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.

Printed Form still holds value

The Daily Racing Form has some questions for its audience, in the form of a survey I completed last week at some prompting from drf.com.

It was the most interesting survey I've ever answered on the Internet. And, considering I've completed somewhere between a hundred and a hundred million surveys since getting our first dial-up connection at home in 1994, that's saying something.

From the tenor of the questions, two things seemed apparent:

1. The Daily Racing Form is serious about understanding its audience; how they function as readers and online users today and how they might best be served in the future.

2. Somebody's wanting to take an ax to the print edition of the Daily Racing Form, "America's Turf Authority Since 1894."

I could be sounding the alarm a bit too soon -- or too loudly -- about the latter point. But it's clearly on their minds at DRF; whether the printed form is serving enough devoted readers to maintain in its present form or to worry about continued improvements.

That doesn't mean the printed Daily Racing Form is being canceled tomorrow or anytime really soon. But the way the print media has reacted to both changing tastes in information-gathering among the public and to the sour economy -- that is, reacted by slashing newsroom staff and both the format and number of printed pages -- such a reaction is certainly a consideration at the Racing Form's business offices, as well.

The survey also included a lot of questions about whether online users take advantage of DRF's Formulator PPs, and if not, what it might take for them to switch over from PDF downloads of traditional PPs.

But, since I'm on the road and I usually write too lengthy anyway, I'll not get that involved in the survey evaluation in this post.

I'll just go on record as saying that, for me, the printed version of the Form is at least as valuable as any information I purchased, downloaded and printed from online, whether that was at Brisnet, Equibase or drf.com. It's in a format I like, in no small part because I can roll it up and tuck it under my arm while in line at the wagering kiosk, or the concession stand, or the john; something not as easily done with a thick stack of loose, letter-sized pages printed off my PC.

And, I never throw that Racing Form away. Since my visits to the track are infrequent, it's still a bit of an adventure each time for me and the Form I bought is a souvenir -- just like the bookshelf in my mom's basement full of programs from dozens of Kansas City Royals games attended through the years, with my childish but slowly maturing efforts to keep score of the game scrawled in pencil on the lineup cards.

So, what about this blog's readers? Do you still buy a printed copy of the Daily Racing Form? Or has it outlived its usefulness in an Internet age?

Please respond in the poll at left.

Once, and forever, Ellis

With nearly 90 years of horse racing history on the line -- and, in no small measure, the fate of Kentucky's racing future in the balance -- the Kentucky Equine Education Program is sponsoring a rally Saturday at Ellis Park Race Course in Henderson, Ky.

If you're in the region and enjoy or care anything about horse racing, you and everyone you know who agrees with you should be there.

Dubbed "FOREVER ELLIS!" the rally is promoted as "a way for horse industry enthusiasts to show their support for the nearly 90-year-old track and the entire equine industry."

And the industry indeed needs your support.

On June 22, the Kentucky Senate was denied the opportunity to even debate on the floor a proposal to approve video lottery terminals for the state's racetracks. After more than two hours of discussion in committee, the Senate Appropriations and Revenue Committee voted 10-5 against forwarding the bill to the full chamber for discussion of its merits and potentially an up-or-down vote.

That move was certainly much to the pleasure of Senate President David L. Williams, the Burkesville Republican who advanced an alternate, complex and likely less effective plan to augment Kentucky racing purses via a combination of taxes on lottery tickets, borrowing money from the state pension fund and taxing out of state wagering by Kentuckians.

On Saturday, first post time is 12:10 p.m., and KEEP plans to hold a press conference in the track's winner's circle at about 2:15 (immediately following Race 5) during which an undisclosed list of "guest speakers and industry representatives" will share with the crowd their thoughts about the future of Kentucky Racing and Ellis Park. Because all breeds of horses would benefit from the VLT proposal, KEEP also will conduct a "parade of breeds" after Race 6 to show fans the many different types of horses -- not just racehorses -- that would benefit from the legislation.

