Havin' a ball with VTA and NCTA at Colonial

This past week was a busy one, with two concerts attended in D.C. and two days of racing at Colonial Downs on the weekend.

Would somebody please pay me to lather-rise-repeat such weeks for the rest of my life? Especially the racetrack part?

On Saturday, at the invitation of Glenn Petty, I attended the Virginia Thoroughbred Association's owner/breeder recognition luncheon on the back side at Colonial Downs. I was privileged to meet several of Virginia's more active horse-industry players, and had a great conversation with John and Kim Griffin, who have owned a racehorse or two in the past (none in training at present), and live quite nearby Colonial. John is director of the Neuroscience Program at the College of William & Mary, while Kim combines her passion for horses and photography with splendid results.

During the race card, I hung in a luxury box with several of my fellow members of the North Carolina Thoroughbred Association. Colonial puts out a tremendous buffet spread, and one of the perks for being among the "group sales" parties in the boxes is a trip to the winner's circle for a photo after the race that is "featured" in recognition of your group.

Not entirely wanting to take part in my first winner's circle photo without actually winning something, I considered placing a $2 win bet on every horse in Race 3 (our featured race); there were only six going and I could just root for the longest shot in an effort to achieve some payback. On the other hand, I decided it isn't really a "bet" -- or maybe isn't really "winning" -- if you've set it up so that you can't lose. ... Granted, I was gonna lose $10 regardless on five bets that didn't come in, but I was guaranteed to win on at least one, and maybe, if it's with the right horse, pay back the losses and then some.

So I threw out a horse. And bet a five-horse box on a 10-cent super. And stood on the apron with the NCTA and my friends Rob and Shayla Simmons (Rob's a blog-reader and track-going pal of mine) as we watched 14/1 Jazema's Ginger -- the longest shot on the board, and the horse that I tossed -- come up the rail to win the whole thing by a half-length.

At least I have a better story behind that win photo than if I'd just bet every horse.

And, Colonial Turf Cup day was still fun (congrats, Paddy O'Prado), only momentarily threatened by a misguided trainer's attempt to saddle me for Race 4 before I could get back to the luxury box. He quickly realized his mistake when he determined I was far from race-fit.

On Sunday, I got to watch from the apron as a filly owned by online friends (and first time in-person friends) Lisa and Gordon Calhoun -- and trained by Sarah Warmack, who owns Hilltop Farm VA, where my horses are boarded and foaled -- give a better effort than was really expected from her. Prepare The Way (aka "Glory") is working her way back into condition after a troublesome first race a few months ago at Laurel Park.

On Sunday, sent off as the second-longest price on the board, she finished where bettors expected in the order of running -- fifth of six -- but gave a good effort under Tadious Simpson, an apprentice and son of former Jamaican champion jockey, Trevor Simpson. Tadious settled her fairly well, kept her out of trouble, and despite falling out to last on the turn, "Glory" didn't run out of gas on the rider in the final eighth as Sarah feared she might; in fact, she ran on to pass a horse and was gaining on fourth at the wire.

Let's hope for better next time, and I'll wager Tadious will have the mount again, if he wants it.

The Commonwealth Stud: Can Virginia follow European lead to restore its breeding business?

Virginia's thoroughbred breeding business is in sharp decline.

I've noticed. The Washington Post has noticed. Certainly Glenn Petty, executive director of the Virginia Thoroughbred Association, has noticed.

I have an idea for spurring the industry with a stallion stakes series, similar to Maryland Million Day or any number of other states' efforts to promote breeding in their state via premium restricted races. Petty has a different idea.

He thinks Virginia should follow the well-established lead of England and Ireland and establish a "national" stud.

Petty is of the mind that Virginia is so handicapped by Colonial Downs' relatively short meeting, lack of sufficient off-track betting locations, and better incentive programs in nearby states (namely West Virginia and Pennsylvania) that maintaining any significant private commercial breeding interest is impossible.

"Enter the government," Petty told me in an e-mail last August.

Petty said he has "developed a plan for a National Stud" that would couple a commercial stallion operation with "an educational component" at Virginia Tech University, which long has operated the Middleburg Agriculture and Research Center, first for cattle research, but rededicating the facility to equine study in 1992.

Virginia's "national stud" (or "commonwealth stud," perhaps more appropriately) would be "modeled after the national studs in England and Ireland," Petty said. That would suggest that the facility would maintain a respectable roster of stallions, provide boarding and foaling facilities for private mare-owners, and perhaps perform other services such as sales-prep or boarding horses on layup.

"There is no private funding for such an endeavor" due to the aforementioned issues facing Virginia, which limit the profitability of a large stallion operation, Petty said. "But people agree it could work over time if subsidized."

Petty explains that the state of Virginia receives 1.7 percent of every traditional wager on horse racing in the state, and 0.5 percent of each advance-deposit wager. Out of those funds, the Commonwealth of Virginia Racing Commission must operate its "shop," Petty says -- that's pay for its entire staff, licensing process, drug-testing, stewards and so forth. Then the VRC must return a "surplus" $800,000 to the Virginia General Fund.

"Surplus" is an interesting word the commonwealth's General Assembly has co-opted in this case. Truth be told, the government wants $800,000 from the VRC's budget before anything else is paid and regardless how much the VRC collects from the 1.7/0.5 percent shares on wagers.

