Graded Earnings: Unfair hype over perceived Derby slight

I congratulate a writer and race fan I know only as Indulto for inspiring me to post on this blog for the first time since October.

I don't happen to agree with the lengthy first installment of his piece at HorseRaceInsider, touting a point system rather than graded earnings to determine Kentucky Derby entry. But his position is well-considered and passionate enough that it stirred me to think and to write, and that in itself makes it of considerable merit.

I just had to say after reading the first installment (Part 2 is coming today), I'm not thrilled with the notion of a points system.

Almost everyone who follows horse racing would agree there are concerns with using graded earnings to determine Derby entry, so I can't discredit someone for putting serious thought into how those concerns should be addressed. Let's say that right off the top.

Not the least of these problems is "recency;" a horse can be in the Kentucky Derby field largely or almost solely on what he did as a 2-year-old, regardless of his current 3-year-old form. Other complaints center on money earned from turf or synthetic races (which might not be indicative of dirt potential, ANIMAL KINGDOM and BARBARO notwithstanding), and graded earnings collected from sprint races that could permit entry into the Derby by a horse who has shown no ability whatsoever to win beyond, say, 7f or a mile. Then there are, as the writer puts it, these "virtual win-and-you're-in" races such as the Delta Jackpot; so much money riding on one race that if you win it, your horse is a Derby-lock (provided he's healthy) from one victory.

Points, one proponent of such a system cited by Indulto says, are more "equitable," and they "reward consistency and activity." I'm not sure I can argue. I'm also not sure that I need to.

Whether we're talking earnings or "points," the only way to address most of these concerns is through a weighting system that only gives full credit toward Derby entry for dirt races run, say, at least a mile or a mile and a sixteenth. (Because how many opportunities do early 3-year-olds in the U.S. have to go even 9 furlongs?) ... Oh, and only full credit for races run at 3. Maybe extra-credit for races run in the last month or six weeks before Derby Day. ... And discounted credit on turf and synthetic.

As HorseRaceInsider John Pricci commented after the post itself, that runs the risk of quickly becoming unwieldy. And, if you're going to do that with points, it could be done with earnings anyway -- say, only half-credit for 2-year-old earnings, etc. -- leaving just one remaining problem: "Virtual win-and-you're-in" races with huge purses; the money itself.

Pricci (who wrote the introduction to Indulto's piece) also suggests in the commentary below that "throwing money at at race might be best for the track," but might not be the best assessment of talent. ... I'm not certain that I agree. Absolutely you'll get some horses running for that dough who don't really belong -- but they won't win it, will they? Not usually.

Money has always been the incentives tracks use to get good horses in their good races, building their brand and turning a listed stake into a graded stake. It's really the only incentive they have. If a horse gets equal points for winning any Grade 3, regardless where he wins it, certainly that would create the sort of playing field that permanently favors the NYRA circuit, Churchill and Keeneland, Gulfstream and the Big 3 in California. Money will always have an appeal, but money with the attached value of Derby passage is what is increasingly bringing VERY good horses to Delta Downs for the Jackpot and Princess (the filly version), and might someday bring better and better horses -- and a Grade 3 designation? -- to Oklahoma's nifty Remington Park for a 2-year-old race like the $300,000 Springboard Mile.

The complaint, for those inclined to complain, is that it just doesn't seem fair that while a pair of races might each be a Grade 3, in earnings they are very different. The Delta Jackpot carries a $1 million purse; win it and you're Derby-qualified. ... WAYI, as Indulto abbreviates it -- "Win and You're In." ... Just stay healthy and fit and you'll run for the roses.

But ultimately THAT'S the single largest factor determining the Derby field: Which horses are healthy and fit on the first Saturday in May.

Are there horses whose connections want them in that get squeezed out? Yes, probably every year.

Are those horses key contenders if ONLY we'd let them in the starting gate? ... I'd venture to say not very often.

I discount completely Indulto's suggestion that DROSSELMEYER was somehow shortchanged on his chance to be a Triple Crown winner. That's laughable. Drosselmeyer won the Belmont that year, but we've seen several Belmont Stakes winners who were (as Indulto likes to put it) the ULTIMATE "one-hit wonders." JAZIL and DA' TARA leap to mind.

"But wait," the argument would go, "Drosselmeyer backed up his Belmont by winning the Breeders' Cup Classic."

Um, yeah, as a 4-year-old, nearly 18 months later, not to culminate a 3-year-old campaign that might have made him a 3-year-old champion -- a champion who was screwed out of a chance to run in the Derby by that silly graded-earnings rule.

Drosselmeyer missed the 2010 Derby on graded earnings, so what was the next move by his connections? The Preakness? ... No, they ran in the Grade 2 Dwyer at Belmont (scheduled between the Derby and Preakness). And lost to FLY DOWN by six lengths.

