An interesting thing happened in the comments of our post discussing the 2009 Horse of the Year debate. While we went back and forth extolling the virtues and questions about the Breeders’ Cup Classic champion and undefeated mare Zenyatta as opposed to the 3-year-old filly phenom Rachel Alexandra, a suggestion was put forth to consider amending the Eclipse Award voting process.
The idea was one that immediately caught my attention, and has been discussed a bit both here and within the TVG Community forum. In short time it has now attracted the attention of even those within the NTRA, garnering specific mention by CEO Alex Waldrop in his most recent Straight Up blog post.
The suggestion, from regular reader and frequent guest author Mr. Del Mar, was as follows:
“I’d prefer to see something special done for this year’s horse of the year award…how about they have a text vote and online vote from each and every horseplayer or horse racing fan for $1 a vote and the proceeds go to race horse retirement. If we want to argue about nothing… let’s make the byproduct be positive and about something important…more important than a piece of bronze. We as horseplayers are well known for putting our money where our mouth is. Well we never got the race to do just that, but we can do it for horse of the year honors and let the Old Pro (forgotten contenders) profit from our passion.”
Considering the conviction with which so many racing fans are currently arguing the issue of Horse of the Year, this seemed like a no brainer to me. The sport is trying to maintain and build relevancy, as well as to uncover innovative ways to incorporate new and younger fans into the game.
One of the unspoken yet daunting challenges we face is that any fans Zenyatta may have created through her brilliant performance in the Breeders’ Cup Classic will be difficult to maintain given that they won’t be able to see her run again. However, what if they could participate in something like a Horse of the Year selection process? Might that provide an avenue through which to maintain their attention with respect to horse racing? Seems like it might do so. Even for the more established fans, the venerable regulars, aren’t we always complaining that we have no say in things? What a remarkable turnaround something like this could be!
That being said, there are legitimate reasons to be concerned with such a suggestion that are definitely worth discussing. Before getting into all of that, I’ll remind folks that the idea was merely a suggestion, not a finalized proposal that had been thoroughly critiqued and given a chance to evolve through revisions of any sort through a comprehensive analysis or initiative planning process. As anyone who has participated in brainstorming sessions within their own respective lines of business will no doubt be familiar with, one of the more crucial steps in considering fundamental changes to a given process is the generation of new ideas.
During the process of idea generation, it’s often wise not to get too wrapped up in arguing for or against a particular idea, but rather to get it on paper so that it can be further evaluated once other ideas have been similarly generated. Once generated and added to the list of topics to discuss in depth, then and only then should they be championed or opposed. I say this because that’s really where we are right now. We’ve got a suggestion to discuss the merits of and inherent complications/concerns with implementing. It can still be nurtured, altered, and outright amended, but the spirit of the suggestion reads pretty clearly; make the voting process more democratic and inclusive of racing fans, and if possible find some way to benefit retired horses who are often forgotten and need our continued support and generosity the most. Seems fair enough to me.
Looking over the merits of the suggestion, I think allowing fans to have a say in post season awards is actually not that far fetched of an idea. The NTRA/Breeders’ Cup folks already do this with respect to “Moment of the Year” voting – something which admittedly even as passionate a fan as myself has had limited awareness of/participation with. What about other sports? While MVP awards are typically not opened to public voting in the NFL, MLB, and NBA, certainly All-Star (or Pro Bowl) voting is up to the fans – with no concern as to how many times one votes or how much of a collective appreciation for the game as a whole an individual voter may have. Do we wind up with Yankees at every position each year? Well, yes we do – but it’s not like the fans elect a bunch of scrubs (for the most part). I’d say all thing being equal (and given the few quirks in place, such as the MLB’s insistence on having a representative from each team), the All-Star/Pro Bowl voting processes are considered a success.
