The Defeat of American Pharoah

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Saturday's Travers Stakes at Saratoga was supposed to be another checkmark win in the stunning three year old season of American Pharoah. Unfortunately, Keen Ice and Frosted had the temerity to think they could beat the undoubted three year old champion. It turns out one of them actually did it.

The race did not unfold exactly as the handicappers predicted. Here is the description of American Pharoah's race from the NYRA chart:

AMERICAN PHAROAH came away in good order, went straight to the front, set the pace inside through the opening quarter-mile, moved off the rail onto the backstretch, came under increased pressure by FROSTED with six furlongs to run, was coaxed along now on even terms passing the half-mile pole, raced a touch off the rail while urged along inside of FROSTED on the far turn, entered the stretch against the rail and head to head with the aforementioned rival, fought on when put to a right-handed whip inside the three-sixteenths, shook off FROSTED inside the furlong marker but was quickly challenged by KEEN ICE, led until near the sixteenth-pole, switched to a left-handed whip while being overtaken and missed.

The chart, like the race, was anticlimactic. "American Pharoah missed," he said with a shrug of his shoulders, promptly sticking his nose in the racing form in the hope of actually figuring out what the hell happened.

The public was for the most part unhappy with the outcome, never considering their king was, after all, not invincible. It's never pretty to watch your heroes turn ordinary.

But what did happen? Did American Pharoah's breeding finally catch up with him? After all, he was not supposed to be a mile and a quarter horse, much less a Triple Crown winner. I suspect if the Lords of Racing had their way, they wouldn't have been that upset if someone to ran out on the track and Tonya Harding'd Keen Ice at the eighth pole. (Save your comments. It was meant as humor.)

Was it all the plane rides between California and the east coast? He had actually put on a little weight between the Haskell and the Travers, and the uncanny Maggie Wolfendale pronounced him better looking than she remembered from the Belmont. His Saratoga gallop had people glowing about his gorgeous stride, as usual.

Was it the unexpected pressure from Frosted, a horse he had already bested twice? American Pharoah had already shown his versatility and proven he was not a need to lead type. Respected handicappers stated that Frosted did what he had to do if he wanted to win the race. With all due respect, there was no strategy Frosted could have employed to beat American Pharoah, but I will grant you that Frosted did not take the easy way out by trying to sew up second place money. Like Rocky Balboa, he went toe to toe with the champ and lost the decision. No shame in that. Whether his strategy cost Pharoah the Travers, it almost certainly cost Frosted the place.

Was it the rail that did the champ in? I had one handicapper state with religious conviction that being pinned on the rail was the reason Pharoah's tank was empty by the eighth pole, blaming the suddenly $15,000 poorer Victor Espinoza for a bad ride. I'm not buying the bad ride explanation. I didn't think Pharoah ever looked like he was slogging down low, for quite a bit of the race he was off the rail, and the one thing that caught my eye was that he contnually held a straight running line, not weaving like a tired horse might. I read later that NYRA appeared to even groom the track to favor the inside speed.

I don't think it was any one thing. I especially don't think it was the "graveyard of champions" explanation. Yes, Man O'War and Secretariat fell to lesser horses at the Spa, but for every "upset" I can counter with 20 champions that did exactly what they were supposed to do. When you see 20% winning favorites instead of 35% at Saratoga, I'll give the graveyard hypothesis more weight.

I never really knew how good Pharoah was before the Triple Crown. I smugly expected him to hit the wall in the last eighth of a mile in the Derby. Instead, he freaked and overpowered the field. Even after he marched home triumphant in the Belmont, I found it hard to embrace he was just that good. Don't get me wrong. The Triple Crown was and is a grand achievement, and Pharoah clearly proved he was the best of this spring's three year olds.

It is the fate of racing fans to look for the explanation. One guy found it in Espinoza, another with the short time between the Haskell and the Travers. I'm happy thinking, he didn't have it that day, but unlike my thoughts on California Chrome (he beat nothing in the Derby, was far more physically mature in May than his competition, was simply one of a few good three year olds by the fall, and was no way, no how horse of the year) I'm not going to have a problem seeing Pharoah get the horse of the year. All in all, I'm not sure the Travers meant anything more than it was just not his day. He was not, in automative parlance, firing on all cylinders. I'm not sure I need to know more than that. He got beat plain and simple. He is still a great horse, never the equal for me of the other Triple Crown winners I've witnessed, but a Hall of Fame horse nonetheless. At his best, I wonder if he has an equal in 2015. If he runs in the Classic, he'd likely be favored on my line.