I attended Ellis Park for the first time on Aug. 9, and I wish I could make the 695-mile trip from Henderson to Henderson (North Carolina to Kentucky) on Saturday to join the rally, because I found Ellis Park to be a quaint, welcoming and thoroughly pleasant race-going experience. Concession prices were reasonable; a substantial and tasty tuna salad sandwich and large Coke for $5.50 isn't all that bad for a sports venue. The employees were smiling and friendly down to the last ticket-taker and concessionaire.

And, being both from farm country and able to recognize entrepreneurial ingenuity when I see it, I was tickled to see how Ellis Park owner Ron Geary has rented out the infield, as a beanfield. Soybeans, that is.

Built by the Green River Jockey Club in 1922, the track -- originally dubbed Dade Park -- was patterned after New York's legendary Saratoga Race Course, but Ellis by now has plenty of history and character in its own right.

Harness horses hit the track first, and Dade Park's first thoroughbred meeting took place beginning Nov. 10, 1922, as a 10-day stopover for horses and trainers on the railroad trip south for the Fair Grounds winter season in New Orleans. Total purse money for the meeting: $62,000.

Perhaps as a harbinger of the track's long and sometimes troubled future, the Green River Jockey Club went bankrupt in 1925. The track was thus purchased by businessman James C. Ellis, who operated the facility until his death in 1956, though the racetrack's name wasn't changed to match his until two years before he died.

On my recent visit, I went to the mezzanine level beneath the grandstand and took pictures of the "1937 flood line," then back downstairs to see if I could get a good shot of the line from ground level to show just how high the water had gone that year. Weather savaged Ellis Park again in 2005, when a Nov. 6 tornado that killed 22 people in nearby Indiana swept through the track property, destroying 11 barns on the back side, amazingly killing only three horses and no humans.

Encouraged perhaps by free admission all season long, the crowd on the Sunday I attended was reasonably large and included patrons of all ages, including a healthy number of families with young children.

On the way through the gate, I was handed an orange sheet of paper with the contact information for Kentucky legislators who did not support VLTs at the track. And every person with whom I chatted -- be it alongside the rail, in front of the monitors under the grandstand, or in the paddock area -- had Ellis Park's uncertain future on their minds, usually speaking about it in somewhat somber tones.

"You know they say they might close the place after this year," said a man with close-cropped salt-and-pepper hair and sunglasses, who told me he'd played 18 holes of golf nearby before post time. He'd just hit the trifecta in Race 1 and confided that he never reads the past performances; he always bets on the jockeys. "... But I have a feeling they won't."

Lukewarm optimism, at least.

An older patron stepped up to me at the rail a couple of races later to ask if I'd noticed which horse had gotten up for second. I confided that once I saw which horse was going to win, the placer didn't matter to my ticket anymore. During the ensuing conversation, I told him my stop at the track was a six-hour detour on what should be a 20-hour drive from Kansas to North Carolina.

"You picked a good time to come," the old gentleman said. "This could be the track's last year."

I told him that's exactly why I decided to go a bit out of my way and see the track, and was glad that I had. He said he'd been coming to Ellis Park for decades and would again next year -- if there is a "next year."

Over by the paddock, I met another man, about my age, who said he lived "a mile from Churchill Downs" but had come to Ellis Park with his father on this day because "they say this year could be the last." He was having a good day, hitting exotics in each of the previous two races.

"There used to be better horses here," the man told me as we glanced over at the horses for Race 8 circling in the paddock. "Now it seems like it attracts a lot of long-shots."

And therein lies the problem for Ellis Park. Actually, the racing on Aug. 9 was reasonably good. There were plenty of turf races (which I enjoy), some good riders were on the card (Jon Court, Corey Lanerie, Victor Lebron, Miguel Mena and others), race fields were well-filled, and even the races with seemingly overwhelming favorites ended up being good betting races, or at least bad finishes for the chalk. But the purse money just isn't there to keep Ellis viable vs. regional competition in the long run.

On this day, a $5,000 NW2L at Ellis was worth $10,000, while a statebred $5K NW2L at Hoosier Park in nearby Indiana was valued at $9,000. But Ellis' competitive purse was made possible by a reduction in racing dates to focus the track's purse bankroll on fewer races. With slots and casinos in Indiana and Ohio on the brink of adding slots, as well, the list of racing states with some sort of alternative gaming revenues has swollen to 12, and Kentucky horsemen and tracks suffer a little bit more.

