Beating this whip issue to death

While it appears talks have stalled on whether I'll be cracked a few times with the new, "cushioned" racing whip, perhaps I should rethink my choice of jockeys at the front of the line to administer the beating. Chantal Sutherland just might show up with the stiff old whip.

Besides, I've been beaten to the lash by an Australian bloke who calls himself "The Horse Whisperer," who took 19 strokes from the new cushioned whip -- one more than new Aussie rules permit -- and he said the whip, through his jeans anyway, "does not hurt at all."

Sutherland was fined $200 and her mount, Sans Sousi, was stripped of the $40,080 winner's share on Sept. 4 at Woodbine when the jockey showed for the post parade with the wrong (old) whip. Told by another rider that she had the wrong whip, Sutherland dropped hers off and picked up another at the gate, where a few pieces of extra equipment are kept in the event of a last-minute need before the race.

Unfortunately, the track's whip was also was of the banned variety.

The incident -- which Sutherland doesn't contest and for which she shoulders full blame -- plus the stunt from Down Under give us pause to consider the new whipping rules in Canada and in Australia, where jockeys recently went on strike in protest.

Both jurisdictions not only mandated the "kinder" whip -- which replaces a hard leather crop and its stinging leather tassel on the end with a stick wrapped in foam to better avoid hurting the horse -- they also attempt to limit the number of times a rider strikes his horse in the closing stages of the race.

For starters, if jurisdictions are going to mandate the cushioned whip and fine or otherwise penalize riders who forget and use the old crop, then Woodbine should've had an appropriate whip at the gate to hand over to Sutherland on Sept. 4 when she arrived to ride "whipless," having ditched her own crop on the way to the gate. Stewards fined Sutherland for forgetting about the new rule, but the track itself didn't think to update its own equipment cache. (And Sutherland said she "was going to get days" if she rode without a whip at all, hence her decision to use the track's whip even though it was a banned variety.)

And while the only way to really enforce competition rules -- particularly those involving doping -- is to disqualify a horse that wins outside the rules and strip its connections of the purse, leaving zero reward for cheating, it's hard to believe that Sans Sousi won the race because Sutherland (who went light on the stick in the stretch) used the wrong whip. So a $40,080 penalty is no slap on the wrist, it's more like breaking an owner's arm, and arguably is more punishment than the offense really seems to merit.

Aside from these compliance and enforcement issues from a single Woodbine race, whether these changes are for the better remains open to some debate.

One viable complaint raised about the combination of new-whip/strike-frequency rules is this: If the cushioned whip is so much kinder to the horse, why must the frequency of its use be more tightly restricted than was the use of the old whip?

It's worth noting that not everyone agrees that the new whip is pain-free. As a response to my earlier posts on the matter, Glenn Petty, executive director of theVirginia Thoroughbred Association, says he has hit himself in the calf with both whips, and while both did smart, the "Pro-Cush" whip just didn't hurt as much. And retired jockey Garrett Redmond, in response to Sid Fernando's question about whether Rachel Alexandra was whipped too much by Calvin Borel in her Woodward Stakes win, has said that he believes any whip hurts the horse, and that no whip is ever necessary in a race. (Although it seems most jockeys don't agree with Mr. Redmond and do want to keep their whips.)

My take is, do we really want jockeys trying to count whip strikes while they ride, all the way down to a blanket finish? Isn't that a bit like asking a NASCAR driver to count how many times he taps the brakes (or another car's bumper) in the last few laps of a race at Bristol? 

Aussie jockeys briefly went on strike over the rules, claiming they put riders at greater risk. Because such rules give jockeys one more thing to think about at the most mentally and physically taxing point of a race -- both for rider and horse -- I would tend to agree. (And Australian rules are already being amended.)

It's one thing to tell jockeys to go lighter on the stick as a general rule and to cease whipping a horse that can't improve its position. And then to warn that stewards will be watching closely and ruling harshly against those who flog an animal excessively or without cause.

What these jurisdictions have tried to do is appease those who demand changes in the name of horse welfare (some of whom, mind you, would really prefer to see no racing at all) by writing a meticulous set of rules and then putting all the burden for their observance on the jockey.