That's our poster-boy for a new point system? Our possible missed Triple Crown winner had he only run for the Roses? A horse who couldn't make the Derby on graded earnings; who didn't run in the Preakness, choosing the Dwyer instead; who got BEAT in a seven-horse Dwyer; won the Belmont, but then didn't win again until May of his 4-year-old season in an ungraded stake? ... THAT'S the horse?

It's pretty clear I'm not buying.

The Kentucky Derby offers entry to 20 horses. That's a LOT -- too many, some would argue. (And they might contend that's as big a deterrent to a Triple Crown winner as anything; the Derby is overstuffed and to win it takes as much luck as talent.)

To have any faith in an argument that richly deserving horses are being left out of that 20-stall Derby gate, I'd have to see who, say, the last three in and the last three out were from the past decade or two, and assess what they did thereafter -- particularly in the Preakness and Belmont. At this stage I simply doubt that a serious Derby (let alone Triple Crown) contender has been excluded from the field based on graded earnings over the past quarter-century. Maybe ever.

Meanwhile, with much gnashing of teeth over big-purse "WAYI" races, what has the effect of those races been on the Derby field ... REALLY?

For starters, let's agree that much of nobody is going to want the Breeders' Cup Juvenile winner (often 2-year-old champion) excluded from the Derby field if he's sound and fit to run, even if he hasn't amassed a lot of earnings or "points" since. (Regardless that only one prior winner has gone on to actually WIN the Kentucky Derby, STREET SENSE.) ... So it doesn't really matter what the B.C. Juvenile pays; win that and you punch a Derby ticket IF you can stay healthy. Fair enough.

I think the real gripe for someone touting the points system can be narrowly focused on the Delta Jackpot. There simply have to be people all over America -- particularly those who frequent NYRA tracks, California tracks, etc. -- who resent that little backwater bullring offering a ton of money to "buy" a graded stakes race; people who think it's muddying the waters of the Derby field by throwing a life raft of cash to a host of otherwise drowning and undeserving Derby hopefuls.

Let's see about that, because -- for the fear to be realized -- there'd need to be Delta Jackpot-winners and -placers and their dirty money in the Derby field almost every year, robbing a horse like the vaunted Drosselmeyer (who hadn't won above the NW2L condition at the time, mind you) his much-deserved place in the Derby.

Since the Delta Jackpot became a Grade 3 race, here are your in-the-money horses (and big paydays):

2011: 1. SABERCAT; 2. Basmati; 3. LONGVIEW DRIVE.

2010: 1. GOURMET DINNER; 2. DECISIVE MOMENT; 3. CLUBHOUSE RIDE.

2009: 1. RULE; 2. UH OH BANGO; 3. OAK MOTTE.

2008: 1. BIG DRAMA; 2. WEST SIDE BERNIE; 3. Stimulus Plan.

2007: 1. Z HUMOR-DH; 1. TURF WAR-DH; 3. GOLDEN YANK.

2006: 1. BIRDBIRDISTHEWORD; 2. PIRATES DEPUTY; 3. XCHANGER.

Don't see much "Derby" there. Not of the "Kentucky" variety, anyway.

Obviously the "Jackpot Class of 2011" hasn't played out on the Derby Trail yet. But Sabercat hasn't run since winning the Jackpot (though he IS working) and thus I doubt he'll make the starting gate. Basmati hasn't run since finishing 11th in the Cash Call Futurity and just came back on the work tab; no threat. Longview Drive was third in the G3 Sham, but stubbed his toe in the G3 Southwest at Oaklawn last out, finishing in the triple-dead-heat for sixth (as the favorite in that flight). ... Could still get in, but if he does, he has some work to do, presently standing 30th in graded earnings. So if he hits the board or wins a close-to-the-Derby prep, hasn't Longview Drive earned his ticket?

How about prior years?

The 2010 Jackpot tote produced 14th-place Derby finisher Decisive Moment, but he also finished second in the G3 Spiral as a final Derby prep (beaten only by eventual Derby winner Animal Kingdom) so I'm hard-pressed to consider him undeserving. The other two on the board -- Gourmet Dinner (third in the Holy Bull S.-G3 and second to Soldat in the Fountain of Youth S.-G2 at age 3), and Clubhouse Ride (3rd by a head over Gourmet Dinner in the Cashcall Futurity-G1 and second in the G3 Sham at age 3) were both hurt and taken off the Derby trail. But had they made the field, I'd have to think they deserved it.

(Gourmet Dinner, the faithful of this blog should note, was one of my 2010 juvenile sales selections.)