Supporters of VLTs for Kentucky tracks claim potential revenues of $900 million in the first year of operation and up to $1.2 billion by the fifth year. Like all projections, the veracity of those numbers remains to be seen (if Kentucky's legislature will approve added gaming and let the state find out). But even if actual performance falls short of estimates, the cash would be a big boost to Kentucky racing, which might eventually, finally lose Ellis Park otherwise.

And if Kentucky does lose Ellis Park, what has it lost?

Jobs not only in the Henderson area but across the state in thoroughbred breeding, sales and training; likely millions in tax revenues; and from a sentimental sense, a legitimate piece of American history that can be enjoyed today for the very same purpose for which it was designed in 1992 -- an alternately relaxing and thrilling afternoon in the sun, spent watching beautiful horses and their talented riders strive to hit the wire first, carrying our hopes and our wagering dollars along for the ride.

I walked through the gate at 11:30 a.m. with $50 and left for a long drive home a little after 4 p.m. In that time I bought lunch, a Daily Racing Form, an Ellis Park pen, souvenirs for the kids ($25) and I bet on seven of nine races, exiting with $19 still in my pocket. Tell me where else in the world of professional sports that you can have such a full day for so little cost. (It helped that I hit a 10-cent super in Race 5.)

So on Saturday, if you're within traveling distance of Ellis Park, I urge you to turn out in support of ELLIS FOREVER. And whether you're on-site or not, as an outsider offering advice, I urge you to figure out who your legislators are (if you don't already know), find out how they voted on VLTs, and tell them what you think about it.

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.

Furious over filly shot at Philly Park

The Daily Racing Form is reporting that a Pennsylvania veterinarian has been ordered off the grounds at Philadelphia Park for shooting a horse with a gun to put her down.

DRF reports that the Pennsylvania Racing Commission is investigating Thomas J. Lurito DVM after 4-year-old filly Rich and Mean was allegedly shot in her stall two weeks ago. The filly was trained by Ralph Riviezzo, who told the Form: "I didn't know how they were going to euthanize her. I was away. I got a phone call the next day that said that they had put her down that way. One might argue how humane that is, but I will not get into that argument."

Oh, let's.

While it's true that "they shoot horses, don't they," it's inconceivable that "they" would shoot a horse, in her stall, at a racetrack, in the city. Especially when "they" happen to be a veterinarian who should have both access to, and the wherewithal to administer, lethal injection. Humaneness aside, the stupidity of it is mind-boggling.

And while Riviezzo was unwilling to "get into that argument" with DRF, or anyone else, about how humane shooting the filly might have been, by not disavowing the method he leaves one to surmise (rightly or wrongly) that he's really not all that bothered by the whole thing. The vet put down his filly with a gun instead of a needle. If the trainer was at all in disagreement with those actions, it would be prudent for him to say so.

Lurito has been disciplined once in the past by the Pennsylvania Board of Veterinary Medicine. He was assessed a civil penalty of $500 and given a deadline to complete eight hours of continuing education in a ruling on March 18, 2004 (Page 6), stemming from his failure to complete said continuing education on time.

From some accounts, it appears Lurito being ordered off the grounds at Philly was more a product of his having a firearm at the track (dumb enough) than his using that gun on the horse, which is a public embarrassment to horse racing.

The Form reports that Rich and Mean -- unplaced in six lifetime starts -- was being treated for a knee ailment, but her condition was not improving.

I can't pass judgment on whether the filly truly needed to be put out of her misery or was just another victim of racetrackers who find euthanasia the cheapest and most expedient means of disposing of a horse that has outlived her usefulness to them.

But I'm very willing to condemn the unconscionable fashion in which she allegedly met her end.

Note: I've communicated with DRF writer Matt Hegarty, who noted that his story states that Ralph Riviezzo said he "did not know HOW they were going to euthanize" the filly, not that he did not KNOW that she'd be euthanized; this blog post is re-edited as such. Indeed a version of the story accessed now (posted at 11:35 a.m. today, June 17) reads as Hegarty states. I could've sworn the version I read between 3 and 4 a.m. today, which was the original, posted before midnight on June 16, said Riviezzo "didn't know," not "didn't know how," but I can admit that I merely misread Hegarty's reporting. (Hegarty said the repost of the story Wednesday morning was due to a changed date in the filly's racing record, not due to any changes in his quotes.)