Granted, the rider is the human most directly responsible for lessening the impact of the whip on races -- that is, on horses. But we trust stewards to use their judgment in so many other instances of rider safety and misconduct that it is unreasonable to absolve the stewards of any responsibility by making the whip rules a case of violation-by-the-number: Strike the horse 18 times and win, that's perfect; hit him 19 times and you're taken down to last place. (And such rules are more stringent in the closing yards, leaving jockeys to count poles, whip strokes, and even strides of the horse while still steering, urging and trying to win.)

If horse racing wants to crack down on the whip criticism, nothing other than throwing away the whip will do. And should that be the eventual course of action, I'm fine with it, as it still leaves all horses and riders on an equal footing.

Just expect that the animal-protectionists won't be satisfied for long, and will be back shortly with their next demand.

If the purpose of revised whipping rules is to continue giving riders whatever control they have (or believe they have) with the whip in their hands, while also protecting horses, the greatest step is the cushioned whip -- not some arbitrary number of times a horse can legally be struck with said whip.

Pardon the interruption of horse racing ...

Many of my horse racing friends, business associates and contacts are Facebook users, and they've encouraged me to join the world's most popular and fast-growing social networks.

But I resisted, primarily not really needing the added distraction from cyberspace. And in part because my daughter swears I'll "love her less" if I do. (That, my dear baby girl, will never happen.)

That is, I resisted until my son left for Japan at the end of August. And (once his flaky Dell laptop started working again) he launched a blog about his experiences there. But he decided that he was going to put all the pictures from his junior year abroad only on Facebook.

So, on Monday around 11 a.m. EDT, I signed up for Facebook. In the signup process, I sent some friend requests to family members and a couple of the people who have sent me Facebook "invitations" in the past. My first Facebook friend (a guy I haven't seen in years, which has been a serious social omission on my part) confirmed seemingly within an instant, and I placed a message on his "wall."

Then my browser crashed. And when I tried to login again, immediately after restarting the computer, Facebook gave me an error message saying the site was "undergoing maintenance" and to "try again in a few hours."

More than one person told me this was no surprise, because "Facebook sucks." Hardly ringing endorsements of such a popular service. Apparently Facebook is struggling to keep up with its popularity and growth. And Facebook is doing lots of hiring; unfortunately it appears that none of those jobs are in customer service.

Anyway, "a few hours" later, I still couldn't login. This time I was told that my e-mail address and password were an "incorrect combination." I tried resetting my password, but was told that the e-mail address I'd submitted with the request was "invalid."

Over the course of the week, I submitted so many e-mails to Facebook support that I've lost count. I completed two different "trouble" forms on FB's tech support pages. I responded to an e-mail from "the Facebook team" asking for screenshots of the error messages I was receiving; I sent them three. I filled out an online survey at the request of "the Facebook team" asking for further information about my problem. And I responded to an e-mail from "the Facebook team," sent ostensibly just to make sure there was a real person attached to the e-mail address I was using for signup.

Around 10 a.m. Friday, some 95 hours after I first experienced problems, I finally got a definitive -- and definitely frustrating -- response from "the Facebook team."

"We currently do not have a registration under this email address. Unfortunately, you will need to go through the sign up process again."

No registration under my e-mail address? This prompted me to ask:

-- Why then do I have 14 friend confirmations or friend requests from Facebook users, with all of the notifications sent to me by Facebook at this same e-mail address?

-- How is it that four different people have sent me messages through my Facebook page or written on my wall?

-- Why can I search Facebook externally and find only five users named "Glenn Craven" apparently in the entire Facebook universe, including one who bears a striking resemblance to the strikingly ... striking ... dude whose picture is also on this page? (And how hard would it be for a "Facebook team" member with full access to the network to figure out which one of those five is supposed to be me?)

-- Why, at 11:14 a.m. Monday, did Facebook send me an account confirmation e-mail which included not just a link to confirm my signup (which I did click and confirm), but also my 10-digit account confirmation code? (A code that I forwarded back to the Facebook team on Friday.)

-- And, even if I do start over (something that Facebook help pages repeatedly and specifically told me not to do), what does Facebook intend to do about my supposedly non-existent account ... the account to which my own mother today sent a friend request? Will that page of the me-who-doesn't-exist at least be deleted to avoid further confusion?