Rule, the 2009 Jackpot winner, was at the top of many Derby contender lists until injury took him off the Trail. Uh Oh Bango was fourth in both the Rebel and the Arkansas Derby and was declared out with injury for the Kentucky Derby, despite being 21st on the earnings list with a chance to draw in. He's come back as an older horse to win the San Pasqual S.-G2 at Santa Anita and place in three other graded stakes at 4 and 5, suggesting he'd have been perfectly acceptable as a Kentucky Derby starter (and really damned good for an Arizona-bred). ... Third-place Oak Motte didn't run again until July of his 3-year-old season and hasn't won a race since taking a Texas stallion stakes as a 2-year-old, but he didn't steal anybody's Derby bid, either.

The 2008 Jackpot winner, Big Drama, is unquestionably a great horse. He proved not to be a Classic-type (run off his feet by RACHEL ALEXANDRA in the 2009 Preakness), but he won the Breeders' Cup Sprint and was champion sprinter as a 4-year-old. He was NOT a Derby starter. ... West Side Bernie was ninth in the 2009 Derby, but had just finished second to a short-priced I WANT REVENGE in the Wood Memorial S.-G1 and deserved his chance. Stimulus Plan didn't return to the racetrack after the Jackpot until the midpoint of his 3-year-old campaign and was not on the Derby trail; he has come on as an older horse to be placed in several stakes races, including a pair of G3s at Calder.

For 2007, dead-heat winner Z Humor finished 14th in the 2008 Kentucky Derby, but while his "Trail" to get there was undistinguished, he did finish fourth in the Fountain of Youth S.-G2 and third in the Illinois Derby-G2 in his final two preps, so his entry at Churchill wasn't unfair. The other horse in the dead-heat for first, Turf War, flopped in his Derby preps, ran in the Derby Trial instead of the Derby itself, and never won another race. Golden Yank also sputtered on the Derby Trail and didn't run for the roses, but he has eventually won three stakes races after the Jackpot (including the Oklahoma Derby) and has been graded-placed several times, earning $840K.

The 2006 Jackpot produced a trio of which none made the Derby field, though Xchanger would run eighth in the Preakness. No harm, no foul.

So I ask, where's the injustice? I can't make a case against any Delta Jackpot podium-finisher who eventually ran in the Derby (at least, not a case that he shouldn't have been one of the TWENTY), and many of those injured and taken off the trail would have been clearly deserving had they been in the Derby, particularly horses like Gourmet Dinner and Rule.

Seriously, if the $1 million Delta Jackpot isn't a consistent source of undeserving Derby starters -- and demonstrably it hasn't been -- what high-purse race COULD be?

I'm left to ask, then, whether we're not all bent out of shape about the unfairness of graded earnings, and 2-year-old races, and fat purses, and dirt vs. turf and synth, for little or no considerable reason.

More than 30,000 thoroughbreds are foaled every spring in the United States. Three years later, the Kentucky Derby tends to be run by the 20 most remotely qualified 3-year-olds who are sound and fit as of the first Saturday in May.

The brilliant but fragile, precocious, speed-favoring 2-year-olds have fallen by the wayside. So have a litany of seeming favorites from the traditional prep races: ESKENDEREYA, the aforementioned I Want Revenge, former 2-year-old champ UNCLE MO and his Wood Memorial vanquisher TOBY'S CORNER ... just to name a recent few.

Hey, differences of opinion are what MAKES a horse race. Controversy drives many good column-inches of journalism and a few positive changes to any sport.

But I really feel like we're not arguing here about whether a playoff would give us a more accomplished, recognized champion of college football than the BCS provides; we're splitting hairs over whom should be the 68th team in the March Madness field.

I Want Revenge: Not the story the Times thinks he is

It's undeniable that one of horse racing's most persistent troubles is perception; the belief among many of those in the public who don't like or watch racing (and some who do) that American owners and trainers are drugging, beating and abusing these animals for fun and profit.

It doesn't help when the people who are covering the sport can't get the story straight.

In the Oct. 6 New York Times, writer Joe Drape (a Media Eclipse Award winner) recounts the story of I Want Revenge, the 2009 Kentucky Derby favorite who was scratched on race day. The injury that prompted the scratch has since spurred a lawsuit. IEAH Stables -- which bought a half-interest in the Stephen Got Even colt in a blockbuster deal ($1.75 million plus a 25 percent share in IEAH's 2-year-old champion filly Stardom Bound) from owner David Lanzman only days before I Want Revenge's huge performance in winning the Wood Memorial -- claims the horse's injuries were not disclosed to IEAH leading up to the Derby scratch.

Drape's story is headlined -- and claims to illustrate -- that the "Lawsuit Sheds Light on Use of Legal Medications in Horses."

But after reading it, and some supposedly supporting evidence, I feel like Drape and the Times actually left people in the dark.

Drape's lead paragraph claims that the court case exposes "the fault lines of administering legal drugs to America's thoroughbreds." But from what I can tell -- and certainly from most of what Drape has written -- the lawsuit is much more about honesty and full disclosure in business dealings than the doping of this or any horse. The legal medications administered to I Want Revenge are but bit players in this story.