As for giving everyone an opportunity to vote democratically, I hope the suggestion will not be misinterpreted as some sort of condemnation of those already entrusted with that honor. No doubt they’ve done a fine job over the years in conducting the voting process and selecting the Eclipse Award champions. Rather, think of the suggestion as an opportunity to build upon that and invite more into the process…admittedly many more. We are Americans after all, a people defined by our passion for having a say in how affairs are decided. It’s part of the fabric of our national identity. If we don’t vote on the issue at hand directly, we nominate those whose votes will represent us. I realize of course that the Eclipse Awards are not a “public’ issue to vote on, but there’s nothing set in stone that says that can’t be changed if indeed it would generate more interest and involvement with the sport (not to mention potential publicity).
Still, the element of the suggestion that I find most intriguing is the idea of charging a nominal fee (such as $1) to register to vote, and then using those proceeds to benefit retired race horses through a charitable donation. Who amongst us wouldn’t like to see more done for our (largely) forgotten heroes?
As mentioned earlier, however, there are legitimate concerns that should absolutely be a part of the discussion. Let’s start with the obvious.
Are we really suggesting that everyone would have an equal say in Horse of the Year voting? How could we possibly allow someone who may have just seen their first horse race ever with Zenyatta in the Classic to vote on the year as a whole and have an equal say compared to others with years of experience and more well trained eyes? I know it’s hard to swallow at first, but my answer would be a resounding “Yes!” If we remember that we allow all people in this nation to have a vote in matters of infinitely more important concern, such as Presidential and Congressional elections, then suddenly allowing people to have a say in Horse of the Year voting seems to pale in comparison, doesn’t it? Consider that the average 18-year-old, fresh out of High School, has as much say from an individual voting process in the future direction of the nation as does a combat veteran who has been decorated for multiple tours in a foreign war.
What I’m getting at here is that the right to have a say in things and to have our vote counted and our voices heard is as American as apple pie. It’s been a part of who we are for hundreds of years, and I believe other sports, and indeed other outlets that whether we like or not we do compete for attention with (such as ”reality” television) have already capitalized on this desire far better than we have. I understand the fear in letting the uninformed vote in things, but if it works for electing the leader of the free world, it ought to be acceptable in deciding something as simple as who Horse of the Year should be.
I’ll use myself as an example for the above. Am I a professional? Nope, never been paid a dime for anything I’ve written horse racing related. Do I think my opinion ought to matter just as much as anyone else’s? You bet your you-know-what I do. I was at the Preakness, Haskell, and Classic LIVE and IN PERSON (not to mention the Mother Goose), and I wonder how many of the current voters can say the same? With that in mind, I’d put my opinion right on par with anyone else’s. I’m not saying my opinion is any better or more correct than anyone else’s, but that it’s just as informed (at least in my mind) and as worthy. Doubtless there are numerous others who could say the same.
One other angle to consider with respect to the above is a related concern. I’ve heard folks put forth the logical conclusion that the voting would turn into a popularity contest of sorts. My question in response to this suggestion is whether we know definitively whether this isn’t the case already? I mean on some level, isn’t that inevitable, no matter who votes? Looking over just the comments in response to Alex Waldrup’s post suggests folks are concerned about a perceived bias (real or imagined) in the existing voting contingent based largely on what coast of the country they are more closely associated with.
Further, who exactly is the award “for?” Certainly the horses themselves are unable to understand the designation. It must be for us then, the people. The most obvious and immediate benefactors of the awards are the connections of a given horse. It is they that take pride in winning an award, and it is they who make their way to the podium and bore us into exhaustion with their acceptance speeches (only kidding). There is, however, another group that also cares a whole heckuva lot about the awards; fans. Fans are the ones who make the award matter. We’re the ones who watch the awards show and celebrate when our beloved heroes triumph, and of course threaten defenestrations when our guys (and gals, especially this year) lose. We’re also the ones who will be talking about them years from now as we spout off about the horses that have made us the devotees to horse racing we have become.
“Let the defenestrations commence!”