"Actually, the (General Assembly) requires them to pay the $800,000 up front," said Petty about the VRC, "so they'd better get their budget right!"

Since wagering began in Virginia, Petty said, the industry has returned more than $7 million to the commonwealth's General Fund.

Trouble is, over the course of more than a decade, that really isn't a lot of money for running the entire commonwealth. Petty believes -- rightfully, I would add -- that the funds would be better-spent in the hands of the racing industry, to promote its own growth and development, generating tax revenues for the commonwealth through sales, higher property values and job creation.

"I've got kids in public school, so I'm a fan of the General Fund and the school buses it buys and the roads it paves," Petty wrote. "But imagine what the $7 million could have done if applied to programs like the one you suggest or to a Virginia National Stud?"

Indeed, the $800,000 the Virginia General Assembly siphons-off from wagering each year is a drop in the state's budget bucket, but would more than fully fund the stallion stakes series I recommended or could greatly subsidize Petty's plan for a commonwealth-run stud.

Petty says that support for his ideas has been voiced.

"Everybody sees the logic of my request and the merit of the projects this money could support," he says.

But the roadblocks to reclaiming those funds for industry use have proven impossible, thus far, to clear.

"Nobody is willing to advocate giving this money back," Petty said.

"I have asked the General Assembly for years to give us back all or some of this money. I spent all last summer visiting members in their homes and I have had two high-level meetings with the governor's office about this, plus one with the secretary of commerce and trade (he oversees the VRC) and one with the secretary of agriculture.

"Nothing. Zip."

I just hope Virginia's General Assembly is pleased with its work when those two words are all that's left of the commonwealth's thoroughbred breeding business.

Virginia's breeding business: Chickens and goose eggs

Virginia might be for lovers, but these days it's hardly for thoroughbred breeders.

That sad state of affairs -- particularly appalling to those who appreciate the Old Dominion's equine history -- is readily discernible in the numbers. I've harped on it before, but it bears at least summarizing again: Since 1991, the oldest records available online from The Jockey Club, Virginia's stallion numbers have declined from 154 resident sires serving 837 mares to a mere 41 stallions covering 123 mares in 2008.

In 1991, Virginia's number of registered thoroughbred foals totaled 747. By 1997, the number of foals registered in Virginia had plummeted to 517, and a decade later had fallen another 22 percent to 401.

It's abundantly clear where the business has gone; it's close by in neighboring states. From 1997 to 2007, West Virginia's foal crop ballooned 237 percent, from a paltry 194 registered foals to 654. Pennsylvania's crop swelled by 38.5 percent, from a solid 898 all the way to 1,244. (In the same period, Maryland, which is in the process of fouling up its own breeding and racing industry, has slipped 32 percent, from 1,186 foals to 837.)

I've recommended trying to spur a Virginia recovery by establishing a slate of stakes events -- a Virginia Stallion Champions Day, as it were -- open only to Virginia-sired horses, regardless of their state of foaling.

My post was in response to a post by Glenn Petty, executive director of the Virginia Thoroughbred Association, on the VTA's blog. Petty mused that perhaps it's time to abolish the Grand Slam of Grass and direct the money that Jeff Jacobs, owner of Colonial Downs, has been spending on that four-race turf series for 3-year-olds on a major turf stakes race for older horses. Petty responded at length to my post right here at the Fugue, and also wrote to me at even greater length via e-mail, sharing not only his personal thoughts but considerable background information and insights on the state of breeding and racing in Virginia.

Petty says the problem has become a chicken-and-egg dilemma: How can Virginia rebuild its stallion industry with such a greatly diminished broodmare band; yet with such a short meeting at Colonial each summer and a comparatively small annual Breeders' Fund of $1 million, how can the incentives for stallion owners be increased without depleting the kitty that rewards the mare owners?

"If you talk to folks like Debbie Easter, Larry Johnson or Donna Hayes who have recently stood stallions in VA, they will tell you there isn't a sufficient mare population to support Virginia stallions. That's the chicken," Petty writes.

"The egg is that our Breeders' Fund is so small and our race meet so short, we can't create enough financial incentives to motivate breeders to breed here or to support local stallions. If we put 50 percent of the Breeders' Fund into stallion awards and a program like the one you advocate, more folks would be motivated to stand a stallion. But how will they fill their books with a declining population of mares, a third of which are owned by commercial breeders looking to KY for big-name stallions?

"That would leave $500,000 for Breeders' Awards to motivate the folks who own the mares. Heck, if we put the whole $1 million in a stallion program, I don't know if it would move the ball."

The good news is, the suggestion I made wouldn't require an extra nickel from the $1 million Breeders' Awards fund.

And to start the ball rolling on rebuilding Virginia's stallion and breeding industry, the key isn't to find some gimmick that moves the ball the whole length of the field in one play. It's to stop the ball's inexorable tumble downhill long enough that we can even start moving it back in a positive direction.

The stallion series idea I floated was spurred by Petty's call for Jacobs to funnel $200,000 to $250,000 away from the Grand Slam of Grass and into the Kitten's Joy Stakes, an open race for older horses, making that race a $250,000 to $300,000 purse. (And, I would presume, likely earning it at least Grade 3 status eventually.)

