Two-party system

Whether its donkeys and elephants, Team Edward and Team Jacob, or the Hatfields and McCoys, Americans know how to twist the peace and harmony of the yin and the yang into an all-out barroom melee.

And so it went with the Rachel Alexandra-Zenyatta Horse of the Year debate where a vote for the fomer was an unimaginative selection for the East Coast establishment while a vote for the latter was a senseless attempt to overrate the Breeders' Cup.

Neither is true, of course, and either would have been a deserving winner in any year in which the other did not race. Heck, even Gio Ponti would have likely won the award in some years.

But for whatever reason, we Americans seem wired to take our stances very seriously. You either hang the toilet paper from the top or the bottom, and the only thing I hate more than if you do it differently than I do is if you don't care.

And certainly the fact that more people seemed to care this year is the best thing to come out of this whole Horse of the Year debate. Sure, in many instances the debate became more about racing surfaces or supposed regional biases or whether the Breeders' Cup is racing's championship event rather than about which horse had the better campaign, but at least we're paying attention.

Yes, some cynics would say that talking about Horse of the Year while tracks go bankrupt and people in New Jersey can't bet Oaklawn is the equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns, but if you can't get people to talk about your athletes, then those business problems are moot anyway.

This debate didn't go mainstream. I doubt they discussed it on PTI, and I read on Twitter that ESPN and SI.com relegated the news to a small headline alert, but racing's core fans responded to it, and maybe now if (when?!!) Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta meet on the track in 2010, those same people who felt so vested in the outcome of the Horse of the Year vote will feel passionate enough not only to see them race in person but also bring along some friends.