Thankfully, the suggestion by Mr. Del Mar and the discussion generated in the comments here seems to have caught the attention from some folks in high places. Now that Alex Waldrup has specifically referenced the suggestion in his latest post, it’s time to start talking about whether something like this makes sense for the long term? Admittedly it’s probably too late for 2009, since technically the voting process has already begun, but might something like Mr. Del Mar’s suggestion be worth considering the following year? Might something like this actually spark much needed renewed interest and discussion within our sport?
Personally, I’d like to thank Alex Waldrop, Keith Chamblin, and Fritz Widaman for having the courage to listen to an outside the box proposal and not immediately brush it aside. Even if popular opinion winds up being that the current process is sufficient and needs no alteration, it still feels like a conversation we ought to be having, and they (the folks at the NTRA) deserve to be commended for their open mindedness and the speed with which they acted upon it to include mention in a public blog posting. Far too often it’s easy for us to dismiss those in power as not caring about the voice of the fan or of being totally disconnected from the reality of the situation fans experience. Having met each of these guys individually and spoken at length with them, I can tell you with with absolute certainty that in my estimation such concerns are not at all warranted with respect to these gentlemen. Heck, it was Fritz that I turned to slap high-fives with as Zenyatta crossed the wire in the Classic. My point being that these guys are fans just like you and I, and though they don’t have the power of the centralized authority figures in other sports (NFL, MLB, NBA, etc.), they are certainly great guys to have on your side.
Of course, as Alex mentions, it’s really not within his realm of responsibility to make that kind of change, but I thank him for mentioning it publicly and thereby lending some credibility to the idea. That just might be enough to get the ball rolling. Only time will tell.
I’m curious to know what readers think about the suggestion? I’m not necessarily looking for a definitive opinion here, although doubtless there will be many and they are certainly welcomed if already concluded. What I’m really after is whether you believe, like me, this is something we ought to be talking about for 2010? Would you have any additional suggestions or concerns that should be brought up, if indeed the discussion moves forward?
To that end, behold – yet another poll! 
As uncomfortable as it is to be urged to argue against a proposal that would leave a worthy cause the main benefactor, I have to take serious issue with Mr. Del Mar’s proposal.
How is it democratic to vote based on a $1-a-vote base? If you did that in political elections, the parliament would be 99% pro-corporations. How much of a fan of the sport a given person is has little to do with how much money they are willing to blow on such an issue.
If I were a billionaire (as both Jackson and the Mosses are) I’d immediately spend a million bucks on “voting” my lowliest horse (preferably some bottom-level claimer who was sidelined all year with several injuries) to HOTY honors, just to lampoon the process while simultaneously spending a million dollars on a worthy cause. The outcome may be just fine, but as a racing fan I’d still find it extremely unsatisfactory.
P.S.: It’s enough that majority appeal (a.k.a. catering to the dimmest of minds) ruins our political systems*, we shouldn’t adopt an even worse form of decision-making for MVP (or MVE in this case) processes. Eclipse voting hasn’t been perfect, but on the whole it has done very well, arguably better than majority Eclipse opinion would have.
*not an argument against democracy as such, but there’s a reason the greatest philosophers in human history (Socrates, Montesqieu and Mill come to mind) saw it’s foremost task in stimulating education of the populace, a key point purposefully ignored by those political leaders which pay lip-service to the democratic system nowadays.
Well stated, Malcer.
Strong points and very valid concerns. What if the registration process were such that it were $1 per person, and reasonably trustworthy to maintain oversight of? Obviously there’d always be loopholes, but it seems reasonable to consider. Maybe that’s an element to be tweaked?
Like I said, don’t consider it a final proposal as such, but rather a discussion that I think needs to be brought to the table, and then ironed out to it’s final state.
“Eclipse voting…on the whole it has done very well, arguably better than majority Eclipse opinion would have.”
Very interesting statement. Someone else mentioned the whole Smarty Jones/Ghost Zapper selection process, and how it might’ve swung the other way. Can’t say I disagree that it would have done so, and it would have been a mistake had it happened.