Hegarty also informs me that he considers Ralph Riviezzo to have been both truthful with him and genuinely concerned with the manner in which his horse was put down in his absence. I'll certainly trust Hegarty's judgment as the reporter who spoke with Riviezzo about the incident, and that the decision to euthanize Rich and Mean wasn't reached lightly.

That does not change the underlying fact that I find it nonsense to be shooting a filly at the track instead of using a sedative to put her to sleep followed by drugs to stop her heart.

The long and the short of it: Colonial's turf course

In less than a week, they'll be off and running again at Colonial Downs in New Kent, Va. While some fans lament the track's location -- it isn't terribly convenient to any metro area, though less than an hour from Richmond -- I enjoy its rural setting and in my experience the track management and staff have always been quite accommodating both for fans and media.

What I'm not so tickled with is the stakes schedule, which is apparently limited by the configuration of its otherwise spectacular turf course.

Last year, Colonial didn't just trim, it hacked, significant distance out of a few statebred stakes races. I e-mailed the track to ask why, and a top official at Colonial called me back within 30 minutes -- I kid you not, called, not e-mailed, I told you they're accommodating -- and we discussed the matter for about a half-hour.

The Virginia Thoroughbred Association makes the decisions when it comes to statebred stakes races, I was told. And, having trouble filling some of them, I was informed by Colonial that the VTA decided shorter was better. So mile or mile-and-a-sixteenth races were carded last year at 5 1/2 furlongs instead, and mostly are again this year.

That isn't just "shorter." That's short. ... Really freakin' short.

Now, I'm a fan of turf racing, and of distance racing. Frankly, those two often go hand in hand, as grass horses frequently have a bit more European lineage and stayer influence. But I also appreciate the horses who can and do run short. Among Virginia-breds, Bop is one of my all-time favorites, and for him, shorter was always better.

But dropping the distance from 8.5 furlongs to 5.5 furlongs was unlikely to broaden the field, and last year it really didn't, even though the VTA and Colonial attempted to expand entries by turning 3-year-old only events into stakes races for 3- and 4-year-olds. The Oakley Stakes last year went off with seven horses, little or no improvement from when it was run at a distance.

That's because for every sprinter you draw with a short race, you risk eliminating a miler. I have friends among Virginia's horsemen and horsewomen who were out of the Oakley Stakes last year once they learned it was being run at 5.5f. It was just too short for their horse.

This year there are 23 nominations for the Oakley, which will be run next Sunday, June 7, on the meeting's opening weekend. We'll see how many make it to post.

The ideal compromise in my opinion would be to run these races at a "middling" distance; preferably 7 furlongs. That way the milers have to shorten up a bit, the sprinters might have to last just a little longer than they'd prefer, but in either case the connections of all might be willing to take a shot.

Trouble is, Colonial's turf course, the most beautiful (in my opinion) and widest (by point of fact, at 180 feet) grass course in the country, with up to 10 different rail configurations, apparently is restricted to either the shortest of sprints, or to route racing. It's seven-eighths of a mile in circumference with no chutes to provide for anything other than 5 or 5 1/2 furlongs, or a mile or more. (There's an abbreviated chute on the turn for home that, coupled with the widest rail settings, permits the 10 furlong distance of the Virginia Derby-G2.)

Seems like bad planning to me.

The track has a 10-furlong dirt course, with a chute so long that in the fall, trotters can blaze their way around a one-turn mile, a configuration unique among harness courses. But at a track where a majority of the thoroughbred races are carded on the lawn, there's no such thing as a 6-, 6 1/2-, 7- or 7 1/2- furlong grass race. None. ... And that's hard for me to fathom.

I wonder what, if anything, could be done about it now. I've included an overhead shot of Colonial while under construction (above, "borrowed" from Resource International, an engineering firm that was part of the project) and track layouts ("borrowed" from the Daily Racing Form) for both Colonial (top) and Lone Star Park.

