This weekend, Monmouth Pork…um, I mean Park…hosted the 2nd annual BBQ and Craft Beer Festival. How do you say…it rocked!! As I’m writing this, I’m down pretty close to five pulled pork sandwiches for the weekend (carry the one), and there’s at least a 10% chance I stop at Memphis Pig Out on the way home. I’m just a sucker for BBQ. The winner, in my mind, was hands down Ben’s BBQ & Catering. The pulled pork was phenomenal, the beef brisket was rock solid, and the baked beans were awesome. (And I don’t like baked beans.) Ben’s is a catering company based in Newark, and I would highly recommend giving them a call for your next BBQ-themed party. I think they even do whole pigs! Yahtzee.
* * * *
Also this weekend, the entire northeastern United States put on their weather caps to predict where Hurricane Earl was going to go. This is a major pet peeve of mine. How come nobody really cares or talks about the weather 360 days a year, but the five days a year when a big storm is approaching, the average person suddenly starts talking like they have multi-million dollar satellites in their basement? It drives me crazy to hear someone say, “Oh, I think we’re going to get hit pretty bad.” (Unless that person is Al Roker or Jim Cantore.) The only information we as the general public gets concerning the weather comes from what we see on TV. Why, then, do some people talk like they work for The Weather Channel? “We won’t get hit. I won’t be that bad.” How in the world do you know? Just wait and find out how bad it’s going to be like the rest of us.
And while I’m on the theme of weather pet peeves, when I stopped by my secret fishing beach in Sea Bright Friday night to check on the surf, I suddenly found myself thinking it was the Fourth of July. Seemingly half the town was walking around, people had beach chairs set up on the sea wall, and it was almost a party atmosphere. The reason – everyone was out to see the “huge” waves. As a fisherman, I have a large interest in the ocean and often find myself wandering down to take a peak at the conditions. My only question is where are all of these people during some of our winter storms when the waves were three times as big as they were on Friday. I’m not saying fair-weather fans, but…
The NFL season starts in a couple weeks (I think) so let’s have our first football discussion on the MP Blog. During the pre-game for one of the recent Jets pre-season games, the question posed was is Tom Brady to Randy Moss the best quarterback-wide receiver combination in the AFC East. Some of the panelists actually said that they weren’t. Uh, hello!! Why are so many people in the sports media so short-sighted? Maybe it was a down year for the Patriots last year, but the Brady-Moss combo is still far-and-away the most lethal in the division. And not only are they number one, but Brady to Welker is number two. Mark Sanchez is nothing special yet (despite all the talk), Miami’s Chad Henne has never played a full NFL season and…who plays for the Bills again?
To end this fired-up Sunday blog is another major pet peeve of mine. Have you ever asked somebody to change something or asked a question about why something is, and they respond with, “Well, that’s just the way it is” or “That’s the way it’s always been”? Kiss my pork butt with that nonsense. “That’s the way it’s always been” is the dumbest comment I think a person can make (depending on the situation of course). If “that’s the way it’s always been” was the world’s motto, we wouldn’t have freedom of speech, every dispute would end in a duel, and I would have been married 10 years ago (at age 15). How about going out on a limb and taking a stand? How about fighting for the right cause? How about doing something that people might look back at in 20 years and say, “Wow, so and so made the right choice changing that from the way it used to be.” Laziness is not the greatest quality to have. Don’t be afraid to try something different. And definitely don’t not do something because it’s not “the way it’s always been done.”
Monmouth Pork/Kiss my pork butt…too corny…Yeah, I think so too!
Brad Thomas’ Why I Like Horse Racing
Trainers tend to be a strange lot when it comes to communicating about their horses. I once knew one who honest and truly almost always thought his horses would win.
“Well Bill, what about Oscar Barrera’s horse? The guy has won 10 races this week.”
“I know nothin’ about that horse. I care nothin’ about that horse. MY horse is ready. He’ll win by five.”
Another trainer NEVER believed his horse could win.
“Oh, I need one more work.”
“Why did Frankel have to enter here?”
“If only they’d just write me a non-winners of three races at 7 ½ furlongs or less in the last 16 ½ months going 5 ¾ furlongs.”
Both conditioners won with about 15% of their starters career-wise. Obviously, the optimist had a horrendous opinion because even when his horses did win, they seldom scored by five lengths. On the other hand, the pessimist proved himself a veritable seer of near Biblical genius since he was correct about 85% of the time.
Then there was the conditioner introduced to me in the racetrack restaurant by a mutual friend. My new acquaintance quickly volunteered – VOLUNTEERED! – that the horse he was dropping way down in the 9th race that day was precariously unsound.
“He’s a complete dead piece. I’m praying someone claims him.”
Well, of course the gelding rose like Lazarus, scored easily, escaped unclaimed, and went on to win three in a row while steadily stepping up in class. If that guy told me that Friday followed Thursday, I wouldn’t believe him.
I never ask trainers about what they think of their horses’ chances. It’s unprofessional, but even if it wasn’t, too many are biased – in one way or another – or unwilling to be candid even if the questioner was their own mother. Still, there are some trainers who’ll avoid me like the plague when they’re running a live horse. They won’t say hello. Won’t hold the door. Won’t even look at me. One fellow literally will do a pirouette when he sees me and walk – quickly – in the other direction. It’s a dead tell and his next entrant invariably runs well – usually at good odds.
