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.

What did Monday's Jerry do with Saturday's Jerry?

Will the real Jerry Moss please stand up? Or at least stop singing different tunes?

Moss, founder of A&M Records and owner of the most-accomplished older mare in America, Zenyatta, on Saturday morning appeared on a satellite radio racing program, "Down The Stretch." During an interview, Moss said that since it appears stellar 3-year-old filly Rachel Alexandra won't be coming to the Breeders' Cup to face his mare, then his mare would just go on the road to find that filly.

"There's a good chance," Moss said Saturday, that Zenyatta would seek out Rachel, most likely at an eastern racetrack on a conventional dirt surface.

By Monday, Moss was backpedaling so quickly that the only way to make out his original statement now might be to run the tape in reverse and listen for it between the repeated phrases of "turn me on, dead man ..."

"We'd love to meet Rachel Alexandra, and I'm sorry she apparently isn't coming to the Breeders' Cup," Moss said in an interview with The Blood-Horse. "... As owners, we plan for the Breeders' Cup. That is where championships are supposed to be resolved. My brain is fighting my heart on this, because I'd like to give Zenyatta every chance to remove any doubts about her place in history, and Rachel Alexandra would be a challenge. ... We'd like to meet her, but we don't want to swerve out of our program, because we still have the Breeders' Cup foremost in our sights."

Sounds like somebody got a lecture from his trainer, John Shirreffs, after Saturday's satellite radio interview.

Shirreffs had said weeks ago that Zenyatta was going nowhere this summer, not in the sense that she wouldn't be running and winning races, only that she'd be running and winning them all on synthetic surfaces in Southern California.

Since Rachel's principal owner, Jess Jackson, has said he doesn't want his filly running "on plastic" (even though she has a synthetic surface victory to her credit), it appears the leading 3-year-old filly in the country will not be Breeders' Cup-bound. For the second straight year, the Cup will be run at Santa Anita, which has a Pro-Ride synthetic surface. Jackson, whose superstar and champion Curlin flopped in the Breeders' Cup at Santa Anita last year, says he isn't going back.

Moss on Monday appeared to end any notion that Zenyatta might face Rachel at Saratoga in the Go For Wand on Aug. 2, the Personal Ensign on Aug. 30 or at Belmont in the Oct. 3 Beldame. No mention was made at The Blood-Horse of the $1 million, Grade 2 Delaware Handicap coming up July 19, but since that race would be a deviation from Shirreffs' ultra-conservative plan, one has to figure it's out, too.

Moss suggested that perhaps his unbeaten mare -- who won her 11th in as many tries by taking the Vanity Handicap Saturday -- and the outstanding Rachel Alexandra might be able to meet post-Breeders' Cup. But he bellyached about the detention barn at Belmont ("We had a very bad experience with Giacomo going to the dention barn at Belmont ... he went nuts.") and talked like he was scared of running Zenyatta at Saratoga because the "tight turns would compromise Zenyatta given her running style of coming wide from behind."

"Every venue has its idiosyncracies that are risky," Moss said.

So there it is. What looked like a possibility Saturday -- that Moss would be sporting enough to send Zenyatta out to meet Rachel even if Jackson isn't sporting enough to have Rachel attend the Breeders' Cup -- seems an impossibility today. Unless the two meet somewhere after the Breeders' Cup, in the six or weeks or so remaining before Zenyatta is almost certain to be retired to the breeding shed. And, pardon my asking, but exactly what suitable race remains on the calendar after racing's festival of festivals, the Breeders' Cup, which is intended to all but close out the season.

Sadly, much of Moss' reversal appears to hinge on the notion that putting Zenyatta in any position other than a race hand-picked to play to her every strength is "risky" -- not to the mare's health, mind you, but simply to her chances of staying unbeaten.

Moss and Jackson have invested so much in this sport, where risk is inherent with every powerful stride. It's disappointing to see them both become so protectionist now regarding their greatest investments, Zenyatta and Rachel, both of whom were conceived, foaled and nurtured to race.

Just apparently not to race against each other.

With all others fleeing Rachel, Zenyatta might fill void

Last week, it looked for all the world like a showdown between unbeaten 5-year-old mare Zenyatta and seemingly world-beating 3-year-old filly Rachel Alexandra might never happen.

Weeks ago, trainer John Shirreffs said Zenyatta would be staying in California all the way through the Breeders' Cup at Santa Anita. And this week, Jess Jackson of Stonestreet Stables, primary owner of Rachel Alexandra, said his filly would be skipping the Breeders' Cup rather than run on the "plastic" Pro-Ride surface in California.

Collision averted. Regrettably.

But on Saturday morning, even before Zenyatta carried 129 pounds in defending her title in Hollywood Park's Grade 1 Vanity Handicap and Rachel set stakes records for time and margin of victory in the Mother Goose S.-G1 at Belmont Park, Zenyatta's owner, Jerry Moss, said his desire for his mare to be named Horse of the Year (she lost out to Jackson's Curlin in 2008) might well send her on the road to hunt down the upstart Rachel.