What I'm wondering is whether a diagonal chute like the one Lone Star has cut between the apex of the turn for home and final stretch, could be duplicated in reverse, so to speak, at Colonial, where the chute would run through the open grass to the left of the two lakebeds in the aerial photo, in effect short-cutting the far turn, perhaps allowing for 6- and 7-furlong distances (just guessing).

I had often wondered why there weren't races from 6 to 7.5 furlongs (or somewhere in that range) on the turf course at Colonial, but apparently wasn't smart or inquisitive enough to find out.

But other than cost (likely considerable) -- and the prospects that, perhaps, the infield grass and lakes are part of a wetlands tradeoff (read the engineer's page on the project) that couldn't be altered -- I don't know why Colonial's track management wouldn't want additional configurations and distances.

I'm open to comments here, particularly from VTA members, Colonial Downs staff, or anyone with the inside skinny on why Colonial was built the way it was, and whether modifications to the course are feasible now.

Not Luv Gov again!

Why won't Luv Gov leave us in peace?

The Ten Most Wanted colt who I said had no business in the Preakness -- and who pretty much ran like it, placing eighth -- has officially been pointed to the Belmont Stakes. He might win and make me look the fool, but I say he doesn't belong there, either.

Luv Gov broke his maiden (at 10th asking, a term you don't hear that often about Grade 1 stakes horses) on the Kentucky Derby undercard. His name first cropped up as a Preakness entry amid the subterfuge intended to keep eventual winner Rachel Alexandra out of the race. Ahmed Zayat, owner of Pioneerof The Nile, said Marylou Whitney planned to enter a colt to "promote her stallion" (Belmont winner Birdstone, sire of Derby winner Mine That Bird) and the only colt to emerge from Whitney's string with Preakness intentions was Luv Gov. (The Whitney camp issued a blanket denial of a role in any conspiracy.)

Either Whitney and trainer D. Wayne Lukas are actually every bit as confident in this horse's ability as they say -- they were quoted as entering the Preakness feeling he "(had) a legitimate chance," also not something you hear often from the camp a 1-for-10 horse entered in a Grade 1 classic -- or else they're taking this charade two steps too far.

I just don't see how this entry adds up. Other than the truly special athletes, a horse deserves his conditions; in this case, the right to face non-winners of two when he himself has not yet won twice in his life.

Luv Gov took 10 races to break maiden. He did so impressively, closing from deep in the pack to draw off and win by 6 1/2 lengths going a mile and a sixteenth in the slop, for an 87 Beyer. But running off from maidens by 6 1/2 is a far cry from announcing your Grade 1 status unless perhaps you're a first-out 2-year-old.

The colt is improving. He had only one decent Beyer at age 2, a 73 in finishing third behind the ill-fated Stormalory in a Polytrack route at Keeneland. His other juvenile efforts earned Beyers of 39, 27, 49, 37 and (after the 73) a 30. (See his full pre-Preakness PPs here.)

He progressed considerably for Lukas after a layoff from November 2008 to March 2009, when he returned at Oaklawn Park. He was second there in two straight maiden special weight efforts, with Beyers of 83 and a regressive 74, then ran well again over Keeneland's synthetic surface in a place finish from his third 3-year-old start. Then the win at Churchill.

But an instant jump to Grade 1 races?

The Belmont actually makes more sense than the Preakness, I suppose. Whitney's a New Yorker and probably wants to see one of her horses in the show. And we've seen several seemingly overmatched horses -- particularly deep closers -- get up for a piece of the action at the end of the arduous 12 furlongs. Whitney's own Birdstone paid $74 when he charged from the rear to rob Smarty Jones of a Triple Crown in 2004. The following year, Afleet Alex won the Belmont with ease, while second place went to Andromeda's Hero (closing odds essentially 12-1) and third was a maiden, Nolan's Cat, at roughly 21-1. Alex beat them by 7 and 13 3/4, respectively, but they closed from 10th and 11th -- that's next-to-last and last -- to collect $200,000 and $110,000 paychecks.

