Thoughts on pedigree: Recency trumps 'ancient' history

A discussion in which I arrived late over at a Yahoo group I frequent -- that is, tb_breeding_theory -- finally piqued my interest this holiday weekend.

What is our obsession -- and by "our," I mean some pedigree enthusiasts -- with far-distant relatives in a horse's lineage?

My thoughts are prompted by a discussion about Nasrullah, which broadened to include other sires, including Hermit, and their influences on the breed, particularly negative traits including the perpetuation of bleeders, "roarers" (a breathing malady) and general unsoundness.

I find "deep-pedigree" research to be intriguing. In fact, I am pleased to know that my mare, Bushes Victory, is from the female line that produced both Seabiscuit and Equipoise. (All descend from British-born reine de course Ballantrae, born 1899.) But though that knowledge is quite interesting to me, it's virtually insignificant in determining whether "Tory" will produce good runners herself, no matter to whom she is mated.

To put it more directly, in my opinion the biggest factor in producing a successful racehorse is to ask of the lines being crossed, "What have you done for racing lately?"

An unraced mare from a family of modest to poor siblings, coupled with a marginal sire, is likely to produce a marginal racehorse, at best. It matters not that the foal is a great-great-grandson of Storm Cat out of a granddaughter of Mr. Prospector, or that he carries eight lines to a prepotent sire like Princequillo.

I suppose it's the same philosophy as the well-known husbandry adage: "Breed the best to the best and hope for the best."

In the Yahoo-group discussion, British turf journalist and author Tony Morris took up for Hermit, who another member noted had been criticized by author Richard Ulbrich as a "provable source of vascular weakness in the modern TB."

"Hermit was champion sire seven times," Morris wrote. "I don't think that would have happened if he habitually passed on his bleeding problem. I don't dispute the idea that the problem has been noted in some of his descendants, but I have to believe that Hermit is in every pedigree, generally many times over. It's not worth thinking about now."

And, almost unequivocally, I agree.

Certainly the traits of any living example are the product of his ancestors. But trying to attribute a specific flaw in today's horse to a stallion born 145 years ago is like playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey, in the dark, in the Louisiana Superdome.

Granted, the more lines to a certain ancestor that a modern-day descendant carries, the more likely it is that the current animal's identifiable traits, good or bad, can be attributed to the heavily represented ancestor who displayed the same. But each additional line contributes to that likelihood in tiny increments. And it would be foolish to consider oneself certain in pinning a 21st century flaw on a 19th century sire, particularly when it's so much easier and far more direct to just look at the horse's most recent ancestors.

As I wrote in my concurrence with Mr. Morris -- a supporting statement with which I suspect he's wholly unimpressed: "If the sire, dam and their sires and dams were not notorious bleeders, or roarers, or unsound, then it's likely the foal will not be, either, regardless how many lines of Hermit (or whatever other ancestor) that foal might be carrying. And if he is a bleeder, roarer or unsound, you could blame the flaw on anything or nothing with equal accuracy."

Indeed it is interesting -- and some experts are paid quite well -- to dig deep into pedigrees, touting mares as being from the female family of La Troienne, or carrying X-number of crosses to Hyperion. But the further-off that blood becomes, the less likely it is to bear any real significance on the prospective foal.

I do believe in the process of inbreeding as a means of enriching for qualities the breeder wants to see in a foal. (Be careful, for inbreeding also enriches for the negative traits that ancestor might have possessed.) But if that inbreeding doesn't take place in the first four, or five -- at most six or seven generations, and in that case heavily, perhaps with a half-dozen or more crosses -- I believe that the influence of that repeated ancestor on the current foal is more wishful thinking than reliable husbandry.

When less isn't more ... which is most of the time

Steve Zorn -- a casual but respected online acquaintance of mine, blogger on the subject of the horse racing business, and managing partner of New York-based Castle Village Farm -- wondered in his latest posting whether it's time for the racing industry to engage in some "serious downsizing."

These thoughts have been raised by more than just Zorn. Short field sizes at Churchill Downs and the California tracks this year have led to questions about whether there's simply too much racing. So have declining on-track attendance numbers. And now, declining handle.

Trouble is, as the economy makes its way through the roughest stretch since World War II, if not the Great Depression, it's difficult to really get a grasp on what is a nightmarish downward trend for horse racing that will continue regardless of economic recovery and must be stemmed, and what is just a remarkably predictable decline in an entertainment industry (particularly as measured by handle), fully explainable by the staggering economy.

The U.S. economy shrank 6.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 and another 5.7 percent in the first quarter of 2009 -- is it a surprise that a recreational expense like gambling on horse races would decline for the year thus far by around 10 percent amid such contraction and job loss? Particularly when one response to the down economy in some jurisdictions has been to cancel race dates?

Handle on dark days at any given track is a highly predictable $0.