Of course, another 54 hours later, I have no response from Facebook to any of those questions. And I'm disinclined to follow their instructions and create a second account at least until Facebook drives a stake through the heart of my undead first self.

So for those of you who are friends, family and equine-biz acquaintances of mine, I apologize. I'll be joining you on Facebook when Facebook helps me get this silliness straightened out.

Because I really want to see my boy's pictures from Japan.

Another fallen champion: Kona Gold dead at 15

I can only shake my head and ask, "When will it stop?"

Horse racing followers already are reeling a bit from the losses in just the past few days of prominent racehorses and sires Gone West, El lPrado, Summer Squall and Cryptoclearance.

Now comes word that Kona Gold -- the Eclipse champion sprinter of the year 2000, and runner-up for Horse of the Year -- has been euthanized at the young age of 15. Kona Gold was retired in 2003 and at the time of his death was a resident of the Kentucky Horse Park's Hall of Champions.

Apparently, while exercising in his paddock, Kona Gold took a bad step and suffered a spiral fracture of his radius.

Kona Gold was always an interesting horse to me, because his racing performance seemed to defy his pedigree, not in quality of ancestors -- as he was very well-bred -- but in his preference for short races.

His sire, Java Gold, won the 9-furlong Remsen Stakes (then a Grade 1 race) as a 2-year-old, and took Grade 1 races in the Whitney (9f), Travers (10f), and Marlboro Cup Invitational (10f) at age 3. (Java Gold, by the way, still is in stallion service at Gestüt Ammerland in Germany, which also stands his German son Boreal, winner of the Deutsches Derby-G1 and Britain's Coronation Cup-G1, both run at two miles.)

Kona Gold's dam, Double Sunrise, was by Slew O' Gold, who won seven Grade 1 stakes, none of them at less than a mile and an eighth, including two runnings of the Jockey Club Gold Cup when that race was still a mile and a half. And her dam, How High The Moon, was by Majestic Light, who won seven graded stakes going a distance, including the Man O'War at 12 furlongs.

The resulting pedigree is one of those that throws Steve Roman's Dosage system for a loop. Kona Gold's Dosage Index of 1.31 and Center of Distribution of 0.37 would suggest that he would want to run all day. Yet Kona Gold set new track and stakes records in the shortest race on the Breeders' Cup card in the year 2000, the 6-furlong Breeders' Cup Sprint, which he won in an exhilarating 1:07.77, narrowly holding off the fast-closing filly, Honest Lady.

Kona Gold worked as a stable pony for his former trainer, Bruce Headley, after retirement. The horse had only arrived at Kentucky Horse Park in 2008, moving into the stall vacated by Cigar when that champion moved up into the penthouse once owned by John Henry.

I suppose we never get used to losing these great champions even though we know that in this world, everything that lives, eventually dies.

But when another of your favorites goes, he takes a little piece of you with him.

Gone West, El Prado, Summer Squall ... now Cryptoclearance

It's been a tough few weeks for 20-something stallions and pensioners.

Cryptoclearance, who won or placed in 21 graded-stakes and has been a noteworthy member of the American sire community since 1990, is dead at age 25.

The son of Fappiano-Naval Orange, by Hoist the Flag, died Thursday at the Rood and Riddle Equine Clinic in Lexington, Ky. He most recently stood for $5,000 at Margaux Farm in Midway, Ky.

Cryptoclearance raced 44 times and won 12 of them for owner Phil Teinowitz, including four Grade 1s in the Florida Derby, Pegasus Handicap, Widener Handicap (1:59 2/5), and 1989 Donn Handicap (mislabeled 1992), earning $3,376,327. He was a durable horse and a tough competitor, and when not winning was often finishing as the runner-up to other spectacular horses of the day in the sport's biggest races.

He was second to Easy Goer in the 1989 Jockey Club Gold Cup-G1, when that race was still run at a mile and a half. Distance was not a problem for Cryptoclearance, as he was second also to Bet Twice in the 1987 Belmont Stakes. He was runner-up twice to Jade Hunter in Grade 1s, the 1988 Gulfstream Park and Donn handicaps. Java Gold relegated him to second in the 1987 Travers.