(Action) Kevin Stafford drops the mic and walks off stage…
(Action) Mr. Del Mar appears on stage and says this…
Very well said KS… I’m far less political with this matter, but the unbiased appraoach you deliver is more tactful than my own. I’m a new fan and quite a good handicapper… and oh yes, I mean fan. Do you want more of us? Do you want more horseplayers? Do you want larger pools to bet into? Do you want to capitalize on this great year, this great debate, the star power of these two great horses? Why let this be another… “We should’ve”?
The $1 vote makes your word hold true, just like the $2 bet you place at the track. Only this time it is not your “maybe or maybe not” ticket that cashes… it’s far more important than that. The horses that you used to watch run, the horses that are now kicked to the curb will benifit and you will have your say in the voting… horse racing will benifit and the next time PETA comes a knocking we can say that we protect our forgotten racers. And we can say that we’ve done this through very creative methods by turning a lively debate and a division between horseplayers into a GREAT POSITIVE FOR THE SPORT.
Knew I could count on you to bring my passion back to life, MDM!
Watching my tide kick the snot out of Miss. St. at the moment. God I love this team!
Very well said – and you know I’m with you on this.
I’m sorry, but while certainly well-intended, the whole idea is ludicrous.
I’m basically in tune with Malcer’s arguments. It would turn the whole process into something akin to the Academy Awards. Will the owners start paid-for-advertising campaigns for their horse? What about the once-a-year-fan that possibly missed seeing Rachel Alexandra run? How many people will be stumped when they call up and can’t vote for Secretariat this year?
Ludicrous—and extremely arrogant. Who the hell do we think we are anyway?
So it’s “ludicrous” and “arrogant” to think that fans could be involved in Horse of the Year voting? Allicansayis Wow.
We are not asking for HOTY to be changed in any way, shape or form… the change we are requesting is a new award… a new way to look at things and the voice of the horseplayer to be heard… the voice of the fan to be heard. A new award that benifits the horses that are no longer heard, but were there for us in the past. I’m sure many of you remember them… isn’t that what a trophy is all about… legacy? Don’t we deserve the chance to catapult our favorite horse into history? Isn’t this a special year and a special cause? Doesn’t it make sense to benifit the horses that no longer race by way of our debate between an up and coming star and an undefeated champion that is to be retired? It makes all the sens in the world. It bridges the gap between staus quo and new thinking, it bridges the gap between those who still race and those that should be forever remembered for their races, it bridges the gap between corporate decision makers and fans… more importantly it is a positive way to mend the rift between the respective HOTY fans. It’s just plain good!!!
You would argue against charity??? You would argue against the common man??? If this is your stance then I can not reach you. This is a good thing… this is symbiosis for the entire sport. “vive le resistance”
Yes. Absolutely. It’s arrogant to think we can go in and change something that has worked just fine up until now. It’s the Sport of Kings, Kevin…not American Horse Idol.
It’s ludicrous for the reason Malcer touched upon. You can’t just “tweak” those arguments—they are huge. The word democratic got tossed about. We live in a Republic, not a true Democracy. So, to “tweak” this, you would need to set it up like a Republic, or even a corporation, with either an electoral college or proxies.
Should HOTY be decided by the popular vote? The Presidency is not.
I had to beg my father to watch the Breeders Cup because basically, he has no interest in horse racing.
Now, he thinks Zenyatta is not only HOTY but the Greatest Horse in History!!!! (I think those were his words)
He has a dollar…in fact, he has several million.
So, it looks like HOTY will be Zenyatta. LOL
Let’s be honest—this is never gonna happen, but its a hell of a blog post
Am I being PUNK’D?