I say that if Jacobs and Colonial Downs drop the Grand Slam and are willing to toss up to a quarter-million bucks at some other project, it's money better-spent on Virginia horses -- specifically, Virginia-sired horses. Plus, this season, a day's race-card at Colonial carried at least a total purse of $125,000 to $150,000. Put one day's purse money with the hypothetical extra quarter-million from the defunct Grand Slam and you have $400,000 in purse money for an eight-race, all-stakes Virginia Stallion Champions Day without ever touching the $1 million Breeders' Fund.

But what of the mare situation?

Petty is right (how could he miss it?) that the numbers are slim and still on a diet; 401 registered foals of 2007 and reportedly around 350 VA foalings in 2008. And he's most likely correct that at least third of those mares are owned by "commercial" interests who are looking to Kentucky instead of Virginia regardless what kind of quality regional sires the Old Dominion might boast. After all, Edward P. Evans alone keeps a reported 90 mares at his sprawling Spring Hill Farm near Casanova, Va., and owns an interest in several KY-based stallions.

If I'm a Virginia stallion owner -- and I am, just one -- Mr. Evans won't be using my horse's services. But that's O.K.; I don't really need for him to.

With around 123 mares being covered in Virginia in 2008 but around 350 foaling there, some roundabout math suggests that around 225 mares are being covered outside Virginia and are returning home to foal. "Ned" Evans and those with the money to go wherever they wish are probably accounting for about half of those "nomadic" mares.

Job 1 for Virginia is to take back the other half.

I know it doesn't sound like much. It isn't, if you're trying to stand four or five stallions, advertising them heavily, carrying any significant staff on the property and needing to pull in 12 to 20 (or more) mares per stud just to stay in business. But there's pretty much nobody like that in Virginia anymore.

There are some beautiful properties and some dedicated horsemen and horsewomen in Virginia; people working very hard every day to keep the Old Dominion's equine business alive -- Mortgage Hall Farm (where racehorses also are broken and trained), Mid-Atlantic Stallion Station at Ravenwood Plantation (where there are also Arabians and Percherons), Moon Star Farm near Emporia, Griffinsburg Equine (which also runs a transport service), and Hilltop Farm VA, where my stallion and mares reside, among others. But few are trying to make it by standing thoroughbred racing stallions alone.

That's bad news in a way. But it can also be taken on the bright side. It won't require much positive change to be noticed and appreciated, and probably to raise the quality of in-state stallions, which has predictably declined with the mare population.

The average Virginia stallion's book in 2008 was just 2.9 mares. In 1991, when there were 837 mares covered in Virginia, the job was done by 154 stallions -- still an average book of only 5.4 per sire. With just 40 or 50 stallions still in the state, simply reclaiming half of Virginia's small, "nomadic" mare population (around 100 to 125 more VA-covered mares annually) could increase the average Virginia stallion's book to 4.9 or 5.9 mares.

Those figures aren't the dozen or more mares that a farm would like to see as the least any of its stallions serve. But essentially doubling the market almost overnight could hardly be a negative.

Petty noted in an e-mail to me that Virginia-bred and Virginia-sired foals share most of the same racing incentives at Colonial Downs. I'm not sure whether he meant that as a plus, but it's actually a drawback -- if you own a stallion. It allows Virginia mare owners to breed anywhere so long as they foal at home and it provides no real race-earnings incentive either for VA-based mares to stay at home nor for outside mares to use a Virginia stallion and retreat to their own state to foal. Yes, a VA-sired West Virginia-bred can run in a VA-restricted stakes race at Colonial, but so can one of Ned Evans' uber-bluebloods, if he decides to aim so "low."

This year's mixed-gender Jamestown Stakes for 2-year-old VA-breds at Colonial saw as its top three finishers horses sired in Kentucky (first and third) and West Virginia. The 2008 running was a sweep by KY-sired fillies, by Mr. Greeley (presently $75,000 fee), Marquetry and Smoke Glacken. In the inaugural Jamestown of 2007, the winner was by Posse ($20K for 2009 in Kentucky) while the place- and show-horses were by Housebuster (now deceased) and Black Tie Affair (just pensioned) in their Old Dominion swan song seasons of 2004, before relocating to West Virginia.

Petty says the problem is that the competition is just too well-financed.

"Simply put, people make much more money breeding horses in MD, WV or PA than they can make in VA. That's why the mare, stallion and foal numbers have shrunk so dramatically," Petty writes. "Horse racing and breeding used to be a sport, now it's a business, and no sensible business-minded person would participate in a $1 million program when there are two $4 million programs right next door."

Again, Petty's absolutely right -- from a major stud farm standpoint. There's just not enough economic incentive right now to stand a whole slate of stallions on a big stud farm in Virginia. And with a short season at Colonial and a comparatively small Breeders' Fund (which would be augmented considerably if the legislature ever allowed slots in Northern Virginia) there's not a lot that can be done right away for big-ticket businesses and breeders.

So if Virginia's breeding business is ever again going to see the light of day and be even moderately viable -- let's say, half a shadow of what it once was, rather than stuck in total darkness -- then the state will have to start small.