Drape writes that IEAH alleges that I Want Revenge was "ailing as early as April 7" and that Lanzman failed to disclose the injuries to his co-owners. Lanzman denies the charge. Veterinarians have testified that the colt was treated with substances including hyaluronic acid (a joint treatment) and corticosteroids (anti-inflammatory meds) between the Wood and his Derby scratch. And apparently, IEAH wasn't aware of his medical needs.

Drape's first cringeworthy moment in the story comes early, when he writes that I Want Revenge's ankle "was injected with what amounted to new transmission fluid."

Now, I know the horse was not injected with transmission fluid. Heaven help me, I hope you know the horse wasn't really injected with transmission fluid. But if there's anything an award-winning New York Times reporter should have learned by now, it's that a certain number of his audience are, in short, idiots. I suspect that somebody, somewhere has forwarded this story to animal rights advocates worldwide with a subject header akin to "Horse shot up with transmission fluid to keep him racing!!!!!!"

It's a horrible analogy, not particularly apropos, and needlessly inflammatory. And that's actually what prompted me to dig deeper into Drape's reporting.

What I found is that his story gets worse. That's because Drape claims the lawsuit is evidence of everything except what it really is -- a case of partners allegedly not communicating.

Writes Drape: "Regardless of the outcome of the dispute, the treatments are a striking example of how the use, and overuse, of legal medications have placed America's thoroughbred population at ever greater risk of injury and, in some cases, catastrophic breakdown."

A scathing accusation. So how about some evidence? Drape doesn't really provide it, namely because the sources he cites -- and to which the Times' Web site links directly -- don't particularly say what Drape claims that they do.

Drape writes: "There is a growing concern within the veterinary community that overmedication -- with drugs like corticosteroids, anti-inflammatories that can have dangerous consequences -- and lax oversight are part of the reason the United States has the world's worst mortality rate for thoroughbreds." His cited evidence, a link to this report, called "Putting the Horse First: Veterinary Recommendations for the Safety and Welfare of the Thoroughbred Racehorse."

That report indeed addresses medications and veterinary care, namely the need for consistent standards across jurisdictions and a more thorough and accurate means of monitoring those standards. It also addresses the public's perception of racing and the need for the industry to put horse welfare first in order to maintain a positive image.

But it's a nine-page paper, including three that serve as a cover sheet, a history and mission statement of the American Association of Equine Practitioners (which wrote the report) and a partial page including some of the veterinarians' names associated with the work. And in the roughly five and a half pages of content, the paper also addresses: 2-year-old racing; claiming races; the need for the industry to provide for retired horses; mandated rest periods of at least 10 days for all horses between races; the growing influence of "racinos" that are managed by people who don't understand horses and their needs; the need for continuing education for everyone from jockeys, trainers and stewards to track security officers. ... In other words, it's a catch-all paper that is not primarily nor even largely related to supplying the evidence Drape claims it provides.

In fact, not once in nine pages does that paper mention the mortality rate of U.S. thoroughbreds involved in racing, let alone as compared to other nations, though Drape cites it as supporting documentation for his making that comparison. And not once in the two pages that paper allots to the "veterinarian-owner-trainer relationship" and the subject of medications, including race-day meds, does the document even reference, let alone specifically make the claim, that "overmedication" or "lax oversight" of medication rules "are part of the reason the United States has the world's worst mortality rate for thoroughbreds."

The paper provides virtually no evidence for Drape's statements. And I can't figure out why he would believe or claim that it does.

Yet this is a mistake that Drape makes twice.

Later in the story, Drape writes: "There is a consensus among equine researchers and surgeons that legal medications and cortisone shots, over time, leave a horse vulnerable to a catastrophic breakdown."

He then throws gas on that lighted matchstick by citing the U.S. breakdown rate -- 1.47 per 1,000 starts for synthetic tracks and 2.03 per 1,000 starts on dirt, according to the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission -- which indeed are higher numbers than he cites for England (0.8 to 0.9 per 1,000 starts) and Australia (0.44 per 1,000 starts).

But again, a paper Drape cites doesn't measure up to his claims.

In this case, Drape links to a report submitted to the Subcomittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, part of the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the U.S. House of Representatives. That report is the testimony of Susan M. Stover, DVM, Ph.D., and professor at the J.D. Wheat Veterinary Orthopedic Research Laboratory at the University of California at Davis School of Veterinary Medicine.

The report is attributed only to Stover. In it, she refers to herself in the first person, singular, when offering her insights.

I don't know about you, but I've never heard of a one-person "consensus." Or perhaps the "consensus" Drape claims is composed only of himself and Susan Stover -- whom he did not apparently contact nor directly quote for his story, only linking to her testimony.