The horse seemed to pass a measure of that competitiveness -- and quite a bit of durability -- along to his foals.

His best son so far has been Victory Gallop, winner of the Belmont Stakes in 1998 and champion older male a year later. But he also sired Breeders' Cup Classic long-shot champion Volponi, Blue Grass S.-G1 winner Millennium Wind, Spinaway S.-G1 winner Strategic Maneuver, Futurity S.-G1 winner Traitor (who died in a Florida barn fire at stud), and Canadian champion Cryptocloser (whose record there sadly is both blank and locked).

His daughters have had some success as producers, as well. Cryptoclearance is the broodmare sire of two-times G1-winning millionaire Elloluv, Hutcheson S.-G2 winner and sire Keyed Entry (who has two minor stakes-winning siblings), Irish G3 winner and sire Ishiguru (who was euthanized Sept. 18 after complications from a knee injury), Ishigru's half-sister and Santa Anita G2-winner Cat Fighter, and a least 26 other stakes winners in the U.S. and abroad.

According to Equineline.com, Cryptoclearance's 1,163 racing-age foals to date have included 966 starters (83 percent, a splendid figure), 681 winners (59 percent, a solid number), and 42 stakes winners (a modest 4 percent). Those 966 runners have made 21,401 starts, an average of 22.15 per runner, this at a time when, according to The Blood-Horse, the average number of starts per raced-foal was declining from 29.03 (1970-79)  to 16.72 (2000-2003 crops).

The fact that Cryptoclearance's stud fee continued to fall through the years (from $15,000 to $5,000) and that his two richest sons, Volponi and Victory Gallop, have already been flushed from the U.S. stallion ranks to other countries (Korea in the former case, Turkey in the latter) is but one piece of evidence that perhaps American breeders have lost their way in the ever-intensifying search for precocity and brute speed. As a breeding nation, we've largely lost our appreciation for a rugged horse who can get a distance of ground.

That was Cryptoclearance. Rugged. Fierce in the heat of the fight. At his best from 9 furlongs to a mile and a half.

Old-school in the era of New Kids on the Block.

"He was a breed-shaping horse," said Steve Johnson, managing partner of Margaux Farm.

And he was. Probably in more ways than most observers would ever know, or ever appreciate.

(Photo: Bill Strauss)

Lava Man: Doing what's right by the horse

When I decided to get into the racehorse business, even on a limited scale, I was immediately faced with a values-judgment.

If presented a tough decision -- one where my personal goal of breeding and owning winners or selfish interest of saving or making money was potentially at odds with what was best for the horse -- would I do right by me, or right by the horse?

I chose the latter. And regardless what decisions I might make for my breeding stock, foals or racehorses in the future, and whether those moves work out brilliantly or tragically, I vow that a bad ending will never have been the result of my putting the horse's best interests second.

A lot has been said and written -- by people with a clue and probably a few people without -- in the wake of confirmation this week that the greatest ex-claimer of all-time, Lava Man, is back in the Hollywood Park barn of trainer Doug O'Neill, and working toward a potential comeback at the races.

These comments on a TVG Network message board are typical of those flying around the Internet:

"One would think that earning over $5 million would guarantee a happy retirement. I guess I'm wrong. It smells of greed to me."

"If Lava Man came back on the cheap, it would be the worst racing story I've heard in a long time. Can you imagine the uproar over a horse that earned millions of dollars for his owners coming back so he can be 'rescued' by a group of really well-intended individuals so the current owners can cut their losses on this hard-knocking gelding?"

Or over at Pedigreequery.com:

"I guess $5 million isn't enough."

"What a shame. What about the horse's welfare?"

"Highlighting the industry's greed and an owner's seeming lack of concern for a horse that brought him millions of dollars -- fan favorite at that."

O.K., not everybody's against the comeback. Some people are at least hopeful that the horse can compete and will stay safe.

And one person cracked a good joke: "I heard they tried to change his name to Favre."

But what about those critics? The ones who allege greed and hard-heartedness without knowing much or anything about either the horse or the men around him?