I know the breeder of one of those Kentucky-sired Jamestown Stakes-placed fillies. She owns a smaller farm and I believe she'd like to stay in Virginia more often with her mares, were the stallion options and racing incentives even a little bit more attractive.

Another small Virginia farm with which I'm familiar might have sent two mares to our stallion this year, but was lured away to Kentucky by recession-provoked discounts. Her pair returned with only one of the mares in foal, and toting a stack of transport and vet bills that by themselves would've paid a decent Virginia stallion's stud fee several seasons over. ... A serious financial setback that ranks high among the perils of shipping to Kentucky for a small Virginia breeder, many of whom have decided they have almost no other choice if they want to raise a viable racehorse on their farm at all.

Virginia needs to give these breeders, the mom and pop farms that make up roughly half of the "nomadic" mare population, something for their babies to run at: A Virginia Stallion Champions Day. I think many of them would keep their mares at home, most of the time. And because West Virginia statebred rules are perhaps the most generous in America, I think you might attract a few of that state's mares, too, from owners who realize they can take a shot at the new slate of Virginia stakes races without losing any of their rights to race among restricted company at Charles Town and Mountaineer.

And while I appreciate the Grand Slam of Grass, if Jeff Jacobs decided to take Petty's thought-provoking advice and spike that series (and act generously toward the state's stallion owners), there might be money to start a Virginia Stallion Champions Day without raiding the Breeders' Fund at all.

Coming soon: Glenn Petty has an idea for improving Virginia's stallion offerings, too, and nobody can say he's thinking small.

Glenn & Glenn, Part 1: Or, 'How Take the Points winning the Secretariat boosts Grand Slam of Grass'

It seems that Glenn Petty and myself have more things in common than just knowing the right way to spell our first names.

Petty, executive director of the Virginia Thoroughbred Association, was the man who posted on the VTA's blog that perhaps it's time to end the Grand Slam of Grass. He has a point that nobody seems all that interested in the series -- particularly trainers, and they're the ones who would need to care about it the most. And Petty wrote that he'd like to see the money that has been devoted to the Slam by Colonial Downs owner Jeff Jacobs instead be passed along to a race for older horses, such as the track's Kitten's Joy Stakes.

I took issue on both counts. Through the power of the Interwebs, Mr. Petty subsequently read my thoughts, then posted responses for all to see right here on Fugue for Tinhorns. And he wrote to me at even greater length privately.

"In short," Mr. Petty told me, "I was running my mouth for the sake of debate. ... So mission accomplished on that one."

And that's the other something we have in common, the desire at least to have a good discussion or debate on subjects important to horse racing. Not that any of the comments I post here are anything other than what I really believe or happen to be thinking at the time. But those thoughts could be subject to change considering I'm not privy to every piece of information when I form an initial opinion -- like, what Jeff Jacobs himself might be thinking, or what discussions are carried on behind closed doors at the VTA.

No, I'm not changing my mind about whether the Grand Slam of Grass is under-appreciated, nor about how the VTA (and the Virginia Horseman's Benevolent and Protective Association and other interested parties) need to take steps toward reviving the Old Dominion's breeding business. But it was very interesting to read Mr. Petty's responses and to understand the thought processes of himself and others, a thought process he also suggested I should feel free to share with readers here.

"Yes, a very good horse like English Channel or Kitten's Joy has a shot at the Slam, but my opinion was shaped by conversations or comments from trainers who have actually won one or both of the races (the Colonial Turf Cup-G2 and the Virginia Derby-G2)," Mr. Petty wrote to me privately. "They don't think the schedule works and most aren't looking to run a 3-year-old 12 furlongs against the best turf horses in the world (in the Breeders' Cup Turf-G1, the series' final leg)."

But crushing the training community's aversion to the series' early schedule is (or should be) Take the Points' win on Saturday in the Secretariat S.-G1 at Arlington Park. The gray colt was fourth in the Colonial Turf Cup and third in the Virginia Derby -- both won by Battle of Hastings, each time narrowly over Straight Story.

Battle of Hastings' connections, including trainer Jeff Mullins, apparently decided that 21 days just wasn't enough turnaround time for their Cal-based gelding to make the Secretariat; that the race came up "probably too soon." They waved away the chance their horse had earned at the Grand Slam's reward ($5 million in total purse winnings and bonus cash) like a calorie-conscious diner shooing a waiter who is trying to sell him on dessert. And then a horse that theirs beat twice in a row heads to Chicago in their stead, on the same schedule, and wins the Grade 1 race on which they took a pass.

Regrets, I wonder?

As for the aversion to running a 3-year-old against older horses in the Breeders' Cup Turf, I understand that isn't the simplest of tasks. Still, as I noted prior, nearly three in 10 winners of the B.C. Turf have come from the 3-year-old ranks so -- historically speaking, anyway -- had Battle of Hastings run and won in the Secretariat, Mullins and Co. would've positioned themselves for a roughly 30 percent chance of cashing that Grand Slam bonus.

Of course, it's possible that the Battle of Hastings camp doesn't believe their horse can even get the 12 furlongs of the B.C. Turf, considering the horse is sired by devout sprinter Royal Applause.