I'm not suggesting Dr. Stover isn't an expert on this issue; undeniably, she is. I'm suggesting that Drape is unduly and improperly using her report as evidence that her thoughts speak for the bulk of equine veterinary practitioners.

Worse, Drape links to Stover's testimony specifically to support his story's claim that "legal medications and cortisone shots, over time, leave a horse vulnerable to a catastrophic breakdown." But while Stover does note that most catastrophic breakdowns are due to musculoskeletal injuries that often worsen over time and with repetition, she barely touches on the possibility that legal medications are intentionally or inadvertently masking injuries that should keep a horse from racing. In 10 pages, Stover writes one, inconclusive sentence on the subject:

"However, the potential for permitted medications to mask mild injury and to contribute to injury development needs to be assessed." (Emphasis mine.)

Stover later -- as part of an eight-point sentence on improving horse welfare that ranges from racing surfaces and workout patterns to hoof angles and toe grabs -- tosses in just five more words about legal medications, advocating for the "reconsideration" of some race-day medications, none of which she lists by name. In fact, the word "cortisone," nor any part thereof, never appears anywhere in Stover's testimony, though Drape cites Stover's testimony as support for his claim that "cortisone shots ... leave a horse vulnerable to a catastrophic breakdown."

These two attempts by Drape to bolster his story with outside sources that don't or that just barely, with a measure of imagination, provide the evidence he claims are, at the very kindest, shabby reporting.

But Drape's effort to tie I Want Revenge to claims that the drug culture of the racetrack is killing horses would fall apart even without these weak links. That's because the story of I Want Revenge is actually the opposite of what Drape claims it to be -- a case that supposedly shows how horses are doped to keep them racing.

Why? ... Because I Want Revenge didn't race.

As noted prior, Drape's story says that IEAH claims I Want Revenge "was ailing as early as April 7." That date is not only after the date that IEAH bought its 50 percent interest in the horse, which was reported on March 30. It was three days after he won the Wood Memorial. So Drape provides no evidence at all that I Want Revenge was kept performing (let alone at so high a level) by using legal medications that permitted him to race right through an injury. Nor does it appear that IEAH is making such a claim.

The story here is that I Want Revenge didn't race when he was hurt. He wasn't fit to go, veterinarians made that determination, and his trainer, Jeff Mullins, scratched the horse from the biggest race in America, the Kentucky Derby, in which I Want Revenge was favored.

Of course, there's no scathing story in "Vet and Trainer Make Right Choice for Horse."

It might be argued that the connections and their vets should've figured out what was wrong with I Want Revenge sometime during the month leading up to his race-morning scratch, but that isn't the case IEAH appears to be making in court. Nor does it seem that IEAH is claiming that the treatments of the horse were improper, detrimental to the horse, or undertaken to keep them from realizing that the horse was hurt. IEAH is simply saying that it bought into a horse -- for a princely sum -- and was not kept informed of the condition and welfare of their living, breathing investment until such point that he was scratched from the Derby and the colt's unsoundness was undeniable. In fact, IEAH claims it asked Lanzman directly about a Derby Eve rumor that the colt would be scratched and that Lanzman was dishonest by denying the rumor, a claim Lanzman denies.

That makes for a good story. Such claims lead one to question the honesty and transparency of the back side at America's racetracks, and whether even the richest owners who have millions invested are really kept up to speed with what's going on with their horses. And actually, the writer does a very good job of detailing the facts and claims that IEAH has presented regarding that aspect of the case.

It just isn't the story Joe Drape told you he was telling.

Long time, no post ... see ya at Ellis?

Considering I haven't posted on the blog since Wednesday, I figured I'd better make an effort for those of you who've wondered whether I dropped off the face of the earth.

O.K., nobody wondered that, I haven't heard from a soul in my absence.

I've spent the past couple of days trying to get my act together for a road trip, which means doing about a week's worth of necessities ahead of time at the office, not to mention prepping the house and the dog-sitter for the time away. Lucky for that guy the dogs seem to like him. It was smart of me to have him start visiting a couple of weeks ago and always bring treats.

I notice Mine That Bird came up a bit short again when asked too soon, this time in the West Virginia Derby. Somebody needs to listen to Chip Woolley and keep that horse covered up on the rail until they straighten out for home. Considering Calvin Borel did it to perfection in the Kentucky Derby, I'm surprised that nobody's gotten it quite right since. Of course it's a little easier to keep a horse covered when he's running last of 20 than it was for Mike Smith on Saturday in a field of six.

Last word for this post -- though I might have another before I start driving, I have a couple in the works, but unfinished.

There's a chance I'll be stopping by at Ellis Park a week from Sunday, Aug. 9. (Why Ellis? Because it's the closet open racetrack on my route home. And when traveling alone, you know, any excuse to stop at a racetrack is plenty of excuse.)

