Hiding Death in Plain Sight -- Going Behind the Screen and Pointing the Finger At Someone Else

          Everyone agrees that there should be fewer breakdowns and fatalities from racing and training.  To seek fewer breakdowns is to admit and acknowledge that there will always be some breakdowns – that some level of death will always occur.  Refusal to state this fact apparently precludes the collection and dissemination of information on breakdowns and fatalities during training and racing.  The failure of the powers that be to collect and publish this information led to the New York Times reviewing racing charts to generate a “guesstimate” at the number of horse racing fatalities.  This lack of information also allows people to opine that horses inbred to Mr. Prospector are doomed to breakdown.  The industry was basically silent as it lacked the information to respond other than to dismiss their analysis due to the inclusion of quarter horse races.

            A recent article summarizing a meeting of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission provides a good example of the “buck passing” and denial regarding race track fatalities.  Dr. Mary Scollay, KHRC equine medical director, reported to the Commission on the active steps taken to reduce fatalities at Churchill Downs from 8 in May to 2 in June.  The implication was that this drop was due to policies and procedures put into place after May; however, we have no way of actually proving that these procedures worked or if the change in the number of breakdowns was even statistically significant.  Without context the data is meaningless.    

            Even more interesting is that Dr. Scollay seemed to blame another “out of state” track for the May breakdowns stating that there was a "commonality to that population of horses in that they had participated in racing at a specific venue before coming to Churchill.”  Given the traditional movement of horses north as the weather improves, it seemed likely that this “specific venue” was Oaklawn Park.  However, the Doctor declined to identify the facility.  Given that a substantial portion of Churchill’s racing population likely comes from Oaklawn, I don’t know if it is fair to suggest that Oaklawn’s safety procedures are lacking.  Likewise, the list of fatalities was not disclosed although it may be requested through a public records request.   

            Intrigued the vagueness in this response, I did a little “New York Times” style analysis of the May charts from Churchill Downs.  The results show six likely fatalities.  I do not know if the other fatalities occurred during training or if that injury was not reflected in the chart.  None of these horses have raced or worked since the date indicated.  Interestingly enough three horses of the six had previously raced at Oaklawn while two had last raced at Keeneland.  Also of interest is that three of the six breakdowns occurred on the turf course despite fewer turf races being run than dirt races. 

     

Date	Horse Name	Last Race Location	Churchill Race	Comment
5/1/2012	Tutti Buona Gente	Fair Grounds	Mile and a Sixteenth on Turf Starter Allowance	Pulled Up, Vanned Off
5/3/2012	Auspicious Risk	Oaklawn	Six Furlongs on Dirt Claiming ($16K)	Eased, Lame
5/10/2012	RJ's Afleet	Oaklawn	Mile and a Sixteenth on Dirt Allowance	Off Slow, Vanned Off
5/11/2012	On Stirling Bridge	Tampa	Mile and a Sixteenth on Turf Allowance	Lost Footing, Walked Off
5/17/2012	Bulldog Legend	Keeneland	Mile on Dirt Maiden Claiming	Broke Down
5/18/2012	Woodbourne	Keeneland	Mile on Turf Allowance Optional Claimer ($50K)	Broke Down
5/27/2012	Whistlin Sam	Oaklawn	Six Furlongs on Dirt Maiden Claiming ($10K)	Pulled Up, Vanned Off

            Again, we are left with more questions than answers because the information is not being collected and distributed properly.  The Commission may not have intended it, but the summary makes it sound like the “other track” is responsible for the breakdowns and not Churchill Downs or the weather or anything else.  This suggestion is irresponsible and does nothing to reduce the number of fatalities going forward.  Off the top of my head, here are some questions that deserve answers regarding breakdowns

·         Do horses entered in claiming races break down more frequently than other horses? 

·         Do horses break down more frequently in route races or sprints? 

·         Where do horses tend to break down in a race – at the beginning when accelerating or in the stretch when tiring? 

·         Do horses break down more frequently in sloppy going?

·         Does racing at two have any connection to break downs?

            So let us be clear about the consequences of horse racing – it will involve some level of death to both horse and rider.  Our goal should be to reduce this level to the lowest level possible for all involved.  To do this we need good data that is openly shared no matter how bad or negative the story might be.  The Jockey Club should support the public disclosure of all race track fatalities the same way vet’s lists and trainer infractions are publicized.  Putting up a screen to hide break downs does nothing to diminish the problem – it only hides it from plain sight.  We all know what is happening on the other side of the screen – horses –  lots of them –  are dying.          

