I Won't "Have Another"
There has not been a Triple Crown winner in racing since Affirmed in 1978. As Andrew Cohen pointed out in The Atlantic last month, that's a whole generation of sports fans who've never seen that trifecta. And with I'll Have Another pulling out of the Belmont Stakes tomorrow that drought will continue.
This isn't the death of horse racing in North America, but it's pretty darn close.
At one time the ponies were the only legalized form of gambling in the US. Then, in 1931, Nevada hitched its star to legalized gaming. It would be 46 years before Atlantic City broke that monopoly.
Today, politicians are the real gambling addicts. Twenty states and two territories allow casinos. (There are now over 1,500 casinos nationwide.) Forty-three states and three territories have state-run lotteries. All have cut action at the nation's tracks to the bone.
Like boxing, racing has suffered because of a lack of a comprehensive national authority. Yes, we conservatives love Federalism. But 50 racing authorities and 5o boxing commissions do little to prevent corruption in their sports. Tracks will never lure the consumer back if they think they have no chance to pick a winner without knowing what pharmacological edge one horse is enjoying over another.
One could argue that this is the creative destruction of the marketplace. Maybe we've just found more ways to amuse ourselves and throw away our money. It's hard to say because of the interference of the state. But the great races that people still follow will not survive if the sport is not healthy year 'round from coast to coast. With 138 Kentucky Derbies under our belts, we're a lot closer to the last and final Derby than we are to the first.
- Comment (20)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (0)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
This news broke my heart when I saw it on Drudge a few minutes ago. I only ever watch the Triple Crown races, but I love rooting for a Triple Crown victory, and I still maintain there is no greater moment in sports history then Secretariat's victory at the Belmont. If you haven't seen it you can watch it here. It's a beautiful thing.
Aug '10
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
I'm saddened that we've lost the opportunity to see another legendary horse race unfold before our eyes. Seeing Secretariat win his three big ones was one of the greatest moments in all sports history.
But the upside is that Doug O'Neill, trainer of I'll Have Another, has only the horse's well being in mind. It's a case of tendonitis in the horse's left front leg, and he could be have been ruined and destroyed by racing tomorrow.
O'Neill has a checkered past, and has been censured for doping horse in previous races. He's redeeming himself by doing the right thing now.
Edited on June 8, 2012 at 9:07pmApr '11
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
Not to niggle but Secretariat was a stallion.........
Jul '10
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
I'll deal with the depression using mint juleps.
OK, Gents, who's Yer money on?
And does anyone watch boxing these days?
Jan '11
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
Sorry, I've watched too many episodes of Law & Order. That's where I learned about milk shakes. This smells a bit. The horse may very well be unfit to race but I can't help thinking this may have been a preemptive move. Nobody wants an MVP tainted by doping.
Aug '10
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
Right you are, Sir!
Aug '10
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
Kudos, Yeah...ok. How prescient of you. Check this out:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57447468/labor-dispute-at-belmont-threatens-to-scratch-ill-have-anothers-triple-crown-bid/
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers threatened a strike, saying they've been working at Belmont without a contract since 2011, but the track wasn't inclined to talk to them; saying it was underhanded to wait until just before the big race to agitate. Maybe now they'll be more cooperative?
Dec '10
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
I rooted for Sham, which I suppose made Secretariat all the greater.
As for tomorrow's event, I will root for Paquiao! (sp?) No, I don't watch boxing. However, his trainer will be inducted into the boxing hall of fame, this weekend, and his is an interesting story.
Sep '11
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
My take on this--as a former U.S. horse official, and the former owner of a number of Thoroughbreds--was a whole-hearted "good for you!" Far, far too many horses are destroyed on the track by trainers who want to push for one more purse--and blow out the horse's tendons.
Extrapolating from I'll Have Another to horse racing as a whole--and particularly to insinuations of doping--is a stretch. The challenge in racing is simple math--far fewer people watch horse racing. Vastly fewer people understand enough about horse conformation to even hazard a guess at which horse will "go the distance." People--even experienced bettors--pick horses based on their names in the program, not on any kind of assessment of the horse's form, gait, or enthusiasm in the parade. (Daughter[1] has made money in Vegas precisely because she can.)
People nowadays bet on football, or basketball, or another sport they understand. Horse racing--and particularly harness racing--is a dying field.
Aug '11
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
As a hobbyist horse player, I always have mixed feelings this time of year. On one hand, it is always nice to see the enthusiasm. On the other I am disappointed that it never drives, or it is leveraged to get, people going to the track.