Decisions made out of fear at the height of a recession are decisions prone to be deeply regretted later. The vast majority of the sharp decline in handle is almost certainly a product of recession, not of racing's problems, though racing indeed has myriad issues that demand addressing.

My current profession, the newspaper industry, is busy laying off journalists left and right, eviscerating its product. When the economy improves, and it will, "readers" will have become "former readers," many of them never to return. It's because we will have shown that when times get tough -- and there's no less news to report, indeed, perhaps more -- we'll just shrink staff and the news product and leave our subscribers paying more for less.

How often has that been a successful business model?

I hear and read much about how over-saturated the racing industry has become. Fingers often get pointed at the lesser tracks, and at conflicting schedules diluting fields throughout a given region.

Indeed field size is important, particularly to horseplayers. But from what I see (check the entries at Equibase.com) the everyday tracks where there's racing year-round, i.e., Charles Town, Mountaineer, etc., are the ones that aren't short on horses. So from a horseplayer's perspective, those should be good races to bet, whether the ponies are stakes horses or $4,000, NW2L claimers.

Zorn notes that though the economy is suffering and the costs of buying a horse have declined (desperately bad news for breeders who sell to make a living), the cost of maintaining the horse in training are not declining. Certainly true.

But is it going to be more economical to prep and maintain a horse in race training when there are fewer opportunities for him to earn his keep?

Zorn attempted to draw a parallel between professional baseball and racing. He notes that in the 1948, there were hundreds of minor league baseball teams with attendance of 39 million. By 2007, there were only 160 minor league teams remaining, with attendance of 42 million.

I don't believe the major-minor league baseball analogy is much of a success story for racing to emulate. Among other things, the population of the United States essentially doubled between Zorn's stated dates of 1948 and 2007. (Census 1950 showed 151 million Americans; 2000 showed 281 million and rapidly growing; over 306 million as of 2009.)

That minor league baseball attendance "grew" from 39 million fans in 1948 to 42 million fans in 2007 is actually not "growth" at all -- it's a stifling contraction. Drawing 42 million in attendance in a nation of 300 million suggests considerably less popularity (almost a 50 percent reduction) for minor league baseball compared to attendance of 39 million in a nation of 151 million.

And lost in that contraction of minor leagues were the very roots of the game of baseball, and, I believe, no small amount of its populist appeal.

I grew up in an area where Class D teams were prevalent back in the 1940s and 1950s. Mickey Mantle played his first professional baseball games for the New York Yankees' Class D affiliate in Independence, Kan., in the county of my youth (albeit long before I was born). He was later promoted to the Joplin (Mo.) Miners. At both assignments, it was a short drive for thousands of southeast Kansans, northeastern Oklahomans and southeast Missourians and a few Arkansas natives to see future greatness. And in those days, fans of what was then America's inarguable pastime, took advantage.

Players who would one day be World Series heroes (and thousands who'd never throw a pitch or catch a popup in a league higher than Class D or Class C) rented rooms in the community. They were fixtures at soda shops -- or bars -- and became local celebrities. Major League teams had fans across the country not because of ESPN and DirecTV, but because their players had shopped at a Chanute, Kan., five-and-dime or walked the streets of Bartlesville, Okla., then in the evenings performed live before appreciative audiences in the coziest of venues, in the smallest of communities. Like those 1949 Class D Independence Yankees (four future big-leaguers!) of the Kansas-Oklahoma-Missouri League, in Riverside Stadium, where 33 years later I would play football as a member of the opposition from Coffeyville, and later still would report on many a sporting event for The Coffeyville Journal.

While it was really the Korean War (and resulting player shortage) and the advent of televised Major League baseball that would drive the Class D and Class C leagues out of existence, for the first half of the 20th century, minor league baseball was woven into the fabric of American small towns. The papers covered the games and the players like they were favored local sons. The stories old-timers tell of bigtime ballplayers getting their start in tiny burgs across the country are true Americana; and are (or were, for those no longer with us) told in no less reverent tones than the stories of those who "once saw Seabiscuit race at Narragansett Park."

Where's Narragansett Park now? ... Mostly under concrete. ... And another Seabiscuit haunt, Bay Meadows? A recently removed pile of rubble, destined to become an office complex and business center, you know, when they get around to it. ... And yet another, Hollywood Park, seemingly doomed to a similar fate, and it is not because there's too much racing, but because the general public cares about racing too little.

And that's a very different problem.

So horse racing today is wondering whether less is more. Usually, it isn't.

With simulcasting and the ability to wager from home (for many horseplayers, though not for me in North Carolina) there's less reason to attend the races in person, except for special events. ... Of course, it used to be that racing was special. Back when many of the best horses ran on for season after season, building a fan following. And you didn't have to wait eight or 12 or 15 weeks for the next time your favorite horse would race.

So it isn't that there needs to be less racing; there needs to be better racing, and more racing by top horses, and better-marketed racing. Some say fewer races will make it easier to make those reduced dates seem special. Maybe, but I doubt it.

