Changing Horse Racing

I'm a horse racing fan.

That would have been an unremarkable statement in 1948 America. But sixty years later, with racing now overshadowed by spectator sports that previously garnered only a fraction of its attention, racing fans are a bit more of an oddity. As a fan in today's America, I get the feeling that I belong to a steadily shrinking cult -- kind of like the players of straight billiards who have to explain to the rest of us how they can play pool on tables that don't have pockets.

Non-fans get to hear about the sport in mainstream media in no more than four instances in the average year: the three Triple Crown races and, to a lesser extent, I think, the Breeders' Cup. On those occasions, true racing fans speculate among ourselves about why the sport doesn't get the kind of attention it once did. There are some explanations that are beyond the capacity of the sport to change: for one, racing once had a state-sponsored monopoly on legal gambling, but there are now plenty of legal wagering alternatives, including many that offer a chance for a bigger win and demand no special attention or expertise.

Another factor, though, is a situation created entirely by people inside the racing industry. The modern American thoroughbred is more fragile than its predecessors. That fragility is displayed in one form that is certain, and in another that is suspected, but perhaps not proved. Neither is helpful to the sport.

Today's thoroughbred races less frequently than did his ancestors of just a few generations ago. Many commentators have compiled statistics demonstrating the decline in the average number of races run by horses in various categories. They prove the point, but there's an obvious, non-statistical shortcut to the same conclusion. Churchill Downs, home of the Kentucky Derby, shares the spring racing calendar in Kentucky and does not open until one week before the Derby, which is run on the first Saturday in May. That one week before the Derby was traditionally considered plenty of time for a contender to get in a prep race and still be rested enough to be at his best in the Run For The Roses. In fact, five days was considered enough, as was demonstrated by the fact that Churchill's main prep, the Derby Trial, was run on the Tuesday before the big race. In 1948, 1952, 1953 and 1958, the Derby Trial winner was also the winner of the Derby itself. In 1949, 1959, 1964 and 1965, the Derby Trial winner started the Derby as the favorite. In the 1970s, Derby contenders still ran in the Derby Trial. In the 1980s, Churchill, recognizing the belief that horses were starting to need more rest between races, moved the Derby Trial ahead as much as they could, to the Saturday one full week before the main event.

Despite that move, no trainer pointing his horse for the Derby today seriously considers the Derby Trial to be what it is named. Not a one of the 20 starters in the 2008 Derby had run in the Derby Trial, because no trainer today would run a valuable three-year-old a mere week before a big race. Today, the Derby Trial, despite its name, is more likely to be a prep for the second jewel in the Triple Crown, the Preakness, run three weeks later. In 1975, each of the 15 Kentucky Derby starters ran in a prep race within two weeks of the big day. This year, not a single one of the 20 starters did.

Any sport will suffer when its performers don't perform often enough to build up some name recognition. Which is why the NCAA and the NBA don't like their basketball players going from college to the professional ranks so quickly: when your favorite college team isn't bringing back any of its stars from last year, it'll take you longer to decide that you care about the new squad; and when your NBA team spends its first round draft pick on a guy who only played three national television games in college, it's hard to get excited. Today's best horses tend to run only a few races, and as soon as they've shown a flicker of special ability, they're retired. Nobody's building up any Seabiscuit-style following.

The suspected but not proved manifestation of modern thoroughbred fragility may have reared its head in last week's Derby. As everyone now knows, Eight Belles, one filly running against 19 colts, ran a race outstanding enough to thrash all but one of her opponents, but some distance after crossing the line, broke both of her front ankles and had to be immediately put to death on the track where she fell.

There have always been tragic, fatal breakdowns in thoroughbred racing. Even in Triple Crown races. (Black Hills in the 1959 Belmont, for example) But the fatalities in the prime time events seemed relatively rare. Until recently. The grouping may just be happenstance, and the inclusion of the Breeders' Cup to the picture adds at least seven events to each year's ledger, so we're not talking about similar sample sizes, but each of the last three calendar years has produced a fatal injury in a marquee race: Pine Island in the 2006 Breeders' Cup Distaff, George Washington in the 2007 Breeders' Cup Classic, and Eight Belles. And not least: Barbaro. He was an undefeated Derby winner, with the look of one who was on his way to special achievements. More eyes than racing usually gets were anticipating a view of the best the sport currently had to offer. Potential fans got caught up in the story of the efforts to save him, and their hopes for him were dashed after months of emotional investment.

Horse racing isn't just failing to attract new fans, it is horrifying fresh batches of would-be fans every year. With this year's Derby fresh in our minds, fans of the sport are again asking what should be done.

Animal rights activists have a simple answer: abolish racing. There is inarguable consistency to their argument. Even in the safest form imaginable, the training and racing of thoroughbreds will cause some of them to suffer injuries, including many which will be fatal. They suffer those injuries and fatalities for the profit and entertainment of humans; if there is any great intrinsic good for the horses themselves in being raced rather than being treated to a pet's life of leisure, I'm not aware of it. And unlike humans who risk life and limb in pursuit of the rewards granted to the winners in our spectator sports, the horses aren't thought to be able to understand the risks we're asking them to take. "Stop racing," the animal rights folks say, "and you'll at least stop all the harm people subject the horses to by asking them to run."

I can't disagree.

I'm just not that noble yet.

I may be that noble someday, but for now, I have to admit that I am willing to know that other living creatures are risking their lives for my entertainment. I've seen other racing fans write that the horses want to run, that they risk their lives running on their own in fields every day, and that the fatal injuries in racing are relatively rare. None of those responses disproves the notion that injuries and deaths that would not otherwise occur happen as a direct result of racing. The reality, as I see it, is that most fans are willing to abide that fact if the injury/fatality rates aren't beyond some unspecified level that constitutes "too much." It's feeling like "too much" now, though, and so many fans are weighing in with their thoughts on steps that might reduce injuries to a level that makes them feel really rare again.