But stranger things have happened in horse racing. And taking the first two legs of a four-race bonus series then not even trying in the third (provided the horse is healthy) either because you don't really like the three-week window between races or you doubt the horse's worth in the fourth is defeatism.

Drawing wisdom from the world of golf, 100 percent of putts that are left short will never go in the hole.

Coming soon: Follow-up on Virginia's breeding industry from Glenn Petty's perspective from within and mine from, more or less, without.

Hey, VTA, no love for the Slam? Then how about a little love (and money) for VA-sired horses?

With even the Virginia Thoroughbred Association calling for its demise, I have to wonder if I'm the only person alive who appreciates the concept of the Grand Slam of Grass.

Battle of Hastings -- this year's winner, albeit hard-fought, of both the Colonial Turf Cup-G2 and Virginia Derby-G2 -- positioned himself to be the first-ever horse to claim the Grand Slam, a four-race series sponsored by Jacobs Investments (Jeffrey Jacobs owns Colonial Downs) that has the Grade 1 Secretariat Stakes at Arlington Park as its third leg and the Breeders' Cup Turf-G1 as the final base in the equine circuit clout. But Battle of Hastings won't be running this weekend in the Secretariat, apparently because the race is too close on the calendar to the horse's last effort 21 days ago in the Virginia Derby.

So, per the VTA blog, it's "Time to abandon the Grand Slam of Grass."

"Since 2004, when Colonial Downs owner Jeff Jacobs first offered the $5 million bonus (purse winnings included), no horse has come close to winning the four races that make up the Grand Slam," the blog states. "Colonial Downs management continues to cling to the Grand Slam of Grass bonus ignoring the obvious fact that owners and trainers aren’t embracing it for some pretty obvious reasons. The schedule is tough, and winning the Breeders Cup Turf against the best older horses from the U.S., Canada and Europe with a three-year-old is a tall order most won’t even consider pursuing. History has a nasty habit of repeating itself."

The VTA apparently would prefer to see the money Jacobs has spent funding big purses for the Turf Cup and Derby, the insurance premium that would actually pay the bonus of the Grand Slam, and the "considerable (advertising) dollars" spent airing the first two races on national television be applied toward "funding a turf stake for older horses so former Turf Cup and Virginia Derby horses could return to Colonial Downs." Those funds could bump the purse of the Kittens Joy Stakes to $250,000 or $300,000, the VTA writes.

So I oppose the VTA here on two counts.

First -- and again, I might be the only guy -- I think the Grand Slam of Grass is a great idea, though obviously one that has never really found traction.

The VTA and probably others, including the connections of top 3-year-olds, are apparently convinced the Grand Slam is unattainable. It isn't, and there is plenty of evidence to show that a truly great and deserving horse could win it. And, with $5 million total on the line, only a great horse should be good enough to take all four legs.

But let's examine what's so darned difficult about the Grand Slam of Grass.

Exactly how rigorous is the schedule, really? The Colonial Turf Cup-G2 in June, the Virginia Derby-G2 in mid-July, the Secretariat S.-G1 in early August. ... Then the Breeders' Cup Turf in late October or early November.

So the first three races fall in three different months; two of them at the same track. There's a 28-day span between the Turf Cup and the Virginia Derby, and another 21 days before the horse has to be fit again to try the Secretariat in Chicago. If a graded-stakes horse's conditioner can't figure out how to get a horse tight and right for three races in 50 days, perhaps he should call someone who trains a bunch of $5,000 platers for a little advice. Or anybody who's ever had a colt on the Triple Crown trail, which demands three races in 36 days.

So the Grand Slam of Grass races simply are not too close together. And even if they are, a one-week alteration in Colonial's schedule would add seven days between the Virginia Derby and the Secretariat, and if four weeks isn't enough, then either your horse or your trainer -- or both -- just aren't good enough anyway.

As for the difficulty of a 3-year-old winning the Breeders' Cup Turf at a mile and a half among older horses, such a win historically is improbable, but far from impossible.

In fact, seven of the 25 B.C. Turf winners have been 3-year-olds; that's 28 percent or nearly three in 10. Two of the first three winners of the race (Lashkari 1984 and Manila 1986) were younger horses facing older. So were two of the last three, including Conduit's stakes record in 2008 and Red Rocks' victory in 2006.

The remaining 3-year-olds to win the Breeders' Cup Turf were Prized in 1989, Tikkanen in 1991 and High Chaparral when he won his first of two at age 3 in 2002 (he dead-heated with Johar in 2003).

And other 3-year-olds have come close. Lately, Shamdinan was second to 5-year-old English Channel in 2007 and Kitten's Joy was runner-up to Better Talk Now in 2004, meaning that in four of the last five years, a 3-year-old has either run first or second in the Breeders' Cup Turf.

Kitten's Joy might be the best possible evidence that the Grand Slam is attainable. He didn't have a Colonial Turf Cup to try, but would have been among the favorites if he had. Then he won the Virginia Derby and the Secretariat before finishing second in what could have been his shot at the big bonus, the B.C. Turf, had his connections been targeting such a series from the get-go.

And the more we retire accomplished 3- and certainly 4-year-olds to stud, the more likely it becomes that a younger horse will win such a big race at the end of his 3-year-old season -- even on turf, even at a distance.

