Saratoga is the place to be
Saratoga has it all. Whether you're a casual racing fan or a handicapper looking for insight into next year's Triple Crown, Saratoga is the place to be.
It's just a two-hour drive from Orange County, and in addition to being a traditional getaway for many, there are 15 Grade I stakes races on the schedule. What a show!
Three Grade I events make July 26, the first Saturday program, one of the two premier days of racing during the meet. The $250,000 Grade 1 Go For Wand Stakes will showcase some of the best female horses in the country. Females also compete in the $500,000 Diana Handicap on the grass course that day. Winners of these races are guaranteed entrants in the Breeders' Cup Ladies Classic and Filly and Mare Turf, respectively.
The $750,000 Whitney Handicap at 11/8 miles is a Breeders' Cup "win and you're in" race that will attract some famous names. This gives the winner a chance at the $5 million purse in the Classic on Oct. 25 at Santa Anita. A field of experienced horses should put on a terrific show.
The highlight of the meet comes on Aug. 23 with the country's oldest stakes race for 3-year-olds, the $1,000,000 11/4 mile Travers Stakes, fondly called the "Mid-Summer Derby."
A full field will be trying to beat Belmont Stakes winner Da 'Tara. Certainly we'll see other Triple Crown notables in the gate such as Denis of Cork, Anak Nakal and Macho Again, Maybe even Big Brown will return to clear his name.
Many of next year's Triple Crown contenders will debut in Saratoga. Whether it's in maiden, allowance or stakes races, the juveniles will be out in force. You never know what might happen when the gates spring open for these 2-year- olds.
The payoffs are usually good. Big Brown broke his maiden on Sept. 3, 2007, here in a 11/6 mile race on the turf. He won by 11 1/4 lengths over nine competitors and paid $31.40 for a $2 bet. If only we had a crystal ball, our pockets would have been bulging with loot!
The 2008 meet offers six terrific races for the 2-year-olds dreaming of the Kentucky Derby. On opening day July 23, fillies race six furlongs in the Schuylerville with a purse of $100,000.
On July 24, colts run the 94th Sandford, a six-furlong race with a purse of $150,000 that was won by Secretariat in 1972 and Affirmed in 1977. Both went on to be Triple Crown winners.
On Aug. 13, 2-year-old fillies encore in the Adirondack at 6 1/2 furlongs. The next day colts try again with the 6 1/2 furlong Saratoga Special. These two races dangle a $150,000 purse to attract the best fields. The Saratoga Special was won by such greats as City Zip (2000), Dehere (1993), Gulch (1986) and Chief's Crown (1984).
The grand finale for the juveniles comes on closing weekend with two races offering quarter-million dollar purses. On Aug. 31, it's the meet's final heat for fillies, The Spinaway. The Hopeful Stakes is on Labor Day, a seven-furlong challenge for colts. The Hopeful has been the stepping stone to greatness for horses like Afleet Alex (2004), Smoke Glacken (1996), Chief's Crown (1984), Affirmed (1978), Foolish Pleasure (1974) and Secretariat (1972).
We are fortunate to have such spectacular racing so close. Driving to Saratoga to see at least one of these races is a must. If lucky, you just might drive home with more money. Enjoy the sport and cheer our present and future champions.
(c) 2008 Hudson Valley Media Group
Congress Is Considering a National Authority to Monitor Horse Racing
WASHINGTON - Members of a Congressional subcommittee scolded the horse racing industry Thursday for endangering thoroughbreds with lax drug policies and faulty breeding, and said the sport emphasized greed over transparency. The panel is considering endorsing a central governing body for the sport and warned that it could reopen the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 to make that happen.
"Unlike every other professional and amateur sport, horse racing lacks any national regulatory authority that can promulgate uniform rules and regulations," said Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois. She led the hearing, which was entitled "Breeding, Drugs, and Breakdowns: The State of Thoroughbred Horseracing and the Welfare of the Thoroughbred Racehorse."
"One of the central questions the subcommittee wants to explore is, does horse racing need a central governing authority? Is the racing industry truly capable of making reforms on its own within the current regulatory framework?"