On the flip side, years ago there was the chronically low percentage conditioner who would chase me around the track as if I was Damascus’ rabbit and he was Dr. Fager. He’d yell out the excuses for his latest, low-odds loser.
“His favorite goat died.”
“The night watchman’s flashlight spooked’em.”
I forgot the tongue tie.”
Recently, I ran into a trainer at the sink in the men’s room of the Administration building. We said hello. But then, completely unprompted, he said, “I’m dead this meet. I got nothing.”
I offered sympathy. Then, in the next six racing days, he had five winners and has continued winning in clusters for weeks now. Never believe anything you hear in a men’s room.
However, there’s always the exception that belies the rule. Once I was doing a television segment in which I was selecting a 20-1 shot for a variety of well-founded but subtle reasons. As I was talking, the horse’s trainer strolled from the saddling enclosure to the walking ring. As he came into the line of my vision, we locked eyes even as I continued speaking. With a dead-pan, blank stare he slowly nodded his head up and down twice. The horse won by five.
Brian Skirka’s Thursday blog inspired some spirited and healthy debate. I myself disagree with some of Brian’s points.
I don’t think horse racing is a sport. Admission fees, personal seat licenses, advertising revenues, and merchandise sales don’t drive it. Betting does. To me, racing is gambling entertainment with sports aspects.
Stars never have and never will save horse racing. Better betting (Oh, say 8% takeout on every wager on ever race in the country!) will. Giving people a realistic chance of wining would be the most powerful marketing vehicle possible. In the Seabiscuit era, racing had a virtual monopoly on gambling. Part of the reason people adored Seabiscuit was they loved betting on him. Today, they wouldn’t wait for his next race. They’d play the lottery. In the modern era, the monopoly is gone. Racing’s pricing model should be adjusted to address the reduced demand that’s the natural result of increased competition. That’ll attract new customers and keep established ones involved and playing more.
There’s nothing wrong with rooting against Rachel Alexandra or any other horse if that’s what makes you happy. The game is a big Grandstand with something for every taste. For far too long, the industry has run and hid from debate and controversy. Too bad. Debate and controversy have spurred huge interest in other entertainment areas – movies, sports, politics, etc.
As for the responses to Brian’s blog, I found great irony in Bomass10’s comments. He assailed Rachel Alexandra for running in soft spots in 2010. But gave her no credit for her unprecedentedly aggressive 2009 campaign as a 3-year-old, while touting the deserved virtues of Zenyatta who, save for one race on home ground as a fully mature 5-year-old, has been handled like fine china throughout her career. One can take either or neither side in the debate between the two great distaffers, but Rachel Alexandra surely isn’t the inferior of the two when it comes to overall quality of competition.
Stevil rightly took a business approach to racing’s issues, but limited his vision to a short-term desire to downsize. While consolidation can work at the right time and in the right place – witness the Monmouth Park Elite Meet – there also needs to be a long-term, national plan for growth. Yes, I said growth. Without it, a national industry in downsizing mode could find itself in five years – having so reduced demand for product, breeders, horses, and owners – needing to downsize again. The net result might be a downward spiral to demise. The best way to prevent this is by growing overall handle – not merely redistributing a finite national pool among have and have-not wagering platforms. Lowering takout – on every race, on every bet, and at every track – is where the growth process can begin.
I never suggested that Zenyatta has steered clear of Rachel. My point was that Zenyatta wasn't asked to leave her competitive comfort zone until November of her 5-year-old year. Conversely, Rachel - as a mere 3-year-old, competed at Fair Grounds, Oaklawn, Churchill, Belmont, Monmouth and Saratoga while beating top males three times - once on only two weeks rest. The draining effects of that ultra-aggressive campaign, in which she was handled like a champion willing to take on all comers, is teh reason she wasn't ready to run at Oaklawn this spring and has lost a step in 2010. Rachel's connections never should have agreed to the Oaklawn race in the first place because it simply was too soon. Nobody could have had her ready on the proposed date. However, Zenyatta's connections could at least have strongly considered coming to Saratoga for the Personal Ensign. Surely, the 1 1/4-mile distance and likely pace scenario were in her favor and Rachel's connections announced well in advance that she'd run there. And remember the scratch at sloppy Churchill on 2009 Kentucky Derby Oaks Day when Rachel freaked on the same surface Zenyatta avoided? Zenyatta's people have handled her beautifully, but in a different way than Rachel's managers. Both great distaffers and their contrasting connections deserve humongous credit.
I would tend to disagree with the idea that Zenyatta has been "handled like fine china" throughout her career in the context of a Zenyatta/Rachel discussion. The Breeders Cup Classic is the world championship and open to all-comers. While I understand the argument about the race being on the SoCal synthetics, I still believe that race to be stronger than last year's Haskell/Woodward/etc. And as you will recall, Oaklawn (Asmussen territory) agreed to stage a match-up between Zenyatta and Rachel this year. Zenyatta's connections committed to the race and won, whereas Rachel's connections could not get their filly ready. So any suggestion that Zenyatta has been steered clear of Rachel is without merit.