But if Jacobs and Colonial did drop the notion -- and the costs -- of the Grand Slam of Grass, funneling all those funds into only one other race would be a greater folly. Colonial Downs would benefit little from another Grade 3 or even Grade 2 race. And for the good of Virginia horse racing -- which is what the VTA is supposed to be all about -- a lower-graded race for out-of-state-breds certainly isn't the worthiest goal.

If Jacobs and Colonial were to drop the Grand Slam of Grass, the $200,000 to $250,000 that the VTA suggests should be added to the Kitten's Joy purse in an effort to make that one race a featured event on a third "big" Colonial date (to go along with Turf Cup Day and VA Derby Day) would be much better utilized in establishing a Virginia Stallion Series to save the state's breeding industry.

I've detailed repeatedly the sickening decline of Virginia's thoroughbred breeding business. It's the VTA that should be at the forefront of saving that industry and the jobs of those who work in it, and whatever the organization has tried for the past 15 years or so, hasn't worked. Once one of the nation's proudest and most active breeding states (where Secretariat himself was foaled in 1970), Virginia has declined from 154 resident stallions serving 837 mares in 1991 to just 41 stallions serving 123 mares in 2008.

"Epic fail," as my kids would say.

The best way to turn around Virginia's breeding industry -- and to add another big-ticket day of racing to Colonial Downs' annual schedule -- would be the establishment of a Virginia Stallion Champions Day. Like similar events in other states, I envision a full card of stakes races open only to Virginia-sired horses, regardless where they're foaled. (By contrast, this year's first two VA-bred stakes races drew 22 entries, 17 of which were sired outside the state, albeit born there, and none of which were sired by a horse still standing in Virginia.)

Taking a fairly modest estimate of a daily Colonial Downs total purse -- say, $125,000 to $150,000 -- and adding in the $250,000 the VTA advocates tossing wholesale at the Kitten's Joy Stakes (typically dominated by non-VA-breds) would create a $375K to $400K basic purse structure for such a "Champions Day." That's potentially eight $50,000 races for VA-sired horses, and that's a real incentive to use a Virginia-based stallion. With a major sponsorship, added funds from nominations and other minor sources, or an increase in available monies should the VTA ever succeed in its worthwhile goal of getting OTBs situated in Northern Virginia, that purse structure and the number of races on the card could grow.

The VTA is proud of its "100 percent VA-bred bonus program" at Colonial, wherein owners of Virginia-breds that win among open company get double the purse payout. That's great if you campaign a VA-bred; not nearly so beneficial over the long haul if you're the breeder who sold the horse to make a living. And it's no incentive whatsoever for a mare owner to use a Virginia stallion so long as said mare returns to the Old Dominion to foal, as a couple-hundred do each year.

It's far past time for the VTA to start supporting its staggering stallion industry. So if the VTA is going to advocate abandoning the Grand Slam of Grass, then it certainly shouldn't be touting a massive purse addition for the Kitten's Joy, a race that had exactly zero Virginia-breds entered this year.

The VTA instead should be pushing for that money to directly support Virginia farms, horses and jobs.

'Prospects' do not a racehorse or broodmare make

I have reached the conclusion that perhaps the most misused term in the thoroughbred business is the word "prospect."

Either the word is getting tossed out like candy from a parade float or it's getting dropped from conversation entirely at times when its use would actually be appropriate or necessary. Sometimes I might even be guilty myself.

The notion comes to me upon reading the Virginia Thoroughbred Association's blog this morning. The post in question tells the story of a Virginia-owned filly -- Funny Moon -- who became a Grade 1 winner over the weekend by taking the Coaching Club American Oaks at Belmont Park.

My sincere congratulations go out to the winning connections, who I hope don't take this post as a criticism of their filly; it isn't.

But the retelling of her story -- from yearling purchase to G1 winner -- also offers a forecast of her second career as breeding stock, a projection that demands the use of the aforementioned word "prospect."

VTA Blog writes: "Easter purchased two fillies for McNeely at the 2007 Saratoga yearling sale. Funny Moon, by Malibu Moon out of Fun Crowd by Easy Goer, cost $175,000, and Saturday she became a first class broodmare while repaying her purchase price with the $180,000 winner’s share of the C.C.A. Oaks’ purse."

At the risk of sounding a bit like Mr. Rogers, can you tell, kids, where the word "prospect" is missing in the preceding passage? ... I think you can.

It's possible that the VTA Blog accidentally left out the word. I do it over here sometimes, and have to go back later and correct myself. I type around 100 words a minute and sometimes my fingers still can't keep up with my thinking. Errors and omissions do occur. So I apologize if the intent of the blogger was to write something a bit less definitive about the mare's future as a producer.

But it's worth noting that winning a Grade 1 race does not make a filly a "first-class broodmare." It makes her a "first-class broodmare prospect."

Tossing in the word "commercial" wouldn't hurt, either.

Certainly Funny Moon elevated her stock considerably with the Grade 1 win.

(And every 3-year-old filly that wins a G1 this year should thank their lucky stars Rachel Alexandra has aimed her guns at the boys a couple of times instead. ... I'm just sayin'.)