Anybody who frequents Ellis and will be at the track on that date, keep an eye out for the guy who looks like one of the barns from the back side sprouted legs and hiked around to the grandstand to place a bet.

Barbaro's baby brother better on grass; go figure

Nicanor, 3-year-old brother of ill-fated Kentucky Derby winner Barbaro, wired a field of second-level allowance horses today in a 9-furlong turf race at Delaware Park.

The Lael Stables colt is now 2-for-2 on the grass, and I'm left wondering what took trainer Michael Matz so long to get him on the lawn. He placed twice in three straight starts over dirt tracks, but seems clearly a more talented horse on turf, as his maiden-breaking 104 Beyer at Delaware on May 13 suggests.

Barbaro also broke maiden on grass, at first asking, then won the Laurel Futurity and Tropical Park Derby-G3 over turf courses before he was sent to the dirt on the Kentucky Derby trail. Were I in Matz's position (I wish) I think turf would've been my first choice for this Dynaformer colt, as well. (Not sure whether any of the first three starts might have been taken off the turf.)

The Blood-Horse is suggesting stakes company might be in the offing next out.

How much is that Birdie in the window?

A blogger I follow, Sid Fernando + Observations, reports that an insider has told him offers are flitting in for Kentucky Derby champion Mine That Bird.

"Sid" reports the asking price could be in the range of $4 million to $5 million.

I don't find that surprising, as the horse has proven himself to be game in follow-up (narrow) losses in the Preakness Stakes and Belmont Stakes. Barring injury, he has a bright future ahead, including rich races this summer against other 3-year-olds, and a potential trip to the Breeders' Cup. And, as a gelding, he could run on for years, although that could be another reason for owners Double Eagle Ranch (Mark Allen) and Buena Suerte Equine to sell now; he has no stud value.

Clearly Mark Allen isn't afraid to spend money on horses; he dropped something akin to three-quarters of a million on a bunch at sales last year. And with a multimillion-dollar oil field business sale in his recent past (his share a reported $30 million), he isn't hurting for money and doesn't in any way need to sell Mine That Bird.

Personally, I don't see the joy in buying a horse somebody else "made" in hopes that he'll get me in an owner's box at the Breeders' Cup. And if a horse that had done this much for me, I think you'd have to pry his papers from my cold, dead fingers.

But Allen went down that exact road himself -- buying MTB for $400,000 essentially after the horse had already earned his Canadian juvenile championship at Woodbine, and for the express purpose of a quick wheelback into the 2008 BC Juvenile. So he certainly shouldn't be above selling the colt to someone making the same gamble, and for about a tenfold profit.

Borel at Belmont: Blackball by default

Many observers, myself included, were critical of jockey Calvin Borel -- in print or otherwise -- for having no mounts during Belmont Stakes week and trying to win the third leg of the Triple Crown on Mine That Bird with very little experience traversing "Big Sandy."

Today Steve Haskin of The Blood-Horse reports that the decision wasn't Borel's. Haskin says he's been told nobody would give Borel a mount during the week at Belmont save one trainer, and that Borel was advised to take off that horse. (I believe I've heard elsewhere that lone ride was to be on the turf course, anyway.)

Calvin Borel is such a kind man that it isn't surprising, I guess, that he would deflect all criticism of his lack of mounts during Belmont week by good-naturedly saying it didn't really make a difference; that like all races, you just "break ... and turn left." It likely did make a difference -- Big Sandy and the Belmont aboard a keyed-up horse have been the undoing of more famed jockeys than he -- but if he tried and couldn't get mounts, what was he to do? Call the whole Belmont trainer colony everything but sons of God?

I don't really know what to make of a situation in which the hottest jockey in America can't get a ride for a week. On the one hand, you'd think somebody -- some little barn with a handful of horses, typically stuck hiring bug-boys and second-tier NY-circuit veterans -- would hand him the reins for a race or two during the week. Even if Borel wasn't aboard a winner, he'd get the feel for just how expansive that turn for home and how long the final stretch are; how you can't go as early as your instincts make you think.

(Haskin doesn't think Borel moved to soon aboard Mine That Bird; I still do. The outside trip might have cost him even more, and maybe Borel just couldn't hold back an uncharacteristically rank horse, but Mine That bird used too much energy, too soon.)

On the other hand, if you're a New York trainer of any stature, top-rung or bottom, what's really to be gained by naming Borel to a half-dozen mounts during Belmont week? Why break commitments and risk fracturing relationships with local jockeys for a rider, Borel, who almost certainly won't be there to ride your horse back the next time he runs?

It isn't your job to get the guy ready to run the Belmont. It's your job to win today, tomorrow and next week and next month with your owners' horses. Even if Borel wins on your horse, you can only say you've benefited if it seemed there was little chance of that horse winning without Calvin Borel. At Churchill Downs that happens almost every day; at Belmont Park, you probably have just as good a shot with any of a dozen other, more familiar, guys or gals in the irons.