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Winner's Circle

         A funny thing happened on Golden Frontier’s way to the winner’s circle in the Kelly’s Landing Stakes at Churchill Downs.  Namely, he didn’t win and there was no return trip to the winner’s circle.  He did not even hit the board despite going off as the 1:1 favorite.  His last race at Churchill at six and a half furlongs resulted in a 107 Beyer speed figure, so everyone was confident that he would win in the seven furlong Kelly’s Landing if he could run back to 90% of that performance.  A win or solid effort in this race, and Golden was likely headed to Saratoga.  In the paddock everything was looking great except for drawing the rail position.

           

            As you can see from the chart, Golden had the lead after a 45.42 half mile.  Compared to his previous race, this pace was fine.  Then at the top of the lane, he pricked his ears, floated off the rail, but did not kick away from the field.  Noble’s Promise rolled through the gap along the rail while other horses swallowed him up on the outside.  We all waited for Golden to respond, but he never kicked into that extra gear.  After some equine rollerderby down the stretch, Golden crossed the line in fifth beaten by about five lengths.  The second guessing began almost immediately – did the prior week’s speedy workout (58.3) soften him up[1], was it too hot, was it too far, or did breaking from the rail distract him into a bad race?  The conventional wisdom would say that he just “bounced” off his previous race and was just dull, but the speedy workout and his build contradicted that conclusion.

            After the card finished I made my way back to the barn and watched Golden sling his head side to side in his stall – still wound up from the race and unable to settle down.  The trainer said he did not see anything wrong with him following the race, and as I stood there, I realized that we were confronting the second great question in racing.  While Golden already answered the first great question by proving that he was a legitimate race horse despite a modest purchase price and pedigree, we now had to figure out what he needed to perform at a high level every time he raced.  In other words, what made Golden tick as a race horse? 

            I stood against the wall and tried to get inside that head that kept shaking side to side – was he getting sick, was something physically bothering him that had not flared up yet, as a big horse did he need more time to recover between races?  We had all the questions and Golden had all the answers.  Before I got into my car, I took this photo of Churchill from the barn.  There were no answers there either.

           

            Postscript:  Golden seemed to come out of the race ok and went back to his owner’s farm for some R & R.  While at the farm, a vet came to check him out and found a slight injury.  Because it had already started to heal on its own, the vet estimated that he probably raced with it and still managed to finish 5^th on natural ability and will.  He did not bounce – if anything he proved his toughness.  Sixty days of rest and he should be ready to go back into training.  So no Saratoga this year, but it has been an amazing couple of months and a very special feeling to be associated with a horse of such talent and ability.

---

[1] The horse was not supposed to work that fast, but he is such a large horse that covers so much ground that riders misjudge how fast they are really going. 

What is the Point of Churchill Downs' Point System?

  

Churchill Downs released a "point" system today to determine who will start in the Kentucky Derby.  The general result is a "tiered" set of races with increasing worth as you near the Derby.  To see how this system works I applied the point system to three prior Derbies 2008, 2010, and 2011.  I picked these years to see if Bluegrass Cat would still make the field in 2008 despite his poor form and because 2010 and 2011 were recent enough to limit the research.  The results are discussed below and indicate that while the "point system" looks dramatic, it does not appear to alter the field substantially.  The biggest impact of the point system is the omission of the Illinois Derby and fillies who have not earned points against males.  While heralded as progressive action, my fear is that this "point" system is marketing hype that may decrease the excitement of the Derby prep season without changing the composition of the field.  I plan a second post that will consider the implications going forward.

    At the outset, let me note that had the point system been in effect in these years that trainers could have selected different races for their horses as several folks on twitter pointed out.  However, if you assume that trainers generally run their horses where they can win or be competitive, then this argument should not substantially change the results.  The only instances where the point system may have forced trainers into different races appears to be Uncle Mo in 2011 choosing the "made up" Timely Writer over the Tampa Bay Derby, or when a rivalry develops between two horses on the Derby trail like Noble's Promise and Lookin at Lucky.  Here, the point system could force those two competitors apart at the cost of competitive racing.