If I were the owners if this filly, I'd almost certainly plan on selling her first couple of foals. She's by a $40,000 sire with a strong reputation, and her dam, though unraced, has produced at least two other blacktype foals, including multipe-stakes winner Throng (Silver Deputy) and the Aqueduct stakes-placed filly Home Crowd (Came Home).

The prices should be high for the first two or three babies from Funny Moon (provided they aren't terribly crooked), especially if the connections have selected wisely from the available stallion offerings.

But once Funny Moon's foals start running, all bets are off.

Could be the first few foals run very well, and the racing expectations and resulting prices for Funny Moon's offspring just keep rising. Or, she could be like Winning Colors (one of only three fillies to win the Kentucky Derby) or Hall of Famer Bayakoa or any number of other mares who never quite (or at all) produce foals that can run like their dams ran.

Then again, there are other mares that produce tremendous race winners despite modest pedigree or personal race performance. But that doesn't make every thoroughbred with ovaries a "broodmare prospect," at least, not for racing purposes.

Yet day after day, I see ads touting off-track mares -- or, worse, unraced, incorrect, or unsound mares, often from demonstrably untalented families -- as "broodmare prospects." Maybe the owner is thinking of any selling point he can in hopes of finding the mare a new home.

But many of these mares -- while they might make wonderful companion horses, trail-riders, or even mounts for more athletic pursuits like eventing -- shouldn't have the words "broodmare prospect" anywhere in the advertisement unless prefaced with the word "marginal."

Be certain of this: I'm not a pedigree snob. I'm not one to dismiss a mare merely because she lacks an obvious "page," or significant individual racing history.

My own small broodmare band is composed of two mares that earned no blacktype of their own and aren't from stellar pedigree; the family of one is downright obscure. But I pride myself (or hope to prove myself at least) on trying to find diamonds in the rough, inexpensive mares and racing prospects who are being ignored because so many buyers are swayed by fashionable names and lines, or who get starry-eyed and loose with the wallet upon seeing blacktype anywhere on a page without due consideration to what that blacktype means and how much it really should be credited or discounted in the evaluation of the particular mare or foal that's for sale.

In any event, until a given skill or career aptitude is proved, a horse is merely a "prospect." You can only hope that yearling or 2-year-old in training you bought is going to pan out as a racehorse. You might spend $3,200 on a yearling and watch him win the Breeders' Cup Mile (Singletary) or $16-odd million and see the horse do much of nothing at the racetrack (The Green Monkey).

(Ask yourself what it says about our breeding business that the former is standing for $2,500 in California while the latter stands for an advertised $5,000 in Florida, billed as a "world record setter" -- they forget "for biggest auction bust" -- and "the one they all wanted.")

Similarly, winning a Grade 1 race absolutely sets up Funny Moon as a mare whose foals will likely be big-sellers in a few years, especially since (we hope) the general economy will be back on the rise.

But we won't know whether she'll qualify as a "first-rate broodmare" until she's 10 or 12 years old; certainly not at 3, a day or two after her first blacktype win.

A Colonial question answered, indirectly

I'm not sure whether the questions I posed in my last blog post of May were the spur for a new post over at the Virginia Thoroughbred Association blog: Coulda, Woulda Shoulda, The Outside Turf Course. But it seems to answer my questions, to some degree at least, about why the turf course is beautiful, wide, but various-distance-limited at Colonial Downs.

It seems that when the track was being constructed, there were proponents of an outer turf course, with the dirt track on the inside. For various reasons -- "nobody here does it that way" being the underlying sentiment -- the idea was spiked.

"GP," I presume VTA Executive Director Glenn Petty, who posted the blog entry, apparently was discussing the matter with Gil Short (Colonial GM upon its opening) and trainer Ferris Allen on Saturday. They considered how the idea was floated of a course that would host a full card of grass races, which was "eyebrow raising" at the time (around 20 years ago, I guess), and yet the card taking place as the trio watched last weekend was just that -- 12 races, all on the lawn.

The outside track idea was panned in part by Allen, who told Maryland Jockey Club Vice President of Racing Lenny Hale to consider how many turf races Colonial really expected to run in a day: "Three, maybe four?" (Remember, the Maryland Jockey Club was deeply involved in helping launch and manage Colonial for many years.)

Short and Arnold Stansley were harness-trackers and they didn't want the trotters and pacers who run at Colonial in the fall to be 180 feet from the track apron and its spectators. ... I can't really argue with them on it, other than that I don't watch the harness races much, myself. ... But eventually that argument wasn't the killer.

Ultimately, planners couldn't find a suitable way to get the dirt-track horses across the turf course from the saddling enclosure. Seriously.

A tunnel was one idea, but Stansley apparently had "two million reasons" why he didn't want to do that. Each, I presume, was green and had George Washington's picture on it.

The alternate idea was simply to have a dirt crossover. After all, the famed "downhill" course at Santa Anita crosses the dirt track. And numerous racecourses in Britain and elsewhere in Europe have such crossovers.

"Some Virginia and Maryland horsemen" were not interested in a dirt crossover, the post states, despite the fact that they're common in other parts of the world.

And so Colonial ended up with a more traditional (for the U.S.) inner turf course, wide and wonderful in its beauty and resilience, and sadly quite limited in the variety of race-distances it can offer up for the horses.