Arthur Hancock, whose Stone Farm produced three Kentucky Derby winners, testified that the industry was too fractured and perhaps too dysfunctional to organize itself and needed federal oversight to rid the sport of drugs and stop fatalities. In 1960, he noted, horses made 11.3 starts a year and in 2007 they made 6.31.
"This is a dramatic drop of 44 percent and is a startling statistic, which shows that the breed is becoming softer and weaker," he told the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
"It is a vicious cycle," he said. "Chemical horses produce chemical babies. Performance-enhancing drugs must be banned if we are going to survive as an industry and if thoroughbreds are going to survive as a robust breed."
Jess Jackson, who owns the reigning Horse of the Year, Curlin, asked that the industry be allowed to try to organize itself first, but said that federal interest in horse racing was critical if the sport was to regain its trust with the public.
"We need Congress to take an active interest in assuring the integrity, safety and economic viability of this magnificent sport," Jackson said.
He also criticized the industry's "broken business model," which rewards breeding over racing. Horse owners, for example, invest $4.3 billion a year for a chance to compete for approximately $1.1 billion in purses.
Jackson, who is the owner of the Kendall-Jackson winery, bucked that trend when he chose to race Curlin as a 4-year-old. Curlin won his fifth victory in a row last Saturday at the Stephen Foster Handicap at Churchill Downs and may try the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe in October in France.
"There is every incentive to shorten horses' racing careers, racing them too young and retiring them too soon, in order to get them to stud sooner," he said.
Representative Ed Whitfield, Republican from Kentucky and the subcommittee's ranking minority member, warned that the sport was at a "crossroads."
"I believe greed has trumped the health of the horse, health of the jockey, strength of the breed and integrity of the sport," he said.
Subcommittee members as well as the panelists discussed the breakdown and on-track euthanization of the filly Eight Belles after she finished second in the Derby, and the acknowledgment by the trainer Rick Dutrow that he injected the Derby and the Preakness Stakes champion Big Brown with the anabolic steroid Winstrol.
Everyone agreed the sport had a drug problem.
"We have created the chemical horse," said Richard B. Shapiro, chairman of the California Horse Racing Board.
Before the Belmont Stakes, Dutrow said he had taken Big Brown off Winstrol, fueling speculation that the colt's previous unbeaten record was the result of the drug.
Schakowsky reprimanded Dutrow for not appearing before the committee. Dutrow said he had been ill since the Belmont, when Big Brown's bid to win the Triple Crown shattered when he finished last after being eased by jockey Kent Desormeaux in the final turn.
Dutrow said he notified members of the subcommittee Wednesday that he would not attend, but Schakowsky said that was not the case. "e never notified anybody on this committee staff,"she said. " hope in the future he will join us and be part of the solution."
Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican from Florida, said Congress had jurisdiction to step in because of the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978, which allowed simulcast wagering and provided the legal basis for Internet horse betting by permitting it to take place across state lines. Last year, such wagering accounted for 90 percent of the $15 billion wagered on the sport.
"his is a wake-up call for you,"Stearns said. "here' abuse in your industry. You know that better than I."
In the written testimony that Dutrow submitted, he owned up to numerous rules violations involving drugs and medications. He also said he began giving his horses steroids a few years ago at the recommendation of one of his veterinarians.
"People have asked me why I do it," he wrote. "My observation is that it helps the horses eat better. Their coats are brighter. They're more alert. It helps them train."
Dutrow also wrote that his horses had won hundreds of races while not on steroids. He said that they won two $1 million races last winter in Dubai, where steroids are prohibited.
"If steroids are banned in the United States, we'll stop using them," Dutrow wrote.
(c) The New York Times Company
Congress Is Considering a National Authority to Monitor Horse Racing
WASHINGTON - Members of a Congressional subcommittee scolded the horse racing industry Thursday for endangering thoroughbreds with lax drug policies and faulty breeding, and said the sport emphasized greed over transparency. The panel is considering endorsing a central governing body for the sport and warned that it could reopen the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 to make that happen.
"Unlike every other professional and amateur sport, horse racing lacks any national regulatory authority that can promulgate uniform rules and regulations," said Representative Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois. She led the hearing, which was entitled "Breeding, Drugs, and Breakdowns: The State of Thoroughbred Horseracing and the Welfare of the Thoroughbred Racehorse."