If I were Doug O'Neill or among the ownership group of STD Racing and Jason Wood, it would take every ounce of restraint I could muster not to inform them all of the departure time for the next bus to hell.

O'Neill has been far more diplomatic.

He has tried to address the allegations of greed by saying that, if and when Lava Man runs, all the trainer's earnings will be donated to the California Retirement Management Account, which helps rehabilitate, retrain and "rehome" ex-racers.

But aside from that pledge, ask yourself what O'Neill stands to gain by racing Lava Man against what he stands to lose -- which is every ounce of goodwill among the racing fan base that his long and successful career, particularly his handling of such a popular horse, has ever earned him.

What cash value would you place on being known as a heartless bastard for the rest of your life?

So maybe Lava Man's comeback doesn't have jack squat to do with whatever money the horse can earn by racing.

Maybe it has everything to do with what's right by the horse.

Many human athletes have a terrible time letting go at the end of their careers; hence the "Favre" reference. Some of them are washed up, but still won't "hang 'em up," and the only thing that spares them further embarrassment is the fact that nobody will sign them to a contract anymore. And some of them are 39 years old and 2-0 anyway after a pair of season-opening road wins, with three TD passes and no interceptions.

Anyone who has been around racehorses, or who knows anyone who's really been around racehorses, knows that some of these old campaigners are the same way. Ever since they were sent off to be broken, breezed and gate-trained, their life revolved around the daily routine of racing. Take that away from an 8-year-old gelding who has known no other life since he was a long yearling and, for some of them, it's like you've robbed them of the very air they breathe.

Lava Man was initially retired not because he became disinterested in trying, but because his ankles were showing signs of trouble.

"I'm happy that he didn't get hurt, just aches and pains of old age," said one of his owners, Steve Kenly, at the time. "I think we did the right thing of looking at all the options and making sure this was the right thing to do."

So do you really think that these men just up and changed their minds? Or is it more likely that Lava Man changed their minds?

Since finishing sixth in July 2008 in the Eddie Read Handicap at Del Mar, Lava Man underwent surgery to remove bone chips from his ankles at Alamo Pintado Equine Medical Center in Los Olivos, Calif. He has been stabled at nearby Magali Farms in Santa Ynez, to facilitate his rehabilitation. And veterinarians say Lava Man has benefited from pioneering stem cell treatments that drew thriving cells from the horse's own sternum and injected them into his ankles.

O'Neill says Lava Man seems to have "the ankles of a 3-year-old" again.

"The doctor said that he is and will be the strongest horse in my barn," O'Neill said. "I couldn't put into words how good he looks and how happy he seems to be back in training."

Why can't we be satisfied with those nine words as an explanation for Lava Man's comeback? "How happy he seems to be back in training."

Though Lava Man fired a 36-second bullet drill, best of 24 at the 3-furlong distance, in his return to O'Neill's work tab, he truly might never race. O'Neill has said he's "a little nervous" because he is "very conscious of my responsibility ... as (Lava Man's) caretaker." And the trainer said he only intends to run Lava Man against Grade 1 competition, if and when the horse proves himself ready.

"I'm going to make sure we do right by the horse, first and foremost," O'Neill said.

That's a very high standard to set. And who knows, maybe Lava Man would just as soon race-on even if it isn't under the brightest spotlight. Perhaps he'd be content to follow in the hoofprints of a horse like Proven Cure, who was still winning and placing in modest overnight stakes races at tracks like Lone Star, Sam Houston and Remington Park when he was 11 and 12 years old. A horse doesn't continue to try like that unless he just flat-out loves the game.

I'm confident, especially after reading his comments, that O'Neill is looking for any little sign that Lava Man can't do the job, and will stop him short rather than push him too far. And if Lava Man decides he doesn't want to race anymore, he'll tell O'Neill, in no uncertain terms.

But if the horse wants to race, let him race.

Yes, bad things happen in this game even to very good horses in very good condition. And, yes, it will be a crying shame if Lava Man, un-retired, suffers a catastrophic breakdown, be it in a work or in a race.

But if he had lived every day of his life back at the track just as happy as a pig in slop, would Doug O'Neill, STD Racing and Jason Wood really have done wrong by the horse?