It hasn’t worked “up until now”… it’s not working. There are no new horseplayers, there is no interest in the Eclipse Award ceremony. If it wasn’t for RACHEL ALEXANDRA, ZENYATTA and BIG BROWN, horse racing would be in an even worse state than it is now… We have to capitalize here. The moment the horse racing industry sees the need for the change and acts on it, is the moment our sport grows. If you think we’re doing just fine with business as usual than you’re mistaken. When I hear that there is “a need” for video poker and slot machines… well, I know something is wrong. If you could just listen to someone who has fresh eyes and you were to have an open mind (along with the rest of the stubborn racing industry) you just might find there are great things that can be done for our sport. Why is “new” and “change” so poorly received when the true term should be “progress”. It’s a great year to see something special done!!!
I’m a pin-wearing member of HANA http://www.horseplayersassociation.org/
Are you?
I certainly don’t think the future of horse racing depends upon whether or not the voting process for HOTY changes. I think we have more realistic items on our agenda such as ADW Signals, Takeout, Drugs, Pool Integrity and Product Quality.
Now, if you have an idea where we can “vote” say, Jeff Mullins out of horse racing for life for $1.00, then I may be interested.
I understand what you’re saying Mark and I do thank you for speaking up as I suspect quite a few people would echo your sentiments word for word.
I just happen to see this as a possible opportunity to grow the sport a bit. Is it an answer for everything? No, but I’ve spoken up on many of those other issues you reference as well.
Totally understand the notion that this would be considered sacrilege to many though.
I am indeed a member of HANA and I contribute to the organization… and no, I need not a pin… my badge of honor is my love of horse racing, my handicapping prowess and my hope to see this sport grow. There’s nothing more than a win/win here with no greased hands, no malintent and non profit. Hard to argue with this proposal.
The Mullins comment is pretty funny… I give credit where credit is due. I feel the same way about the causes you mentioned. I also feel as though this cause and idea is of great value to all of us. You, as a HANA member, have to feel the same way. I’m surprised to hear to the contrary, this is what it’s all about… the voice of the horseplayer. All of us being just as much involved with the industry or voting process as we are involved at the the track. This year is huge, it’s a good time to sieze the day and make the most of it… to turn a “religion/politics” type debate into something great.
I enjoyed Kevin’s post and everyone’s comments so I’ll add my 2 cents (and maybe a dollar if it’s for charity). The Rachel Alexandra / Zenyatta HOTY debate is more a sign of what’s wrong with racing than what’s right. That the horse racing “powers that be” (be they the NTRA, BC Ltd., or whoever) couldn’t get those two amazing race horses to face one another in a stakes race, BC or otherwise, is a missed opportunity of epic proportions, if not a crime – against the the fans and the sport.
This year’s BC ratings were reportedly the lowest ever. Clearly, Zenyatta doesn’t have the juice of RA (because the gen. public only follows Triple Crown races, if at all). Had RA had raced in the Classic, the ratings would have exploded and we’d witness one the most memorable moments of all time.
Since that didn’t happen (& I tend to blame pro-ride), having people, be they experts or well-financed blithering idiots, text msg votes is just as valid as votes from esteemed racing journalists. No one has a clue which is the better horse. Raising money for charity may be the only silver lining coming from this epic missed opportunity.
Coincidentally, I wrote a blog post about this a few days ago and suggested in jest that we have an American Idol style vote. Surprised to hear others were thinking the same thing.
@Steve M. Post a link back to that post if you can. I’d love to read it.
All – the guy that sits next to me at work had perhaps the most fitting solution to the Rachel Alexandra/Zenyatta question. His solution:
Put Zenyatta and Rachel in a room, then let Curlin in to see who he selects as “Horse of the Year.”
KS: I only am going to accept THEATRICAL, STORM CAT, MEDAGLIA D’ORO or (and this is my sneaky pedigree play… look it up and see a superhorse) QUIET AMERICAN have a go with the great ZENYATTA.
Malcer: Would it be such a bad thing to have “millions”, as you suggest, be contributed to a great cause? Would it be so terrible to let the fan’s voice be heard? Let’s indeed have a bidding war for a great debate that would benifit horse racing itself, the eclipse award ceremony (at present not a big deal in the sports world) and a great cause. This year is very different than normal… it is great! Let’s make it even better.
