You've Got to Say SOMETHING!

I had really no intention of writing a Rachel Alexandra post. None. What I saw on Saturday really spoke for itself. To rate like she did relatively close to a quick early pace and simply find another gear to win going away was one of the most impressive efforts I have seen in years. But as I was rousting myself at no o'clock this morning for a quick trip to Battle Creek, MI (and no o'clock tomorrow morning to go home), I found myself with some random thoughts and felt that I had to say something!

- A friend mentioned to me that this must have been what it was like to watch Secretariat. I can't vouch for that as I was only 8 when he was blazing his Triple Crown. But the buzz around her races and the clinical precision in which she wins is very reminiscent of the replays that I have seen and the period pieces I have read. She was discussed on the ESPN show PTI for crying out loud. THAT is good for racing.

- Frank Vespe makes the case on why Rachel should go West and meet Zenyatta in the Breeder's Cup. I think his case has merit. I have come to the conclusion that horse racing is a three surface sport now: dirt, grass and synthetics (and then you have the various incarnations of THAT for crying out loud). They play different. I'm not going to debate the pros and cons of synthetic and dirt, I will say that horses have preferences now for that type of surface just as they do for dirt and turf and I wouldn't want to run my filly in the biggest race of her career over her non-preferred surface. I think there is a big difference between allowance company at Keeneland (where Rachel won over the synthetic) and the Breeder's Cup Distaff (Ladies Classic?) - especially against an opponent who clearly prefers that surface. Same in reverse, by the way, regarding taking Zenyatta East to the dirt.

- How do you choose Horse of the Year if they don't meet? Well...if the season ended today, how do you NOT choose Rachel? She ran HUGE out of her division in racetracks all over the East and nailed down a Triple Crown Race as well as the Haskell. I don't really give a rat's ass about girls versus the boys - a big, talented filly or mare can give the boys all they can handle anywhere in the world. We saw that in last year's Breeder's Cup. I did see a Facebook comment who said they couldn't give it to Rachel unless she beat older males. I'm not sure that is fair or not as I'm sure we have had a male HOTY or two that have won big 3-year old races and not raced, or at least faltered, against older. (I could look this up, but see paragraph one...I'm WAY too bleary). Besides, the season ISN'T over yet and the possibility exists that Quality Road could face and beat both of these females and we'll be singing a different tune come December (possible...not probable, in my humble opinion). Besides, how can you give HOTY to a 'homer', if you will, as opposed to an opponent with an equally impressive record but has done it in several states rather than in just one?

- Back to buzz. Love her or not, this kind of buzz is great for racing. We need a horse that can capture the public imagination in a positive way. She's not a panacea and racing's ills are too long to get into here, but anything that promotes a healthy discussion about our sport from those 'outside' of it, is welcome and should be cultivated. Maybe we can start watching some racing on weekends on one of the myriad of ESPN stations rather than non-stop reruns of the 2008 World Series of Poker...

While this is the kind of exposure our sport needs in the black nothingness (to the rest of the non-racing sports world) that is the time between the Triple Crown and the Breeder's Cup unfortunately it will end in letdown when these two leading ladies of the American turf don't square off in the Breeder's Cup. I understand the reason why, but the (hopefully) millions of Americans that have come to follow Rachel since the Preakness and are just being exposed to racing will be left scratching their heads and saying, "Some championship. The best horses don't even run in it." Could this end up being a public example of how racing can't get out of it's own way when virtually handed what it claims it wants most - the chance to earn new fans to reinvigorate the sport?

A Bad Back Gets You Thinking

I've been hampered by a bad back most of this past week.  Nothing serious, just every once in a while the muscles in my lower back spasm and I walk around looking twice my age.  It's kept me a bit from blogging, some work and, sadly, from the racetrack.  It's been an absolutely gorgeous weekend here in central Minnesota.  Virtually cloudless, mid-70's, light breeze.  No place I would rather be than Canterbury - especially on the backside giving Fizzy some peppermints and letting him know I appreciated the effort in the mud last weekend.  However none of that was meant to be this weekend and now that I can at least sit up a bit to write, there are a couple of musings in my head about local and national racing that I can get out of there now.

What in the world is it with the arcane regulation that if you live in Minnesota you can't bet on Canterbury or Running Aces on an ADW outlet?  I live about 45-minutes from Canterbury and get there once or twice a week to visit Fiz in the morning and maybe the races one afternoon.  I certainly can't get there for every evening, but I'd probably wager on a race or two if I had the capability.  Isn't a small piece of some handle better than zero piece of no handle?  I wouldn't come to the track any less, I just might wager a bit more.

How in the world do we keep the casual fan's interest over the summer?  I expounded on this a bit earlier in the week in a prescripted haze, but I think that this is a real issue.  Some of the best racing in the world takes place in July and August.  Saratoga and Del Mar are legendary.  Monmouth is a great setting for racing and they race all summer long.  What can we do to get the fans that tuned in to the Triple Crown races to tune in to the summer graded stakes?  In July and August only the Virginia Derby is scheduled to be shown on non-racing (HRTV or TVG) television.  Really?  No Travers, no Whitney, no Del Mar Oaks, no Molly Pitcher.  This are great races that may end up with some solid story lines featuring the horses that campaigned over the last six weeks.  What a great opportunity for ESPN to showcase some of these horses before they televise the Breeder's Cup.  September and October are equally as devoid of racing on television.  The Pacific Classic, the Louisiana Super Derby, The Ruffian, the Woodbine Mile - all races that can have an impact on what will happen in November will pass the public by.  What about October 3rd at Belmont?  No less than than five Grade I stakes races will be run: The Jockey Club Gold Cup, The Beldame, Flower Bowl, Joe Hirsch Turf Classic and the Vosburgh.  Only already committed fans will see who will punch the last tickets to Santa Anita on that day on TVG/HRTV.  I personally think that ESPN is doing itself a disservice by not showcasing the major races on the road to the Breeder's Cup.  Racing has already proven it can get decent ratings, now help it build a following - you can only earn more advertising revenue!

Many other TBA Blogs have trumpeted the solid TV numbers for the Triple Crown.  Let's take a look at what was on TV in the months preceding the Run for the Roses: the Lane's End, the Florida Derby, the Illinois, Santa Anita and Arkansas Derbies, the Toyota Blue Grass and the Lexington. Seven Derby preps on general television.  The number of graded stakes that will have a bearing on who goes to the Breeder's Cup between the Belmont Stakes and Breeder's Cup Day?  One.  The Virginia Derby on CBS.  Could there possibly be a correlation between airing the prep races and folks tuning in for the main events?  Try it for the Breeder's Cup, ESPN and see - do you really HAVE to show the 2007 World Series of Poker again?

Boy that felt good to let go...