"One of the central questions the subcommittee wants to explore is, does horse racing need a central governing authority? Is the racing industry truly capable of making reforms on its own within the current regulatory framework?"
Arthur Hancock, whose Stone Farm produced three Kentucky Derby winners, testified that the industry was too fractured and perhaps too dysfunctional to organize itself and needed federal oversight to rid the sport of drugs and stop fatalities. In 1960, he noted, horses made 11.3 starts a year and in 2007 they made 6.31.
"This is a dramatic drop of 44 percent and is a startling statistic, which shows that the breed is becoming softer and weaker," he told the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection.
"It is a vicious cycle," he said. "Chemical horses produce chemical babies. Performance-enhancing drugs must be banned if we are going to survive as an industry and if thoroughbreds are going to survive as a robust breed."
Jess Jackson, who owns the reigning Horse of the Year, Curlin, asked that the industry be allowed to try to organize itself first, but said that federal interest in horse racing was critical if the sport was to regain its trust with the public.
"We need Congress to take an active interest in assuring the integrity, safety and economic viability of this magnificent sport," Jackson said.
He also criticized the industry's "broken business model," which rewards breeding over racing. Horse owners, for example, invest $4.3 billion a year for a chance to compete for approximately $1.1 billion in purses.
Jackson, who is the owner of the Kendall-Jackson winery, bucked that trend when he chose to race Curlin as a 4-year-old. Curlin won his fifth victory in a row last Saturday at the Stephen Foster Handicap at Churchill Downs and may try the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe in October in France.
"There is every incentive to shorten horses' racing careers, racing them too young and retiring them too soon, in order to get them to stud sooner," he said.
Representative Ed Whitfield, Republican from Kentucky and the subcommittee's ranking minority member, warned that the sport was at a "crossroads."
"I believe greed has trumped the health of the horse, health of the jockey, strength of the breed and integrity of the sport," he said.
Subcommittee members as well as the panelists discussed the breakdown and on-track euthanization of the filly Eight Belles after she finished second in the Derby, and the acknowledgment by the trainer Rick Dutrow that he injected the Derby and the Preakness Stakes champion Big Brown with the anabolic steroid Winstrol.
Everyone agreed the sport had a drug problem.
"We have created the chemical horse," said Richard B. Shapiro, chairman of the California Horse Racing Board.
Before the Belmont Stakes, Dutrow said he had taken Big Brown off Winstrol, fueling speculation that the colt's previous unbeaten record was the result of the drug.
Schakowsky reprimanded Dutrow for not appearing before the committee. Dutrow said he had been ill since the Belmont, when Big Brown's bid to win the Triple Crown shattered when he finished last after being eased by jockey Kent Desormeaux in the final turn.
Dutrow said he notified members of the subcommittee Wednesday that he would not attend, but Schakowsky said that was not the case. "He never notified anybody on this committee staff," she said. "I hope in the future he will join us and be part of the solution."
Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican from Florida, said Congress had jurisdiction to step in because of the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978, which allowed simulcast wagering and provided the legal basis for Internet horse betting by permitting it to take place across state lines. Last year, such wagering accounted for 90 percent of the $15 billion wagered on the sport.
"This is a wake-up call for you," Stearns said. "There's abuse in your industry. You know that better than I."
In the written testimony that Dutrow submitted, he owned up to numerous rules violations involving drugs and medications. He also said he began giving his horses steroids a few years ago at the recommendation of one of his veterinarians.
"People have asked me why I do it," he wrote. "My observation is that it helps the horses eat better. Their coats are brighter. They're more alert. It helps them train."
Dutrow also wrote that his horses had won hundreds of races while not on steroids. He said that they won two $1 million races last winter in Dubai, where steroids are prohibited.
"If steroids are banned in the United States, we'll stop using them," Dutrow wrote.
(c) 2008 The New York Times Company
Program at Philly Park steers horses from slaughter
With the sport currently taking a publicity lashing due to breakdowns and steroid abuses, Philadelphia Park has taken a bold step to ensure retired racehorses a better future.