"There's a good chance," that Zenyatta would leave California despite Shirreffs' earlier statements, Moss said in an interview during the program "Down the Stretch" on XM Satellite Radio, reported by The Daily Racing Form. "... If the two horses are ready and at the top of their form, I would very much like to see a race between the two of them."

Wouldn't we all?

Sending his senior Zenyatta out to meet Jackson's saucy sophomore is something Moss doesn't exactly have to do. I've written that I believe Rachel needs to beat Zenyatta -- not just rest her laurels on a gutsy Preakness win over males or even beat boys again in the Haskell or Travers -- if Jackson wants her to be Horse of the Year. It would be a weak link in Rachel's case for the title to leave a lifetime-unbeaten Zenyatta with a pair of Breeders' Cup victories on the table, unchallenged. No matter how good Rachel has looked -- and there isn't a superlative that fits her at the moment -- Zenyatta seemed to be in the position of strength so far as dictating where, when and whether a clash of the two female titans would take place.

Meanwhile Rachel's ridiculous run Saturday, while it added another Grade 1 victory and $270,000 earned to her resume, actually turned up the pressure a bit on Jackson. Only two other 3-year-old fillies showed up to race: Edward P. Evans' Malibu Prayer, who finished second beaten 19 1/4 lengths; and Godolphin's Flashing, who was third beaten roughly 32. The connections of Don't Forget Gil and Hopeful Image scratched them out Saturday morning due to "elevated temperatures."

Rachel Alexandra set records for the Mother Goose for time when run at 9 furlongs, 1:46.33 (besting Lakeway's 1:46.58 in 1994), and margin of victory (shattering the 13 1/2-length margin set in 1975 by the sublime Ruffian).

And that presents a conundrum for Jackson and Rachel's trainer, Steve Asmussen, when considering where Rachel goes next. Earlier in the week, while ruling out the Breeders' Cup this fall, Jackson listed several potential "next starts" for Rachel after the Mother Goose.

If she enters the Coaching Club American Oaks-G1 at Belmont on July 25 or the Aug. 22 Alabama S.-G1 at Saratoga -- each restricted to 3-year-old fillies -- either might become a walkover at the rate fillies are fleeing Rachel. She could face colts and geldings again in the Aug. 2 Haskell Invitational H.-G1 at Monmouth or the Aug. 29 Travers S.-G1 at Saratoga. Both would be much bigger challenges.

But management of one Mid-Atlantic track has to be drooling over the prospects that perhaps both top females will decide to muss-up their hair and lipstick in a donnybrook at their own Delaware Park on July 19. The Delaware Handicap is but a Grade 2 race, yet the purse this year has been set at $1 million. That's considerably more cash than either of the Grade 1 opportunities at Saratoga for a Zenyatta vs. Rachel Showdown, the $300,000 Go For Wand on Aug. 2 or the $400,000 Personal Ensign on Aug. 29.

Both girls have earned plenty of G1 blacktype. Beating the other one -- whether in a Grade 1 race or a 400-yard dash at Los Alamitos -- is just about all that matters now.

I think the Personal Ensign is least likely. For Zenyatta particularly, who could win and then go home (or lose and do the same to recuperate in time for the Breeders' Cup) I think the earlier a collision with Rachel, the better. Shirreffs has hinted he doesn't necessarily want Zenyatta going 10 furlongs, so asking her to cover an untried distance, on conventional dirt (over which she's only raced once), while also making the sporting gesture of shipping cross-country to where Rachel is training at The Spa, is one concession too many for the California connections.

With the Go For Wand being the least lucrative matchup (not that either camp is hurting for cash), the Delaware Handicap begins to look even more attractive. It's mile-and-a-sixteenth course is Zenyatta's most-frequently raced distance (six of her nine graded wins), and the slightly shorter distance and huge purse (meaning a hundred-grand for third) might help attract a few more mares to the party than the 9 furlongs of the Go For Wand, which went off with only six entries last year when champion Ginger Punch cast a long shadow over the entry box.

While I'm wanting to see Zenyatta vs. Rachel, I'm not asking for a one-on-one race. And a deep-closer like Zenyatta is going to want some pace to run at, which I think she'll more likely get with a few more mares in the mix and a shorter distance to travel. Plus, from Zenyatta's perspective, at least the Delaware Handicap would require Rachel to be vanned away from Saratoga, where she'll be training the next few months.

It makes me wonder, though, whether Saratoga might try to up the ante. "Back in the day," namely when tracks were trying to land the Seabiscuit-War Admiral match, bids came in from across the country. Might the New York Racing Association and Saratoga be able to scrounge up a title sponsor to contribute a huge chunk of change and bump the Go For Wand's purse to match Delaware's bankroll?

After all, a title sponsor for this race is going to get plenty of attention. If Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra are nominated to the same race, all eyes will be on that venue from the moment the showdown is announced until at least a day or two after the dust has settled.