Kevin, here’s the link to the blog post I referenced above: http://tinyurl.com/yk7xb2b
Thanks!
STEVE M. : A nicely written article (I don’t like the term blog)… I felt the same way, but once I realized that they would never let that happen I just looked at the two horses for what they are and seperately… though, I fully think they should’ve faced off. Because of that, now it is us, their fans facing off… this time it’s not at a ticket window… it is for horse of the year honors. It’s the only “put your money where your mouth is” debate left for us. We should at least have our say here. They can go “business as usual” with HOTY, but maybe… just maybe we (the fans) can give our horse a trophy… worth much more than bronze.
PS: Was that Johnny Rotten?
Read about the TRIPLE TIARA that I had proposed if you ever have time… I think you’ll like it.
Kevin,
I respect the charity and fan input.
Don’t turn this into the farce that American Idol is…this would deteriorate into people stuffing the ballot box very quickly. That show is a joke, something we can’t afford to turn horse racing into.
I had the pleasure of sitting down with two legendary trainers Friday morning, two men with each well over 50 years in the game. The real travesty behind the Eclipse voting is that the trainers, jockeys, and owners don’t have any input into the award.
Want to create a system where the voters are all the most experienced and smartest people at the racetrack? Find a way to weight the opinions of sportswriters and racing secretaries equally with those intimate with the game on a daily basis.
I sort of agree with Ripple, without the biting adjectives. Fans, like us, are just fans. Besides, if we had votes there’d probably be less traffic on our blogs
!!!
So much opposition on a site filled with “anonymous” insiders. Why exactly is it a bad idea to have your “insider/suit” vote and also have a fan vote with the proceeds going to charity? Horse racing is for horseplayers… these two horses have fans and they have a right to vote.
Who’s on this site??? I took a look at the poll… are you serious??? You think that only a select few are educated enough to vote??? I challenge anyone of you so called “experts” to a handicapping duel. Our best against your best… the common horseplayer vs. the “expert”… you can even pick the track and the day. The secret handshake mentality and the “old money” ideals have got to go. I challenge… who accepts? I’m amazed to see this kind of resistance for a symbiotic and fresh idea.
I think maybe Matt Damon and Bono would be a bit more persuasive… we’ll even throw in a Lebron James…
“Would it be such a bad thing to have “millions”, as you suggest, be contributed to a great cause?” – not as such, but the purpose of a HOTY award is to recognize achievement on the track, not to hold a pledge drive. I’ve stated that already.
Would it be alright too if the NCAA awarded the National Football Championship to the team whose fans contribute most to a hurricane relief fund? Or to the one whose players score the highest average in a standardized test in arts & sciences? Whose squad spends the most time reaching out to the community? Surely all of these are worthy causes, but they have nothing to do with what this award is for.
Of course, you are invited to start any kind of alternative HOTY award if you want to, but I don’t think the award as you suggested here would gain much traction, nor do I think that a $1-a-vote HOTY would do much to let the average fan be heard (it’s much more likely to let any stud farm with a halfways plausible stallion prospect be heard). I just wouldn’t like such a proposal to replace the current system.
Kevin’s idea of limiting it to one-vote-per-voter would be much better, but it would be impossible to supervise, unfortunately.
Ah, Entourage – Quite possibly the best show on television?
I understand the arguments both for and against. Amateurcapper makes an intriguing point about how trainers and folks familiar with the horses on a day to day basis are shut out of the current discussion. My only solution to that though would be to become more democratic and give voice to tall. He is right though – it would give us less to blog about.
One thing I think we can all agree on is that the real problem we face is that our Horse of the Year debate was not decided on the track. With that in mind, and with fans so seemingly evenly divided on the issue (with strong points for and against each horse), do we really want to risk alienating/upsetting those who feel passionately about whichever horse will inevitably lose? That’s why I referenced defenestrations, as I think it might come to that for some. With that in mind – would democratic voting really be such a bad idea? At least then they would feel their voice is heard.