A program dubbed Turning for Home, administered by former trainer and cable-television racing host Barbara Luna, offers horsemen the opportunity to retire runners to the farm when their racing days are over.
Currently, some horses are sent to auction in New Holland, Pa., where they are often bought for around $400 for eventual consumption, heading to slaughterhouses in Canada and Mexico.
The slaughtering of horses in this country has been made illegal through legislation, with the final slaughterhouses in Texas and Illinois closing within the last year.
Luna operates an office in the administration building on the backstretch at Philadelphia Park. "We have formally retired seven horses and five others are in the process of being retired," Luna said yesterday. "We send them to Cabin Creek Farm in Bernville, about 15 minutes from Penn National" race course.
Turning for Home asks for $250 as a retirement fee, but the bulk of financial support derives from the local horsemen's group and track management. "I love thoroughbreds and seeing them get to the right place is critical. We need to do the right thing for these animals. Most of them need stall rest but can become trail horses, show horses, or compete in equestrian events. Some just love jumping," Luna said.
Luna said fund-raising events are being formed and that a plan for owners to pay $10 per starter would raise about $80,000 for the cause annually. Sal Sinatra, Philadelphia Park's director of racing, mailed a letter to horsemen this week informing them of the retirement alternative, urging them to use the program.
"Through this program we hope to place our horses into the best retirement options. Horses found headed to New Holland may result in trainer sanctions and loss of stall privileges and will not be tolerated," Sinatra said.
Eyes on Virginia. Colonial Downs offers an outstanding card this afternoon with the $600,000 Colonial Cup (TVG) and the $200,000 All Along.
The Cup has 10 3-year-olds going 13/16 miles on the turf and is a wide-open betting opportunity.
The top three contenders appear to be Sailor's Cap, Adriano and Nestle's Crunch.
Making their first starts on turf are Triple Crown competitors Kentucky Bear and Court Vision. Kentucky Bear suffered a brutal trip while finishing sixth in the Preakness and Court Vision checked in a disappointing 13th in the Kentucky Derby.
Bet Six. The 60-minute Pick 6 begins today with a guaranteed pool of $100,000 and several area races included in the wager that commences at 3:40 p.m. and concludes at 4:28 p.m. The wager includes the sixth race at Belmont, seventh from Monmouth, eighth at Delaware, seventh at Belmont, eighth at Monmouth, and ends with the 10th at Philly Park.
The bet will be offered every Saturday through Aug. 30 with a carryover, if necessary.
Delaware Park contest. The Stanton track presents its monthly handicapping tournament today with a $3,000 first prize. There is a $40 entry fee plus a $100 bankroll and entry fees are returned as prize money. Wagers can be made on races at Delaware, Philly, Belmont, Monmouth, Colonial and Churchill.
The winner will also receive entry into the 2009 World Series of Handicapping at the Orleans in Las Vegas along with a room and airfare.
(c) The Philadelphia Inquirer
2008 Belmont Stakes Betting Odds
While Big Brown may be the big favorite, 2008 Belmont Stakes betting odds have much better value than the recent Preakness Stakes thanks to the entry of Casino Drive - listed with +350 odds at BetUS. It should be noted that Big Brown had -300 odds as of press time Wednesday.
Many have already begun touting Casino Drive as the horse to beat Big Brown.
D.S. Williamson of BetUS.
"The fact that the Belmont Stakes will only be Casino Drive's third lifetime start means that it makes sense to write-off the 13 to 4 BetUS online racebook future book odds as an underlay. After all, can any horse, no matter how well-bred, win a testing race like the Belmont Stakes after only two starts?
"Maybe not. But Casino Drive doesn't appear to be like any other horse. For one, his maiden score on dirt in Japan was absolutely smashing. It was a brilliant race where Casino Drive led through-out. The similarities between Casino Drive's maiden score and Big Brown's are eerie. Both horses won by over 11 lengths and both horses won while on the lead. The difference, of course, is that Casino Drive was a 20 cent favorite in his maiden victory while Big Brown went off as a close to 15 to 1 long-shot.
"Casino Drive, in fact, appears to be a horse destined for greatness. His Japanese connections bought him at the September Keeneland Sale auction for $925,000. Big Brown was purchased at the April Keeneland Sale auction for $190,000."