Since everybody else is, I'll join in -- with the same solution I've been mumbling to myself for a couple of years now: instead of changing the game to follow the trend in breeding, change it in the other direction to provoke the breed to change for the better. Lengthen the races instead of shortening them. Introduce participation bonuses for horses who can finish in the money for multiple objectives in a season.

It can't just be done at the top of the food chain, though. And it can't be done overnight. Announce a participation points-based series of distance stakes for older horses starting next year, and you'll have nearly as many no-shows as the races get now, plus a few horses taped together to trot around the track to try to get an appearance fee when they should be in the barn.

No, this kind of thing has to be done throughout the condition book, and over a period of time. A track could announce that in five years' time, five and six furlong races will be carded as rarely as two-mile races are today. Starting four years from now, two thirds of all of the races in the condition book would be at least one furlong longer than currently carded, maybe two, and maybe a half mile. The most common distance on a day's program would be a mile or a mile and an eighth instead of six furlongs. More than half of the races carded would be a mile or longer, and a third would be ten furlongs or longer. Beyond that four-year mark, races would gradually stretch out even more.

At the same time, the track could restructure its purse program to skew some of its rewards toward participation bonuses. At all levels of racing. Races for individual conditions, whether in the claiming ranks or in stakes, could be grouped together over the course of a meeting, with a race or two at the end as climaxes, and bonus payouts for high point totals achieved by in-the-money finishes.

The other notion that would accompany these announced changes: when they came, they'd bring with them a race-day ban on medications like Lasix and Bute.

What would result? Some might speculate that the result would be empty barns and no entries for the races of the track that announced these changes. And I do agree that they'd be pretty drastic for any one track to be able to pull off.

But the reason I think they could be implemented now to an effect not possible in previous generations is that there is an unprecedented level of consolidation in race track ownership. NYRA has been a big fish since the 1950s with its ownership of New York's three biggest tracks, Aqueduct, Belmont and Saratoga. But there are other whales besides NYRA these days. Churchill Downs Inc. owns its namesake track, the home of the Kentucky Derby, plus Arlington Park, Fair Grounds and Calder. The Magna Entertainment Group owns Pimlico, the home of the Preakness, plus Santa Anita, Gulfstream, Laurel, Golden Gate, Lone Star and Thistledown.

When a single state announces that its racetracks are going to have a reasonably well-funded program of restricted races and purse bonuses for horses bred inside its borders, that's enough to change trainer behavior in what kind of horses they buy and where they choose to race them. Eventually, it changes the behavior of owners and would-be breeders as well. If a single state's breeding program can have an impact, I have to believe that any two of NYRA, Churchill and Magna implementing changes like these would be impossible to ignore.

The change I'd expect is that there would be less demand for the kind of horses that look like speedballs early. And less demand for bloodlines that carry iffy prospects for durability and stamina. Maybe it will still be the case that the horse able to run the fastest mile and a quarter on the first Saturday in May of his three-year-old season will be a grandson of Mr. Prospector out of a granddaughter of Storm Cat. But without medication, maybe that horse won't make it to the starting gate at all. Today, I imagine that the midlevel buyer or breeder gambles that some slightly above average descendants of the aforementioned Mr. Prospector and Storm Cat will be throwbacks far enough that they can achieve greatness, look the part well enough to make a good impression at a sale, or throwback at least far enough to be the quickest at six furlongs in Thursday's third race at Nowhere Downs. After these changes, I'd expect that same buyer or breeder to think more about an offspring of an Ascot Gold Cup winner.

If you know that there are good places for you to run them, you'll be more likely to buy and breed horses that have stamina. If durability brings with it extra money-making potential, you'll be emphasizing that more, too. I'm no horseman, but I hear tell that the physical types that lean toward stamina also tend to be more sound.

So maybe then the Skip Aways of the world, who aren't quite as fashionably bred as some of their less accomplished contemporaries, would get some more love from breeders because of their proven toughness over multiple campaigns. Maybe a Silver Charm would be too big a star at stud to be sold away to breeders outside the United States. Maybe winners of the St. Leger or the Melbourne Cup could become relevant and start showing up in American pedigrees again.

And maybe, with their opportunities for generating cash at stud somewhat diminished when they haven't proven their durability, the Smarty Joneses and Afleet Alexes of the world wouldn't be rushed off to stud quite so quickly.

The hope, obviously, is to make it more attractive to breed some of the types that will stay on the track longer -- both in each individual race and over the course of their careers. It seems to me that this would be in the interest of a racetrack owner who is planning to stay in the game with multiple properties for the long haul. The benefit is apparent at both ends of the sport. The states and tracks need their racing revenue, so they'd like to see the number of dates and races stay up; if there are more healthy horses running more often, there are fuller fields everywhere, which makes for more betting and more money for everybody, even in Thursday's third at Nowhere. At the top end, every sport benefits when star performers get onto the radar screen and stay there for a while. Horse racing tells potential fans that a star is on the horizon, and more often than not, they're gone by the time anybody pays attention: Point Given in 2001, Smarty Jones in 2004, Afleet Alex in 2005 and the tragic Barbaro in 2006 were all gone from the track by September of their highlight seasons. No matter how fast his speed figures were, most folks outside of hard-core racing fans never heard of Ghostzapper; racing wins fewer new fans from a dozen Ghostzappers than it would from a single Kelso.

So this is a shout-out to NYRA, Churchill and Magna. Get together -- no, I won't be holding my breath in the meantime -- change the game, force a change in the breed, and we'll all reap the benefits of the sport you're so heavily invested in.