2008 Kentucky Derby

Horses in Order of Graded Stakes Earnings (Derby Starters in Bold)	Total Points Under New System	Derby Field Under New Point System
Brother Derek	221	Brother Derek
Lawyer Ron	210	Lawyer Ron
Barbaro	110	Bob and John
Bob and John	162	Barbaro
Sinister Minister	100	Sinister Minister
Private Vow	30	AP Warrior
AP Warrior	77	Bluegrass Cat
Sweetnorthernsaint	10	Steppenwolfer
Sharp Humor	40	Point Determined
Bluegrass Cat	60	Deputy Glitters
Steppenwolfer	60	Sharp Humor
Keyed Entry	40	Keyed Entry
Showing Up	20	Jazil
Point Determined	60	Storm Treasure
Cause to Believe	10	Sacred Light
Deputy Glitters	54	Private Vow
Jazil	40	Flashy Bull
Storm Treasure	40	Seaside Retreat
Seaside Retreat	22	Red Raymond
Flashy Bull	25	Showing Up
Also Eligible		Also Eligible
Sunriver	20	Sunriver
Sacred Light	40	Strong Contender
Red Raymond	22	Sweetnorthernsaint
Malameeze	10	Cause to Believe
Strong Contender	20	Malameeze

            I selected 2008 for this experiment because I wanted to see if Bluegrass Cat would make the field as I remembered his two year old form tailing off at three until his second place finish in the Derby.  Under the point system and given the dominance of Brother Derek and Lawyer Ron in the prep races, Bluegrass Cat did not have to worry.  Brother Derek and Lawyer Ron would have earned more than 200 points apiece with Showing Up and Sunriver tying for the 20^th spot with 20 points apiece.  The 2008 Derby is interesting because the point system would have excluded Sweetnorthernsaint who made the field due to his victory in the Illinois Derby.  The exclusion of Sweetnorthernsaint is despite the fact that he was the post-time favorite in a Derby won by the dominating Barbaro.  Applying the point system to 2008 seems to suggest that a substantial number of horses that have little chance to win the Derby will still make it to the gate if two or three talented horses dominate the Derby preps.  This does not seem to be a significant change over the present system.    

2011 Kentucky Derby Field

Horses in Order of Graded Stakes Earnings (Derby Starters in Bold)	Total Points Under New System	Derby Field Under New Point System
Uncle Mo (Entered Did Not Start)	40	Archarcharch
Dialed In	110	Dialed In
Archarcharch	115	Pants on Fire
Comma to the Top	57	Midnight Interlude
Pants on Fire	104	Brilliant Speed
Midnight Interlude	100	Nehro
Soldat	50	Mucho Macho Man
Brilliant Speed	100	Twinspired
Master of Hounds	40	Comma to the Top
Nehro	80	Watch Me Go
Twice the Appeal	50	Soldat
Mucho Macho Man	75	Twice the Appeal
Decisive Moment	24	Animal Kingdom
Animal Kingdom	50	Stay Thirsty
Stay Thirsty	50	Uncle Mo
Santiva	24	Master of Hounds
Watch Me Go	52	Shackleford
Shackleford	40	Norman Asbjornson
Twinspired	60	Decisive Moment
Derby Kitten	20	Santiva
Also Eligible		Also Eligible
Sway Away	10	Derby Kitten
Machen	5	Mr. Commons
Brethern	10	Dance City
Flashpoint	10	Sway Away
Mr. Commons	20	Brethern
Dance City	20	Flashpoint
Norman Asbjornson	30	Machen

    In 2011, the points system would have little impact.  Unlike 2008, the point totals for 2011 are more spread out with 115 being the highest point total and a three way tie for 20^th place with twenty points.  The only change is that Norman Asbjornson's 4th place finish in the Wood propels him to a spot in the starting gate knocking out Derby Kitten.  As a positive, race fans would get to hear the media struggle to pronounce Norman Asbjornson for the week prior to the Derby.  Unfortunately, the point system would not have forced Uncle Mo into a more aggressive 3 year old campaign as he still easily makes the field with a 3rd or even 4th in the Wood or any other final prep race. 