It is nice to hear reverence for "great horses" and the excitement the bring. Yet never does anybody suspect you can get the same excitement on a hot summer's day watching a maiden race of unknown beasts just as noble. Let alone do they suspect the induced dizzy intoxication of leaning at the rail, sweaty ticket in hand, trying to scream "THREE, THREE, THREE, COME ON THREE!" over a roar of hooves spraying dirt.
What is wrong with horse racing? Drugs? Polytrack? Pressuring three-year-olds to over-perform because of the Derby? I do not know. What I do know is the excitement you have over I'll Have Another now, grainy Secretariat film, or a Seabiscuit movie can be had almost any day, and intensified 100 times, at your local track. Please visit.
Edited on June 8, 2012 at 10:03pmSep '11
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
How about a Ricochet meet-up in Saratoga Springs? Track season is just around the corner!
Sep '11
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
I've been to the back side of the harness racing facility at Saratoga Springs--never in the grandstands.
Aug '11
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
Hmmm...might make it July 27, after the bar exam in Buffalo.
Nov '11
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
As a devoted fan of the late Dick Francis (Felix - not so much), this news saddens me, too. Even vicariously, there is something uplifting about watching horse and rider move as one.
Jun '10
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
Before you pronounce on the death of horse racing you should take a look at the stock chart for Churchill Downs (CHDN). Also look at the prices for thoroughbreds over the last 10 - 15 years.
From my post regarding the Derby a few weeks back...
I've only been into it for a short while but am not convinced it is dying. It may be coming back. One of the reasons it went int0 a trough was the lack of frequent and generous purses which made it worth the (considerable) expense of investing in horses. Now that casinos are attached to race tracks they are able to fund larger purses and more races. If it is continuing to die now it is the economy and the threat that the government has found better things to do with peoples' money than spend it on barns, trainers, groomers, vets, trucks, trailers, etc
My own guess is that the retirement of the baby boomers is going to be a real positive for horse racing.
Jun '10
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
As for this race and this situation. If the horse is in danger it is a great decision. If the winner comes in at 30-1 my conspiracy theories will really amp up.
Dullahan is a sensible favorite based on his last two races but at 9-5 is not a good bet.
Jun '10
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
There were only 5 horses in that race? Was that unusual or the norm back then?
If horse racing wants another Triple Crown winner to revive interest in the sport, perhaps they should reduce the size of the field in the 3 big races. Wouldn't that substantially increase the odds of 1 horse winning all 3?
Aug '11
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
Joseph Stanko
If horse racing wants another Triple Crown winner to revive interest in the sport, perhaps they should reduce the size of the field in the 3 big races. Wouldn't that substantially increase the odds of 1 horse winning all 3? · 33 minutes ago
At the risk of putting my foot in my mouth....It is a good thought logically, but these races are not pure chance.
A lot would change in that theory (some bad, some good), but I think it would not reach its goal for one immutable reason. The Belmont Stakes is 20% longer than the earlier two (Derby and Preakness). Its favors a different horse, a different psychology, and different training. It is no mistake horses fail on the final race.
An analogy, take a 100m sprint vs. a marathon. Different athletes, different training (if your first task is a 100m win you focus on that), different running strategies and concerns, and if Usain Bolt gives 2 gold medal 100m runs in a row imagine how he would run the Boston Marathon immediately after.
Edited on June 10, 2012 at 12:45amJun '10
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
Dramman
An analogy, take a 100m sprint vs. a marathon. Different athletes, different training (if your first task is a 100m win you focus on that), different running strategies and concerns, and if Usain Bolt gives 2 gold medal 100m runs in a row imagine how he would run the Boston Marathon immediately after.
I see your point, but the difference seems exaggerated. Usain Bolt would still be formidable in a 120m race, and that seems a more accurate analogy.
And are there really so many horses that specialize in 12 furlong training? Usain Bolt's chances even in a marathon would be a lot better if he ran against other sprinters who were similarly unaccustomed to such distances.
Aug '11
Re: I Won't "Have Another"
Joseph Stanko
I see your point, but the difference seems exaggerated. Usain Bolt would still be formidable in a 120m race, and that seems a more accurate analogy. · 4 minutes ago
It is a fair point. The forced economy here kept out a "exaggerated" proviso. To put it more literally, its not an extra 20m but a around a quarter of a mile extra. (1o furlongs vs. 12 furlongs). Also, like any high performance sport, the margins are vital, it seems this might seems a bridge to far.
To go a bit further with something not in human races, part of it is the primal psychology of horses running in a herd the sport plays off of. One factor in how a horse will run is "pace", or how fast the group of horses is going. The same horse that will lead in a sprint might lurk in the pack on a longer distance, or vice versa. The longer race the slower the pace, and a chance that might change the hopeful's thinking about the race (no matter how much urging a jockey might give).