Casino Drive is also likely to have his odds cut further by race time with a heavy amount of bets coming in from the Japanese over the course of the next couple of days.
Of course all eyes will be on Big Brown and whether he can win the Triple Crown.
Big Brown, who won the Kentucky Derby from the outside post, draws post position No. 1 for his attempt to become the first horse in 30 years to win the Triple Crown.
Trainer Rick Dutrow Jr. said: "I can't see the post getting him beat. We'll take it, we'll go with it."
He also disclosed that Big Brown was looking great coming into Saturday's Belmont Stakes.
"He couldn't be any better; I couldn't be any happier."
(c) Gambling 911
Preakness Stakes Betting - Big Brown Props in Preakness
The consensus pick to win the Preakness Stakes this weekend at Pimlico Racetrack is none other then undefeated superstar horse Big Brown. Unless you've been spending all of your time in the BetUS online casino, which isn't a bad thing, you probably know that Big Brown won the Kentucky Derby in hand by a widening sports betting margin. With the exception of the ill-fated filly Eight Belles, not a single one of Big Brown's opponents in the online betting Derby ran a step.
That will make Big Brown one of the lowest-priced favorites the Preakness has ever seen. Lower then the 1 to 2 on Fusaichi Pegasus in the 2000 Preakness? Yes. Lower then the 1 to 5 on Smarty Jones in the 2004 Preakness? Again, yes. My predicted race time odds on Big Brown to win the Preakness will be 1 to 9.
That puts online racebook fans in a bit of a conundrum. How could we possibly bet on Big Brown in the Preakness? Simple. Log onto the BetUS online racebook and make a wager on either Big Brown, one of his rivals, or one of the numerous props being offered on the hugely popular bay colt.
See, unlike some other online racebooks, the BetUS racebook offers not only lock-in odds on the Preakness Stakes' favorite, but odds on his rivals and odds on how many lengths he can win by, and whether or not he can win the Triple Crown or Belmont Stakes.
There are a number of reasons to take the BetUS online racebook odds of 1 to 3 on Big Brown to win the Preakness. As I wrote above, the chances of Big Brown going off at race time anywhere close to 1 to 3 is going to be minimal. In fact I am going to say that there is no way Dutrow's charge goes off anywhere close to 1 to 3!
It's just not possible after winning from the 20 hole in the Kentucky Derby and beating down 19 other supposedly talented sophomores. Big Brown certainly has the talent to win the Triple Crown. Any horse talented enough to win the Triple Crown, who also won the Kentucky Derby with the authority that he did, will be a huge favorite in the Preakness. That's what history tells us. So if you really believe that Brown is that good, then go for it. 1 to 3 are excellent odds.
If you don't like Big Brown, then you can get scintillating odds on one of his rivals, the best of which look like Macho Again at BetUS online racebook odds of 20 to 1 and Kentucky Bear at BetUS online racebook odds of 30 to 1. Both Macho Again and Kentucky Bear have a "puncher's chance" in the Preakness Stakes. That doesn't make them locks to take down Big Brown, but anything can happen in a horse race and 20 to 1 and 30 to 1 are nice odds on the other two most logical contenders.
Then there are the prop bets that the BetUS online racebook is offering for the Preakness Stakes. Perhaps the best prop bet is the one that asks the question -- will Big Brown win the Triple Crown?
The answer? No. Unless something happens to superstar Japanese horse Casino Drive, who's impressive win in the Peter Pan was as brilliant a race as I've seen all year, Big Brown will not win the Belmont Stakes. That means that he won't win the Triple Crown.
What are the BetUS odds on Big Brown to lose the Belmont Stakes? A very nice 3 to 2. For every $200 you bet against Big Brown in the Belmont, no matter what happens in the Preakness, you get back $300 in profit.
I love those online wagering odds! As good as Big Brown is, the 1 1/2 miles he will have to run in the Belmont Stakes will be his 3rd race in five weeks. If Smarty Jones couldn't do it in 2004, then I think a wager against Big Brown in this year's edition is a good one.
In any case, whether you think Big Brown is the next coming of Secretariat or just another wannabe Triple Crown winner, you should do yourself a favor by logging into the BetUS online sportsbook, click into the online racebook, and get the odds that you deserve right now on the Preakness Stakes!