There's a lot more to read on the subject over at the VTA Blog; I only summarized the post to sort of conclude the topic I started in May. The story over there includes more specifics and concludes with the retelling of a visit to Ireland and a unique course configuration there that certainly didn't scare off the wealthy connections.

Made for very entertaining and informative reading on a Tuesday night. Thanks, Mr. Petty, I presume.

Charitable Man bears Virginia's banner in Belmont, belies state's breeding weakness

Horsepeople in the Old Dominion were thrilled this winter and early spring when a Virginia-bred seemed a serious threat to become the fifth horse born in the state to win the Kentucky Derby.

That horse was Florida Derby-winner Quality Road, but his Derby trail ended with a nagging quarter crack. Commendably, his connections, including breeder and owner Edward P. Evans, decided they were willing to wait on a good horse, and he's being slowly brought back around to racing form for a summer campaign.

Virginia enthusiasts are excited, then, that another VA-bred has stepped in at the end of the Triple Crown Trail: Charitable Man. Coming in off a win in the track's Peter Pan S.-G2, he has a real shot to upset Mine That Bird this afternoon in the Belmont Stakes.

But, both he and Quality Road are evidence of just how far Virginia's breeding game has slumped.

While Charitable Man is owned and campaigned by Mr. and Mrs. William K. Warren, he, too, was born on Evans' expansive Spring Hill Farm near Casanova, Va. More and more, it seems, if you see a high-class Virginia-bred, it really ought to carry the "state tag" (EV), instead: Evans-bred.

This is not a knock on Mr. Evans. In fact, Virginia horse racing should be thanking God for "Ned" Evans. If it weren't for the love of his farm and his willingness to continue foaling mares there in spite of the presumed financial impracticality of the arrangement, Virginia thoroughbred breeding would have almost nothing. Evans keeps an estimated 90 mares at Spring Hill; the whole state of Virginia only foaled around 350 thoroughbreds in 2008.

Evans is the son of the late Thomas Mellon Evans, who owned Buckland Farm and was a noted horseman, breeding champion Pleasant Colony among many others. "Ned" Evans graduated with a degree in economics from Yale and an MBA from Havard, which pretty much punches a man's ticket in the business world. His chosen field was publishing, and while he maintains a residence in New York, as well, the 3,000-acre farm he bought many years ago in Virginia apparently still has a strong tug on his heartstrings.

That's apparent because Evans -- who is a member of the Jockey Club, owns an interest in numerous Kentucky stallions and could probably afford to buy a different farm or to board his mares anywhere -- keeps bringing them home to Spring Hill to live and to foal.

That likely isn't the most economical way to run a horse business, though I know others who take a stab at it, even smaller breeders. But ideally -- no, not ideally, rather necessarily -- if Virginia is going to save its thoroughbred breeding business, it needs a thriving, or at least surviving, stallion colony to do it.

Talk in Virginia Thoroughbred Association circles swirls around getting more off-track betting locations, particularly in Northern Virginia, which is a completely unserved population of around 3.5 million. Indeed, that is a big Step 1 to improving the lot of racing at Colonial Downs, and boosting the awards paid to breeders of winning foals; bonuses relied upon for ongoing income by those who make their living by selling a horse into racing hands. And the VTA makes a compelling case for the OTB expansion, including this pointed letter to Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine.

But unless the OTB revenues are also funneled into a stallion-specific bonus program -- specifically a VA-sired stakes program at Colonial Downs -- there will still be no incentive to choose a Virginia-based stallion. Breeders will continue to be much better off shipping out of state to quality stallions and returning to foal in Virginia, as Mr. Evans has chosen.

The alarming statistics showing the demise of Virginia's stallion ranks just keep piling up.

As I've already reported, of the 22 horses entered in this weekend's pair of VA-bred stakes races at Colonial Downs, 17 were sired outside Virginia and none of them -- though they're just 3- and 4-year-olds -- were sired by a stallion still standing in Virginia.

I've noted that Virginia's stallion and foaling businesses have plummeted just within the past 20 years. The number of Virginia stallions in service has dropped from 154 studs serving 837 mares in 1991, to 41 stallions serving just 123 Virginia mares in 2008. I have predicted that the numbers will be worse again in 2009.

On opening night at Colonial (scratch-filled, with the turf races moved to the muddy dirt track), there were but 18 VA-breds entered out of 83 horses in eight races. Of those 18, just one was sired by a stallion still alive and known to be standing in Virginia: If Its Meant To Be, by One Tuff Oop. Four others were sired by a quartet of stallions that once were at Virginia Tech University's MARE Center, but that facility was giving away many of its mares earlier this year and shows little evidence that its stallions, such as the capable Fred Astaire, are still in service. The others sired in Virginia, not just born there, were by horses now moved to other states (such as the accomplished runner and sire Black Tie Affair, now in West Virginia) or that have since died.

The signs of Virginia's breeding demise are almost entirely negative, and undeniable.

Virginia thoroughbred farms have produced the third-largest number of Triple Crown race-winners in history. Charitable Man could add to that number today.

But, almost by himself, Ned Evans can't keep Virginia-breds on the map forever.

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.