There'd need to be some compelling reason to ride Borel instead of your regular guy, or even in the case of a horse that hasn't established a good working relationship with a jockey yet. You might do it if Borel was there to ride a friend's horse in the Belmont; a fellow trainer with whom you've had an on- and off-track friendship for a decade all around the Northeast. Or if it's realistic that you might have a horse in a nice race at Churchill someday and could want Borel in the irons for that one. Or even if the owner of Borel's horse is someone with whom you'd like to earn points, so that you might train some of his horses in the future.

It's likely none of that's the case with Belmont's trainer colony and Mine That Bird.

This might be a product, then, of a formerly obscure horse with perhaps destined to again be obscure connections in owners Double Eagle Ranch (Mark Allen) and Buena Suerte Equine, and trainer Bennie Woolley Jr. What's a Belmont-based trainer to think of collaborating with them?

They're the Sunland Park crowd; New Mexico guys. Mark Allen, despite his oil-business money, will likely never have a substantial string at Belmont and consider you as the trainer. And Woolley -- personable though he seems to be in horse circles -- is someone you just met; you owe him no return of a former favor and it's unlikely he'd ever be in a position to repay your favor of putting Borel aboard a long-shot in the fifth on Belmont Friday. Legging-up Borel would be a courtesy from which you'd not be expecting ever to benefit directly; nothing but "a kindness," as we say in the South.

I mean, follow the links ... there's probably an explanation behind why the NTRA has mugshots but still no bios on these men, nearly six weeks after their horse won the biggest race in America, the Kentucky Derby. Aside from Mine That Bird, nobody in racing's upper echelon is really expecting to hear from these guys again.

So in a game that's all about gaining and exploiting advantages -- not just from gate to wire, but from the sales, to morning workouts, to the entry box, to the saddling enclosure, to post-parade, to gate, to wire -- there was almost nothing to be gained for any Belmont trainer to put Calvin Borel on horses during Belmont week.

Call it a "blackball by default," perhaps.

There might have been some New York allegiances involved -- trainers who'd rather see a jockey or conditioner from the Belmont colony win the Belmont Stakes, rather than these upstarts in cowboy boots and their sudden-celebrity jockey. Or even some jealousy among NY-circuit jockeys and trainers watching this Louisiana middle-school dropout from Churchill breeze into the Big Apple and appear on late-night TV as a guest of David Letterman.

But there didn't need to be any animosity at all for the same net result to occur: No rides for Borel to prep his skills for the Belmont.

It's tough for the guy, for his horse, and for the connections. And it makes you admire Calvin Borel all the more that he had the good spirits and grace to smile through defeat and never utter a harsh word -- knowing he and the horse had tried their best when nobody would do him a favor all week in New York.

No "kindness" for the kindest jockey in America. That is a little bit sad, isn't it?

The last word on Luv Gov, I promise ... until ...

With the Belmont Stakes in the books, it's time to close a chapter in my life as a fledgling blogger: My obsession with Luv Gov.

The 3-year-old Ten Most Wanted colt ran the second-biggest race of his life Saturday -- first-biggest (if that's a term) if you don't consider winning or placing to be all that important. He came home fifth in the Belmont, and that's worth $30,000.

I first became aware of the Marylou Whitney-owned colt when his name surfaced amid the plot to block Rachel Alexandra from the Preakness. While Ahmed Zayat claimed he'd been told Whitney would enter a colt to "promote her stallion" (Birdstone), ostensibly by protecting Kentucky Derby winner Mine That Bird from the girl, the Whitney camp insisted they wouldn't enter Luv Gov in the Preakness if he was, in effect, the last colt in the gate, thus blocking the supplementally nominated filly. I wrote that I found it hard to believe that Whitney and trainer D. Wayne Lukas were serious about entering a colt who took 10 tries to break maiden into a Grade 1 race for his next start, and they might (I hoped) even scratch him before post time. But they proved they were at least serious enough (or under scrutiny enough) to run him and he straggled home eighth at Pimlico.

I subsequently asked if, please, we couldn't get Luv Gov some NW2L competition for his next out. Clearly not among my blog's six followers, Whitney and Lukas didn't listen to the advice, and brought the colt to the Belmont Stakes. My sensibilities offended, I stated my discontent, in part comedically, but in part sincere.

Nevertheless, on Saturday at Belmont, Luv Gov again rallied past the expended and this time, got up for fifth. That's the last of the real checks; everybody after his $30K just got a flat $4,000. Equibase even gave him a 100 speed figure (page 2 of chart), which is a bit of a head-scratcher for me, considering the winner, Summer Bird, garnered a 112 and finished 10 1/2 lengths ahead of our subject colt. I suspect the Beyers for all will be a smidge lower than the Equibase figures, and that the discrepancy between the winner and fifth place might be a little wider than 12 points.

