One of my favorite sayings is, "It's easy to spend someone else's money," and one need look no further than the horse racing industry to see how true that is. The idea that owners owe the industry (or the media) anything has to end.
Of course, the impetus for this discussion is Rachel Alexandra and the backlash against her majority owner, Jess Jackson, for playing coy about her next start.
Claire Novak wrote to great fanfare on ESPN.com that Jackson is not a sportsman because he has not disclosed Rachel Alexandra's next start as if he knows. There are four races still on the table all with vastly different conditions: The Shadwell Travers Stakes on August 29, the Personal Ensign Stakes on August 30, the Woodward Stakes (G1) on September 5, and the Pennsylvania Derby (G2) on September 7.
The Travers or Personal Ensign would mark Rachel Alexandra's first start beyond 1 3/16 miles. The Personal Ensign (females) or Woodward (males) would mark her first start against older horses. The Pennsylvania Derby would require shipping and is only a Grade 2, but it is worth more than either the Personal Ensign or Woodward.
Some have lamented that neither Jackson nor trainer Steve Asmussen publicly stated that Rachel Alexandra would not enter the Alabama Stakes, but her workout pattern clearly indicated that she would not be racing this week. For Asmussen, an easy work back followed by a bullet means a race is at least another week away. John Scheinman of the NYRA press office and trainer Mark Hennig both noticed that, so it's not like deciphering Asmussen's moves required possession of the Rosetta Stone or an advanced degree in reading tea leaves.
So Jackson said he'll make an announcement after Rachel Alexandra works early next week. Apparently this rubs people the wrong way. What is wrong with waiting until after her next workout to decide where to race a horse worth $10-million who is in the midst of what might end up being the greatest season by a three-year-old filly in the history of the North American Turf?
I defy anyone--Turf writer, casual fan, hardcore gambler, racetrack executive, etc.--to come up with one reason why Jackson is selfish for telling the media upfront, "no decision until after her workout." Can you imagine the din if he said today, "We're going to the Pennsylvania Derby" only to change his mind and go to the Travers because of the way she worked next week?
Also, this idea that owners, who stereotypically are wealthy individuals, should be embarrassed to make money off their horse racing exploits has to end.
Claire sarcastically called Jackson "real classy" for wishing that the races available to him had higher purses.
I'll stop short of nominating him as chairman of the St. Vincent de Paul society, but Jackson is a smart businessman. I say that not because it's smart to squeeze an extra $100,000 out of NYRA or Greenwood Racing (which owns Philadelphia Park) but because he knows his filly running will make money not only for himself but also for the track staging the race and the network televising it. Him wanting a cut of that by virtue of a higher purse is completely in bounds.
Jackson took an eight-figure gamble that Rachel Alexandra could win the Preakness Stakes on two weeks rest. He did the right thing (despite arguments to the contrary from some of my colleagues in the press) by skipping the Belmont Stakes. He ran her against males again at her sixth different track in as many starts, and her next start will mark her seventh unique surface this year.
There is no other owner in North America as sporting.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I don't disagree. Rachel Alexandra belongs to Jackson, not the fans. If Jackson wants to run her tomorrow in a $5K claimer at Fort Erie or rest for months and try the BC Classic, that's his business.
I think we've been treated to a good slate of races thus far at a variety of tracks against a wide range of competition.
I have no complaints.
"he knows his filly running will make money not only for himself but also for the track staging the race and the network televising it. Him wanting a cut of that by virtue of a higher purse is completely in bounds." -
What do you think the original million-dollar purse is for? Does Greenwood also have the right to withhold 750K in case the field isn't worthy of more than 250? If not, I think this is a terribly bad argument.
There will be no televising network if Jackson keeps announcing her schedule the morning of the race. TV stations plan months or at the very least days in advance (a fact that American racing keeps missing).
It's highly questionable whether Philly Park would be so giddy about the few extra tickets sold (does that dump even hold more than 10.000?) while Rachel simultaneously cuts their betting pools in half.
A point you miss is that Jackson himself has set the bar so high by claiming that he bought RA to broaden racing's appeal. If his actions clearly contradict that goal, criticism is just.
It's one of your best pieces.
Malcer,
Philly Park would benefit not only from the extra tickets sold (if that's even a factor since most racinos offer free admission) but from the added slot play and concession sales.
As a frequent simulcast player, I'm FAR more inclined to look at the race with Rachel Alexandra in it than without. I'd then in turn look at the pick N wagers surrounding her race.
While your note that tracks don't reduce purses for a lackluster field is a fair point, it doesn't change my bottom line that tracks figure to make more with her in a race than without (why do you think Monmouth offers a $50k bonus to classic winners who start in the Haskell?). Jackson wanting a cut of that not only for himself but also his trainer, jockey, grooms, valets, etc. isn't out of line.
"her workout pattern clearly indicated that she would not be racing this week. (...) it's not like deciphering Asmussen's moves required possession of the Rosetta Stone or an advanced degree in reading tea leaves."
This is a revealing statement, and a representative one, I fear. If people in the racing media actually think like this, it explains a lot.
To be sure: the post linked to isn't meant as a personal attack on you, but on the (widespread, I assume) notion this statement presents.
I read Novak's article a few days ago with my jaw on the floor. It was bitter, personalized and more unprofessional with each passing paragraph.
Whether I agree with her or not (and I don't), I could not stomach that this so-called journalist was allowed a forum to just relentlessly bash the connections of Rachel Alexandra. Disgaree with their tactics all you like, but can we be even remotely professional about expressing it?? That is rhetorical, under the circumstances.
That type of personal attack should best be left for a personal blog. And to paraphrase Ms Novak's article: "Trust me"...it IS personal. She knows it, they know it, and so does most everyone else in the horse racing media.
I have news for the young Ms. Novak; neither you, or any of us, are "owed" a thing from any owner, or trainer of ANY horse, at any time.
Perhaps a closer look into WHY Ms. Novak is SO incensed is in order here, because I for one, smell something a lot more rancid than just a tantrum over not being told when a horse is going to race.
Either way, it was nothing but an embarassment to good journalists and writers everywhere. Ms. Novak is young and "untrained" (ie, no degree in journalism) and it shows. One wonders if it's already too late to teach her some tact and decorum, even at her very young age.
Who is Claire Novak ?
I couldn't agree more with the post. Why bash Jess Jackson for having RA do the unheard of by taking on older male horses at age 3 while Zenyatta does nothing but race against weak 4-horse fields in California on the poly? Plus Jackson actually considered running Curlin in the Arc last year. It didn't pan out because Curlin didn't take to the turf or polytrack, but do you think any other owner would be that sporting? That Jackson is a sportsman is without question.
Post a Comment