(c) 1994-2008 BetUS
Run for the roses
Commentary: A little horse sense can make you a winning fund investor
By Chuck Jaffe, MarketWatch
Last update: 3:28 p.m. EDT May 4, 2008
BOSTON (MarketWatch) -- For many people, the only time of year they care at all about horse racing is when the Kentucky Derby rolls around. Once racing's Triple Crown has ended, investors forget about the ponies for another 12 months.
But before the Preakness and Belmont Stakes run their course, mutual-fund investors would be wise to recognize the similarities between picking a racehorse and selecting a fund.
The key factors in your choice of horse or fund -- and how you structure your wager -- are surprisingly close. While some people place bets on both funds and horses based on names, hunches, and other guesswork, examining a fund's key components the way a savvy bettor observes a thoroughbred improves your odds of finishing in the money.
As in horse racing, favorites don't always win in the fund world. Issues that have had a great track record sometimes come up lame or slow down with age.
But if you are considering a wager on a new fund for your portfolio, think like someone picking the ponies and weigh these factors:
1. The length of the race and style of the horse. Some horses are bred for sprints, others for distance. The same goes for funds.
Volatile, concentrated funds using leverage or focused on sectors or nations with developing economies often act like speed horses, jumping out to big early leads before faltering down the stretch.
Conversely, some funds don't go to the front of the pack until late in the race. They don't always look good in the early running, but they don't disappoint in the end.
Pick a fund that best matches your investment personality. Unlike a horse race, you can change funds as they round the turn and head for home, but studies show you are likely to be better off if you stick with your horses for as long as possible.
2. The jockey. The fund's manager, like a jockey, has to be able to take advantage of opportunities. As an investor, you must decide whether you want a proven winner, an up-and-comer, or an unknown, or whether you want no real jockey input at all (as in an index fund).
3. The field. In any horse race, the size and quality of the field is a factor. In funds, the field is all of the offerings in a certain asset class. If you can't find funds you trust within a given category, you will be happier skipping the race and looking for a more attractive field to run against.
4. Track conditions. Some horses do great in the mud or on grass; others like a clean, dry track. Likewise, some funds do well in all market conditions, while others run smoothly only when the market is in their favor.
Examine a fund to see how it has done not only in current market conditions, but in likely climate changes, such as protracted downturns or when the market heats up.
5. The stable, trainer, and bloodlines. Just as the same trainers and stables seem to be represented in the big races every year, the same fund firms may consistently top the charts. A brand-name firm or a recognized style or culture may make you feel more certain about which outfit can meet your expectations.
6. The weight. In certain horse races, some horses carry more weight than their opponents. The idea -- especially in handicap races -- is that the horse with the best record carries the most weight to make lesser horses more competitive.
In mutual funds, fees, expenses, sales charges, and tax inefficiency all act as extra weight, slowing a hard charger and turning it into a laggard or a nag. The less your fund is weighted down with high costs, the better its chances.
7. The horse's track record. Past performance is no guarantee of future results in horse racing or mutual funds, so it should not necessarily be the primary selection factor, but it's always worth considering what a fund has done before shaping your expectations for how it will perform in the future.
8. The odds. Oddsmakers try to gauge the horse race and the public's betting favorite and tell you if a horse is a favorite or a long shot. In the fund business, firms including Morningstar, Lipper and Value Line evaluate and rate funds and help an investor feel comfortable he can bet on a fund and come home in the money.
9. The kind of bet you are most comfortable with. In both fund investing and horse racing, you can be rewarded even if you are not the big winner. You get smaller payouts betting on a horse to finish in the top three than picking it to win, but pursuing smaller, more consistent payouts may suit you more than betting all-or-nothing on a favorite.
Ultimately, your own comfort level and risk tolerance plays as big a role in the selection process as all the other factors, especially because fund investing (unlike horse racing) is a lifelong marathon rather than a sprint.
Chuck Jaffe is a senior MarketWatch columnist. His work appears in dozens of U.S. newspapers.
Copyright (c) 2008 MarketWatch, Inc. All rights reserved.
|