But doesn't a horse deserve his conditions? Clearly Luv Gov is no Curlin, who burst on the scene with a huge debut effort at 3 and, almost the next thing you know, was finishing third in the Kentucky Derby, winning the Preakness and barely getting nosed out in the Belmont. A horse that took 10 tries to break maiden doesn't usually inspire such confidence.

It isn't like Luv Gov was brilliant in defeat at Pimlico. He wasn't beat by 15 or 20 lengths; only about nine. But he didn't really beat anybody, either. The only horses he finished ahead of were those whose riders didn't persevere with them once they realized the cause was lost. I haven't seen his Beyer from the Preakness, but judging from Rachel's reported 108, and the distance he finished behind her, I'd guesstimate that Luv Gov earned no better than 91. That could be considered progress from his maiden-breaking 87, but not nearly enough in my mind to try a Grade 1 again next out. (Edit: Belmont-contender PPs are now up at DRF; Luv Gov's Beyer for the Preakness was a bit-surprising 94, and in an interesting change, the Beyer for his maiden win was for some reason upgraded from 87 to 94.)

And I think the colt's pedigree is suspect at least to some degree. While his sire won the Travers at a mile and a quarter and was placed in the Belmont, Luv Gov's dam, City of Silver (Nepal-Silver Discovery, by Mr. Prospector) was a modest winner once from five starts, seems bred to sprint, has produced only two foals to race (a Luv Gov half-brother won once from 12 starts) and the only blacktype winner I can see under his second dam is a granddaughter who was a champion filly ... in Puerto Rico.

Still ... again ... somehow ... Lukas and Co. apparently think he has a shot in the Belmont.

"Wayne said he worked real well (since the Preakness) and that we ought to take a chance," John Hendrickson, Whitney's husband, told The Daily Racing Form. "We've gone off at higher than 30-1 before."

And it isn't like Lukas thinks this race is important. Having won it four times -- but not since 2000 -- Lukas recently said "nobody cares about mile and a half horses anymore" in calling for the Belmont to be shortened. So maybe he figures this is as good a place as any for his 1-for-11 charge.

The more I rant about this colt, I suppose, the more likely it is he'll eventually prove me wrong. Or at least the dumber I'll look if he does. And don't misunderstand; I'm not rooting against him. I'm only assessing his chances as any handicapper would before a big race, and I don't think those chances are good. Not to win, anyway.

So why not give the colt his conditions?

Five reasons why Mine That Bird won't win the Preakness

Can the diminutive Derby dandy pack the same punch at Pimlico's Preakness?

Here are five pretty good reasons why the answer could be "no."

1. Girl Power: Rachel Alexandra is just too good, not just for Mine That Bird, but for all the boys.

2. Beware the Bounce: After running Beyers of 81 and 80 in his prior two races (career highs), 'Bird flew to a 105 in the slop at Churchill. The only thing set up for a bigger bounce would be the kids' new trampoline. (See free Daily Racing Form Preakness PPs.)

3. Dirty Little Secret: Mine That Bird has not run well enough over a fast dirt strip to win a Grade 1 race. All four of his wins at age 2 were on the synthetic surface at Woodbine in Canada. His unlikely Derby triumph was in the slop. His only dirt/fast efforts were the aforementioned 81/80 Beyers at Sunland, including fourth beaten almost four lengths in the ungraded Sunland Derby.

4. Borel Bails: No disrespect at all to jockey Calvin Borel; it seems he made the right choice by sticking with a potential champion filly in Rachel Alexandra, with whom he has a five-race win streak. But when the Derby-winning jockey by choice takes off that horse for the Preakness, it can't be a good sign for what he thinks of the horse's chances. O.K., so nobody's ever done it before. Doesn't that prove the point?

5. Trainer Trouble: Has anybody thought that maybe part of the reason Mine That Bird was 50-1 at Churchill wasn't just his lack of a win since October at Woodbine? Or his far-below-par Beyers? Could it maybe have been that his trainer, Bennie Woolley Jr., was previously 1-for-34 for 2009? Now that he's 2-for-35, what are the odds he can win two in a row? (Edit: Information elsewhere states that Woolley was 1-for-33 when Mine That Bird won, so he's lost since. Streak broken, new streak to begin?)