads: "Results indicated that prerace administration of furosemide decreased the incidence and severity of EIPH in Thoroughbreds racing under typical conditions in South Africa."

So furosemide works as-advertised when used as a race-day medication. End of story. Anything else is educated conjecture and the study's authors state it as such, writing that EIPH "is believed" (i.e., not proven by the study) to affect the "overall health of racehorses."

This might seem like picking nits. But to me as both an experienced journalist and a fledgling horseman, it's serious business.

The results of this furosemide study -- performed by a global cast of scientists on a well-documented population of racing thoroughbreds in South Africa -- are important and valuable enough without The Blood-Horse cheerleading those results by phrasing their coverage of the study in terms that go beyond the findings of the study itself.

Senate panel says 'no way' to Ky. gaming

A Kentucky Senate committee today overwhelmingly turned down a bill that would legalize video lottery terminals at racetracks to augment purses

After more than two hours of discussion, the Senate Appropriations and Revenue Committee voted 10-5 against even forwarding the bill to the full Senate for consideration. The Blood-Horse did not initially report which senator abstained from the vote, or whose votes were cast for or against the bill.

Kentucky legislators are pushing their luck the longer they fail to produce new revenues that support the state's thoroughbred breeding and racing industries. States all around Kentucky, including Indiana, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, have in recent years approved some sort alternative gaming revenues to augment purses, owner and breeder awards. Not all have caught up to Kentucky in the process, but each chips away at the Bluegrass State's status as No. 1.

The rebuff wasn't unexpected by racing industry officials.

But Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland has called for balancing his state's budget by installing VLTs at racetracks. Bob Elliston, president of Turfway Park in nearby northern Kentucky has warned that his racetrack would close by the end of next year if River Downs across the border in Ohio were to add alternative gaming.

Kentucky Republican Senate President David Williams has advanced an idea to tax lottery tickets, borrow money from a state pension fund and tax out-of-state wagering rather than adding video lottery at the tracks. It's a plan that's more convoluted and less manageable than VLTs.

I've mentioned this before, but it never ceases to amaze me when politicians whose states already have parimutuel wagering and lotteries get their boxers in a bunch about adding a video lottery terminal or slot machine at a racetrack. Particularly a politician who has been known to entertain himself with gambling out of state.

The Paulick Report notes that Williams "likes to play blackjack at casinos in nearby states that benefit from Kentucky's inaction."

Advocates of VLTs want an up-or-down vote in the full Senate, and the state of Kentucky deserves it. Trapping legislation in committee is a cowardly act, especially if it's orchestrated by someone who thinks gambling is good, clean fun -- in somebody else's jurisdiction.

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.

Yearling sale numbers down; prices to be up?

The Blood-Horse reports that Fasig-Tipton has catalogued 494 horses for its Kentucky July select yearling sale, down 13 percent from from last year's catalog of 568.

Will decreased numbers lead to increased prices, despite recession?

The law of supply and demand of course dictates the price of any commodity. So while the recession is tightening wallets across all economic sectors, including the wealthy, having 13 percent fewer yearlings from which to choose could offset somewhat a decline in prices that might have been anticipated in a sour economy.

Fasig-Tipton says the decreased number is by choice, not a product of fewer yearlings entered. Company president Boyd Browning said F-T "accepted fewer yearlings from a larger pool of horses nominated." He claimed that the sales company was "more demanding" in its selection for conformation and pedigree.

Down are the percentage of offerings from first- and second-crop sires. That means the percentage of yearlings from established sires is higher than normal.

Browning wasn't saying why that's the case, and I could be wrong, but I'm going to speculate that the mix is a conscious decision -- perhaps on the part of both F-T and sellers -- to hold back the youngsters from unproven sires until the economy improves.

In my mind, foals by proven sires are going to bring "a certain price." Their values are well-established by now, and perhaps the bottom can only fall so far on foals by sires and out of dams who are of known quality.

Often the "hot" young sires bring big prices at the sale. Buyers want in on the first crops of noted runners like champion Bernardini (pictured), Kentucky Derby winner Giacomo, or "name" runners from proven sirelines such as Bluegrass Cat, Flower Alley, First Sumurai and Henny Hughes.

But huge risk is also involved.

Because those freshman and sophomore sires are unknown quantities, there's no way to predict whether their foals are going to run well, or even that they're going to grow up straight, attractive and athletic by the time they're 2.

While this should go without saying, not every accomplished runner becomes a good sire, let alone a great one. There are many washouts, falling from the Kentucky roster into states like Pennsylvania, Louisiana or even much further down the racing-state ranks within a couple of years.

The best time to get big bucks from a weanling or yearling by a young sire is probably before any of his get have had a chance to prove whether they're any good.

And, there remain later 2009 yearling sales and the 2-year-old sales of 2010 to try and benefit from the "freshman bubble" on these sires, provided the economy improves enough to reinflate it by then.

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.

Does the "D" stand for "Duh?"

Steve Haskin of The Blood-Horse has taken to task trainer D. Wayne Lukas for the conditioner's daft suggestion that the Triple Crown race distances be changed, most notably the Belmont Stakes at a mile and a half.

"Nobody cares about mile and a half horses anymore," said Lukas in The New York Post. "The living proof is that every Belmont winner winds up in Italy, Puerto Rico, you name it. They don't stand in Lexington. I've had four Belmont winners and I don't know where the hell they are."

For starters, has Lukas (duh) slept through the 2009 Triple Crown series? It was a Belmont winner -- Kentucky-based stallion Birdstone -- that has sired a Kentucky Derby winner and Preakness-placer, Mine That Bird, from his first crop.

Haskin lists for Lukas several Belmont winners who (duh) stand in Kentucky, usually for serious coin, including Lemon Drop Kid and Empire Maker. (Edit: And top equine author Avalyn Hunter notes Lukas has apparently also forgotten about two-time leading sire, A.P. Indy, one I certainly also should have mentioned.)

And, to help refresh the trainer's memory of his own horses, Lukas-trained Belmont winner Thunder Gulch stands at Ashford Stud in Versailles, Ky. (13.62 miles from Lexington per Mapquest, should Mr. Lukas care to visit) and among many great ones has sired Preakness/Belmont winner and Horse of the Year Point Given. Lukas also won the Belmont with Tabasco Cat, who sired G1 miler Island Sand and multiple G1 juvenile Habibti among other fine Kentucky-bred runners before being sent to Japan (where horse racing I'd daresay is more respected than in the States). Lukas' other Belmont winners, Editor's Note and Commendable, both began stud careers in Kentucky before being sent to Argentina and South Korea, respectively.

You know, D. Wayne Lukas started out racing Quarter Horses and has risen to tie the legendary Sunny Jim Fitzsimmons in Triple Crown wins with 13. But considering what he thinks of distance horses, sometimes I wonder how a Lukas horse ever won a race longer than 350 yards.

Blogger's note: This series of posts is the output you get when I've been gone 24 hours.