However, Churchill scored an undeniable hit with lights and Friday racing at night. Welcome to the 21st century.

To paraphrase another great Yankee, Yogi Berra, if the fans don't want to come out to the racetrack, you can't stop 'em.

Rather, somebody needs to convince 'em to get started coming out again.

And "Welcome to the new American horse racing -- now with fewer opportunities to watch!" just doesn't strike me like all that great a sales pitch to potential fans who already find our sport all too easily ignored.

Suffolk axes MassCap for 2009; whenever will I go?

Citing the ailing economy, Suffolk Downs has decided to forgo its marquee race in 2009, the Massachusetts Handicap, in favor of supporting the purse structure for the resident horsemen, trainers and horses at the track.

"It's a difficult decision because it means so much to the loyal racing fans of New England and to everyone at the track," said Richard Fields, Suffolk Downs' principal shareholder, in a press release to the racing media. "But our partnership does not think we can responsibly incur the expense of the MassCap when we are fighting to save jobs and maintain current purse levels for the horsemen who are here every day."

On the one hand, I commend Suffolk Downs for thinking first of its everyday trainers, owners and horses. Some places, track management is always pandering to the wealthiest owners and trying to attract the big-name horses to elevate the venue's status.

On the other hand, New England's avid racing fans deserve to see a showcase race every year, too. Even those of us who have a soft spot in our hearts for every $2,500 claimer want to see graded-stakes horses before our own eyes once in awhile.

Begun in 1935 -- when a hard-knocker named Top Row (by Peanuts) stole the show from Discovery (who nonetheless would win Horse of the Year over Triple Crown winner Omaha) -- the race was run every year through the track's initial closure in 1989. The Massachusetts Handicap long was one of the true classic races of the older-horse circuit.

Its list of early winners is astounding: Seabiscuit, Menow, Fighting Fox, Eight Thirty, War Relic and Market Wise won the event in consecutive years from 1937-42. Through the years other winners included champions Pavot and Stymie, To Market (who set the Suffolk 10f record in the race in 1952, 2:01 2/5), Promised Land, Crimson Satan, Droll Role and Riva Ridge.

Even as Suffolk was winding down toward its period of closure in the late 1980s, the race was one of considerable import. Island Sultan stunned in 1979 when John Henry came home a shocking 10th. The final five winners before the race's first hiatus were Bounding Basque (over Dr. Carter), Skip Trial (defeating Creme Fraiche), the under-appreciated Waquoit (besting Broad Brush), Lost Code (over Waquoit and Afleet) and Private Terms.

The race couldn't have bounced-back much bigger when it was finally reinstated in 1995, after the 1992, '93 and '94 Suffolk seasons (following a couple of years of closure) went off without a MassCap. Cigar won the first two renewals and Skip Away did his sire one better and took the next two, each in their back-to-back championship seasons.

But for the most recent eight years including 2009, the MassCap will have been canceled as often as it has been run. A couple of good horses have shown up when the race does go off -- Include, Macho Uno, Evening Attire, Funny Cide, Offlee Wild, Brass Hat and Commentator all have won or hit the board since 2000 -- but how consistent will the fields be in future years if Suffolk can't make the MassCap a standing commitment? Scrubbing the MassCap every other year or so interrupts any momentum the race might be building.

I certainly believe Suffolk Downs did whatever it could think of to find some way to fund the MassCap purse. But it isn't like money's floating in with the tide in Boston Harbor. Last Saturday's nine-race card had seven claiming races carrying identical $7,300 purses, a somewhat better claiming event with a $10,300 purse, and a $22,400 allowance as the feature race. The MassCap had a $500,000 purse last year; at those purses, Suffolk would basically have to cancel a week's worth of racing just to pull it off this year for a fraction of that purse.

That might even be worth doing if Suffolk's schedule wasn't already geared for efficiency. There's no racing on Sundays, just Monday through Wednesday weekday cards -- smart choices to draw account wagering because so many other venues are dark then -- plus Saturdays. The season starts on Kentucky Derby day and ends on Breeders' Cup Saturday.

If the schedule went even a week longer, I might suggest shutting down with the Breeders' Cup and blowing that last week's worth of purse money on a $300,000 MassCap, but the more I weigh the options, the more I realize the difficulty of Suffolk's position.

Boston's entire market is struggling. Suffolk sure couldn't find sponsorship from the threatening-to-go-belly-up Boston Globe. And Boston Business Journal reports that even TV viewership for the Red Sox is down 14 percent.

Suffolk management might have made the only choice it could for 2009 -- and in 2003, and in 2005 and 2006 -- but the track needs to find some way to make sure its signature event never has to be scratched. Personally, I'd rather see it be a $150,000 Grade 3 that goes off like clockwork every year than a sporadic $500,000 race.

After all, my son's senior year of college at Brandeis is 2010-11 and I wanted to take him to a MassCap before I run out of built-in excuses for trips to Boston.

Of course, he does seem destined for grad school. ...