One interesting side note to all of this will be how the votes come out. Apart from the NY Times poll, I’m seeing Zenyatta as the “favorite” just about everywhere else online. It’s close, but she seems to be trending ahead in the polls (again, with the exception of the NY Times poll). Will the Eclipse Award voting mirror this, or is it just a side effect of the immediacy of her accomplishments? In other words, had Zenyatta won the Classic in May, and Rachel had only just last week won the Preakness, Haskell, or Woodward, would the poll trending be reversed?
Just something to think about.
Interesting proposal Mr. Del Mar, but to me it feels cheezy, kinda like “American Idol:.
and think about it for a minute-would it not be better for just one horse to win, thus keeping the flames of debate and talk about the 2 horses going on forever?
No matter what, the “flames of debate” will forever be fanned whenever anyone brings up either of these two great ladies, even in passing conversation.
Kevin,
The answer is yes. The reason is that it would have been Rachel who delivered the “money moment” during crunch time. Sportswriters who vote for these awards are always about “What have you done for me during crunch time?” to sway a tight race. Since the difference between these two is slim to none, and slim just got up from the seat between you and me to leave the building, the last “lasting” moment will be the decider.
At first I was inclined to agree with this idea, excited at the prospect of voicing my opinion in a way that really showed. But the more I think about it, the more I stand by our well-established voting methods. The American Idol example keeps being brought up here, and that’s one of the first things I thought of when I heard the initial plan. It sounds like a “cheap” way to get some racing publicity and might not even go over that big.
I liked how you mentioned that the Jockeys, Trainers and Owners should get some consideration in the voting process Kevin, I’ve thought the same thing many times.
Also liked how you mentioned that Horse of the Year was not decided on the track, that’s the main problem. Both parties were unwilling to meet each other half-way, so the industry and all the fans were left in the dust, grasping at what could have been.
And I loved your Curlin joke, I made a similar one in the Horse of the Year post I just wrote!
The award is competely ignored by the general population and only the hardcore horseplayer even knows it exists. This would be great promotion… this whole “out with the new and in with the old” mentality has plagued horse racing for to long. Enjoy your slot machines in a failing industry. It’s time to capitalize… you’ve got to sieze opportunities like this. If you’d like to see the plan fine tuned, I could agree with that. The basic foundation and principle is sound.
Nobody is asking for HOTY to be changed… we are asking for a new award that is open to voting by all.
I’ve NEVER before wanted splitsies. This might be the year. Sophie’s Choice. They WORSHIP Zenyatta out Left. Worship.
I’ll garauntee that ZENYATTA wins the traditional Horse of the Year Award no matter how much Kendall Jackson is shipped to the voters. Now wouldn’t all of you RACHEL ALEXANDRA fans like to have your say? I am FULLY certain that ZENYATTA will be given the traditional award… maybe that’ll change your tune on this topic. It’s going to happen 1 to 9 morning line.
Just a couple of follow up thoughts to the way the discussion is trending.
It seems, if I’m reading the comments correctly, that the spirit of the suggestion isn’t being debated as much as some of the particulars in it’s execution (i.e., text voting, $1 voting, etc.). Just keep in mind that all of that could be altere/amended while still keeping the spirit of the suggestion.
Secondly – this seems to come up frequently – a general bemoaning of the “American Idolization” of the voting process. While I thought most folks would initially react negatively to that aspect, just keep in mind – how popular is “Idol” compared horse racing? Maybe we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss?
Also interesting to note that despite the opposition voiced in the comments, the voting (while low volume), has trended in favor of the suggestion thus far. Things that make you go hmmmmmm…
Wow, Rachel Alexandra has taken 38 of 49 votes on my blog for Horse of the Year so far while Zenyatta has taken only 9! I’m surprised!