As my headline's vague caveat suggests, I might not be able to ignore Luv Gov forever. Now that the colt has galloped his way into my consciousness, I'll need to keep an eye out for him in the future. After all, there's news to be made. He's now earned $92,896; when will he break $100,000? And where will he turn up next?

A class-drop is probably in order. I mean, the Grade 2 Jim Dandy Stakes is coming right up Aug. 1 at Saratoga.

Birdstone can't stay out of his own way

The Belmont Stakes is in the books and the little 'Bird that could, 50-1 Kentucky Derby winner Mine That Bird, and his "Jockey Triple Crown" hopeful rider, Calvin Borel, are knocked down two pegs by another bird, Summer Bird.

That's right, the Derby long-shot son of Birdstone (who stole Smarty Jones' Triple Crown in the 2004 Belmont) loses the Belmont himself to another of his sire's sons, at a wee bit of a price ($25.80 to win).

In the end, Mine That Bird finished third behind Dunkirk, who nearly got taken down after some troubles in the stretch with Charitable Man. With a DQ, it would've been a Birdstone-double.

Criticism already is falling on Borel for perhaps moving too soon with Mine That Bird. I actually said it during the race to co-workers who were watching with me.

"It's too early," I said. "I'm afraid it's too early."

Mine That Bird was keen to go down the back stretch and Borel had to let him. But it was winner Kent Desormeaux, with his own Belmont shortcomings, who earlier in the week, called Borel "naive" for approaching the Belmont with confidence despite having no real experience over the track. Race-riding at Belmont is like nowhere else. Unlike most tracks, where the finish line is relatively near when the horses straighten out for home off the final turn, at Belmont, there are still some 1,100 feet left to run.

Mine That Bird had the lead when they straightened out, but having already come from the back -- and this time the long way around, on the outside -- maybe he didn't have enough left to finish like he needed. He was beaten not only by the fellow Birdstone-sired closer, but by Dunkirk, who had done all the work on the front end, but stayed on the rail in doing it.

I won't kick Borel while he's (comparatively) down, though. He's a great race-rider and we wouldn't even know Mine That Bird if Bo-Rail hadn't made one of the greatest moves in Derby history on the first Saturday in May, 2009. The Belmont Stakes has humbled more famous jockeys than he. And he still has the mount on the great filly of 2009, Rachel Alexandra.

I do wonder whether Bennie Woolley Jr. will keep Borel aboard Mine That Bird, though. Even Woolley -- though he said he'd "pat him on the back" when he saw Borel post-race -- was telling Janine Edwards after the race that the jock had moved too soon.

Final thought: How great a start to a stallion career is Birdstone having? A Derby win and a Belmont win in his first crop, and they weren't won by the same horse. And, Kentucky Oaks-G1 runner-up Stone Legacy, Tempted S.-G3 winner Livin Lovin, and multiple-stakes winner Texas Birdstone. ... That deserves a "wow."

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.

Poll of the Millennium: The Triple Crown

With another year's Triple Crown Trail almost over, and a guarantee there will be no crown bestowed this year (thanks to Rachel Alexandra, Belmont Stakes results notwithstanding), it's worth asking readers what they think of the series.

Are you with D. Wayne Lukas in thinking the Belmont should be shortened? Should the races be spaced farther apart to give horses more time to prep in-between? Are you in the camp of a newsgroup friend of mine who would like to see a distance progression like the British Triple Crown -- a mile race, like the Two Thousand Guineas, to kick things off, then perhaps the Derby at 10f and another classic race? Are Pimlico and the Preakness dead and it's a moot point anyway?

I for one like the Triple Crown the way it is. Yes it's hard to attain. It's supposed to be hard.

The three differences I see in the degree of difficulty vs., say, the 1970s, include:

1. Thoroughbreds whose pedigrees carry somewhat more speed than in the past.

2. A 20-horse Kentucky Derby field that is a traffic nightmare and sometimes can rob a favorite of his advantage in talent or led to the occasional freak result. Our last devastatingly good, woulda, coulda, shoulda been-a Triple Crown winner, Spectacular Bid in '79, was part of a 10-horse Derby field.

3. Trainers who don't really know much anymore about how to prep a horse for three races in a period of six Saturdays, because they're more used to running Grade 1 horses three times in six months.

So vote in the poll and leave your comments in this thread. We're open all week, until Belmont afternoon, anyway.

Disclaimer: The Poll of the Millennium isn't necessarily the or the only poll of the entire millennium and such name is not meant to indicate that it is. The management reserves the right to publish as many Polls of the Millennium, as frequently as it deems reasonable and prudent -- or merely entertaining. The blogger, however, does not cast any vote in Poll of the Millennium.