2010 Kentucky Derby

Horses in Order of Graded Stakes Earnings (Derby Starters in Bold)	Total Points Under New System	Rank Under New System
Lookin at Lucky	94	Sidney's Candy
Noble's Promise	36	Mission Impazible
Sidney's Candy	150	Line of David
Line of David	100	Ice Box
Mission Impazible	101	Stately Victor
Ice Box	100	Lookin at Lucky
Stately Victor	100	Awesome Act
Conveyance	40	Discreetly Mine
American Lion	7	Jackson Bend
Dublin	34	Super Saver
Super Saver	61	Setsuko
Devil May Care	0	Dean's Kitten
Discreetly Mine	64	Pleasant Prince
Dean's Kitten	50	Conveyance
Awesome Act	70	Paddy O'Prado
Paddy O'Prado	40	A Little Warm
Homeboykris	10	Caracortado
Jackson Bend	62	Noble's Promise
Backtalk	0	Dublin
Make Music for Me	2	Drosselmeyer
Also Eligible		Also Eligible
Pleasant Prince	45	Yawanna Twist
A Little Warm	40	First Dude
Setsuko	60	Homeboykris
Caracortado	40	American Lion
Yawanna Twist	20	Make Music for Me
Eightyfiveinafifty	0	Devil May Care
First Dude	20	Backtalk
Drosselmeyer	25	Eightyfiveinafifty

In 2010, implementation of the point system results in one-fourth of the field changing over as Homeboykris, American Lion, Make Music for Me, Devil May Care, and Backtalk are excluded from the field.  As a result, Setsuko, Pleasant Prince, A Little Warm, Caracortado, and Drosselmeyer all make the field.  In 2010, the point totals range from 150 for Sydney’s Candy to 25 points for Drosselmeyer in 20^th place. The exclusion of the Illinois Derby bars American Lion and Backtalk from the field while refusing to award any credit for “fillies only” races excludes Devil May Care.  Also, despite only earning 2 points under the new system, Make Music For Me did make the field and finished 4^th when they actually ran the race.  In defense of the point system, the pedigrees and subsequent race performance of horses like Drosselmeyer, Setsuko, and A Little Warm arguably “fit” the Derby better than most of those horses that were excluded; however, the fate of Noble’s Promise shows a serious flaw in the point system.

  Despite his numerous races and significant earnings, the point total of Noble’s Promise suggests that the system can be distorted by “wins” which obscures the central question of who the best 20 horses are.  Despite being second on the graded stakes earnings list, Noble’s Promise is eighteenth on the point system essentially because he ran in tough races and lost to Lookin’ at Lucky three times.  Noble’s Promise was second to Lookin at Lucky in two races (Cashcall Futurity and Rebel Stakes) and ran third to Lucky and Vale of York in the Breeders Cup Juvenile; however, his off the board finish in the Arkansas Derby would have made for some nervous nights for his connections under the point system.  If the system is modified to give some credit to the Illinois Derby (as I think it will be), then Noble’s Promise would likely have been excluded or been the last horse in.  Unfortunately for racing fans, the point system rewards wins and not rigorous campaigns that allow fans and bettors to know a horse.  For trainers like Todd Pletcher keeping Derby prospects separate until the last minute will become even more essential, and the first Saturday in May will become more of a guessing game than it already is. 

            It is hard to draw conclusions from only three years of retroactive application, but it appears that between 20 to 25 points will be the minimum to make the field in most years.  Unfortunately, a horse only needs to finish in the money in two lower tier races or hit the board in one of the Grade 1 preps to achieve this goal.  The fact that a talented, game horse like Noble’s Promise might be excluded from the Derby field is equally troubling.  The systems emphasis on “winning” without regard for who you raced seems to reward trainers who protect their horses from competition until absolutely necessary.  Stakes races with small field or hopelessly outmatched runners are bad for the sport.  This situation is unlikely to improve as horses race less and foal crops are smaller. 

Similarly, the exclusion of the Illinois Derby while treating the UAE Derby as the equivalent of the Arkansas Derby lacks justification and common sense.  While no one waits to pick their Derby horse until after they run the Illinois Derby, this exclusion seems more a result of corporate strategy or snobbery than anything else.  If you are only looking at performance in the Kentucky Derby, then horses exiting the Illinois Derby along with their counterparts from the Louisiana Derby and Bluegrass Stakes rarely appear among the top three finishers of the Kentucky Derby. 

As I hope to discuss in the next post, this “point” system smacks more of marketing and television than any real effort to improve the field quality.  It is overly complex and picks and chooses “favorite” races to reward with higher points.  A simpler and fairer system might have been to (i) exclude all graded earnings from races at less than a mile, (ii) exclude graded earnings from turf races, and (iii) discount graded earnings from the two-year old campaign by half.