We as horseplayers are generally opinionated, strong willed and often times a little to sure. I was thinking about how each of us has a strong vision for horse racing’s future and it’s hard to find middle ground at times as a whole. So I ask this and I hope all of you will ask yourselves… are we the problem? We like to complain about the industry, but is it us?
With so much bickering and general combativeness about these two horses and who has the right to the throne or just about anything else… are we working against ourselves? Why not unite? Why not let our voice be heard, individually and collectively?
Mr D.M.
You’re a breath of fresh air!
No matter how bad the industry powers that be find ways to screw up the sport, horseplayers have it in their power to change the game.
So in the spirit of Nike’s marketing slogan “Just Do It” I recommend you move out on your proposal.
By that I mean, don’t wait around for the NTRA, set up a web page and charge people, say, $1 a vote for FHOTY (Fan Horse of the Year?). Make it clear that 100% of donations will go to charity and I’d suggest a mechanism for transparency and/or independent auditing since money is involved. There are tons of good charities out there (PDJF, Old Friends, ReRun, TRF, etc.) that I’m sure would be willing to work with you.
If you need help, count me in to help however you want. I can promote your cause & tally votes on the WirePlayers site or Kevin S. may be able to do the same on AH.
This is a great way to raise some money for a good cause and give people a chance to have their voices heard. I really don’t care who wins but for charity I’d definitely be willing drop some coin on my favorite horse. Let me know if you want to pursue.
Ok, call me a “fickle pickle”, but I’ve changed my mind again! I love the points brought up by Mr. Del Mar and Steve M. That’s a real plan, and sounds like it could really work and bring a whole bunch of like-minded fans together. We all want the freedom to be heard, and this could be the first step down that road. If I can help in anyway, let me know, I’d be more than happy to post something on my blog as well.
Check this out – while not fully democratic, looks like even College Football has gotten behind the “fan vote” initiative.
http://promo.espn.go.com/espn/contests/theheismanvote/2009/
Whoever wins the “fan vote” will receive one additional vote for Heisman, along with the votes from former trophy winners and sports writers.
In the debate for HOY honors I’d like to add my 2 cent’s worth. Both Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra have had tremendous year’s in racing, no doubt about it. Rachel winning five Grade 1 races and two Grade 2 races. Zenyatta winning four Grade 1 races and one Grade 2. Not a great deal to separate the two number’s wise. So somewhere in this debate the “quality of competition factor” has to play in. In that regard, Zenyatta, absolutely has the edge. Facing 9 Graded Stakes winning males, most multiple Graded Stakes winners, at a distance never tried, 1-1/4, and beating the best the world had to offer at the time. Rachel, in three races against the boy’s has not faced anywhere near that number of Graded Stakes winners. Frankly, the field that Zenyatta beat in the Classic is 10 fold tougher than any male field that Rachel ever has or likely ever will race in what’s left of her racing career. Beating such a loaded field, at the Classic distance, and remaining undefeated in the process. How do you not reward perfection with HOY honors?
Can’t argue with any of that logic, JH. I guess the only thing I’d offer as a counter (for the sake of discussion) would be that Rachel is 3 – and it’s not like many 3-year-old fillies have ever put together the kind of campaign she has. It might be a bit much to even ask a 3-year-old filly to win the Classic – although if anyone could do it, it would have to be her.
You’re probably right though about the overall class of this year’s Classic. The North American older male division isn’t exactly star studded, and in all likelihood the top Europeans may be less inclined to race on dirt in 2010. That would suggest that if Rachel has 10 furlongs in her, 2010 should be her year.
As for who Rachel faced, she was flattered for quite a bit fairly regularly by those she beat (for many months the “last time out faced Rachel” angle was one of the stronger angles out there).
Judging from everything I’ve read (apart from the NY Times vote) and from the folks I’ve talked with – I’m pretty sure Zenyatta gets the nod here in the end.
[...] knows better than the Eclipse Award voters….yet everyone cowered like frightened schoolgirls when we suggested opening up the voting process to the public (far easier to sit back and criticize whatever happens in the voting from a safe distance, I [...]