Many racing pundits believe that having a superstar horse is essential to revive racing. They are, of course, wrong. The chance there will be a Triple Crown winner will bring people to their TV sets to watch the race, much like the U.S. Women's Soccer Team got big ratings when they clobbered Japan in the World Cup final. Since that day I'm pretty sure I'd be safe in saying women's soccer hasn't gotten scads more exposure on ESPN or Fox. Although I suppose 15 minutes of national fame is better than regular folks wondering, American who? The reality is that TV will cover an event, but the Belmont didn't permanently turn thousands of new fans toward the sport.

After the race Ahmed Zayat sounded like an owner panicked about seeing some of the potential $40 million in annual breeding fees evaporate, swearing that if there was a hair out of place on Pharoah's mane, the horse would not run again. This would be the real travesty for racing. To be a champion, regardless of the sport, you take on all comers until there is no one left to challenge your claim to the title. For Pharoah to be the true champion he needs to defeat the best horses racing in the Breeder's Cup Classic. I believe he still has something left to prove and unless he really is physically unable to perform, I believe the Zayat's owe us the opportunity to find out for sure if he is the undisputed champion.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

After the race Ahmed Zayat sounded like an owner panicked about seeing some of the potential $40 million in annual breeding fees evaporate, swearing that if there was a hair out of place on Pharoah's mane, the horse would not run again. This would be the real travesty for racing. To be a champion, regardless of the sport, you take on all comers until there is no one left to challenge your claim to the title. For Pharoah to be the true champion he needs to defeat the best horses racing in the Breeder's Cup Classic. I believe he still has something left to prove and unless he really is physically unable to perform, I believe the Zayat's owe us the opportunity to find out for sure if he is the undisputed champion.

How could the Zayats "OWE us"...if we never GAVE them anything?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

How could the Zayats "OWE us"...if we never GAVE them anything?

I'm sure you got the point. Pity that was the best comment you could offer.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I'm sure you got the point. Pity that was the best comment you could offer.

Yes...I get your point. But I disagree with it. You want a "better" comment from me? Okay...here it is:

Your last paragraph does not connect well to the one prior, IMO. First you say that a great horse can only have a trivial effect on the long-term outlook of the game (I agree)...but then you go on to assert that the Zayats "owe us" the opportunity to finally decide for ourselves how "great" their horse is...even though you acknowledge how costly such a maneuver could prove to be, breeding-wise.

Why should the Zayats keep on racing the Pharoah...if we both acknowledge going in that even the emergence of another truly great horse can have only a trivial long-term effect on the game? Because the "public was for the most part unhappy" with the Travers' outcome? Because "it is the fate of the racing fans to look for an explanation"? WHO CARES?

Zayat has paid his dues in this game...and his financial problems have been well-publicized. He is entitled to do whatever he wants to do with his horse...without having to worry much about leaving my "curiosities" unsatisfied. He doesn't owe me a thing; in fact...I OWE HIM. I owe him for the thrill that I felt when his horse opened up on the field down the stretch of the Belmont.

[chadk66]

I'm not so sure about the rail being the culprit. Victor said he was done at the half pole

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Yes...I get your point. But I disagree with it. You want a "better" comment from me? Okay...here it is:

Your last paragraph does not connect well to the one prior, IMO. First you say that a great horse can only have a trivial effect on the long-term outlook of the game (I agree)...but then you go on to assert that the Zayats "owe us" the opportunity to finally decide for ourselves how "great" their horse is...even though you acknowledge how costly such a maneuver could prove to be, breeding-wise.

Why should the Zayats keep on racing the Pharoah...if we both acknowledge going in that even the emergence of another truly great horse can have only a trivial long-term effect on the game? Because the "public was for the most part unhappy" with the Travers' outcome? Because "it is the fate of the racing fans to look for an explanation"? WHO CARES?

Zayat has paid his dues in this game...and his financial problems have been well-publicized. He is entitled to do whatever he wants to do with his horse...without having to worry much about leaving my "curiosities" unsatisfied. He doesn't owe me a thing; in fact...I OWE HIM. I owe him for the thrill that I felt when his horse opened up on the field down the stretch of the Belmont.

I think it is fine to disagree, and you have a reasonable argument.

I think I would differentiate between the casual viewer of big events and the hard core racing fan. Some hundreds of millions of people watch the Super Bowl but some percentage of them are not what could be termed serious football fans. Same as the point I was making about women's soccer. We can all cheer for USA, USA but at the end of the day how much money are you putting into buying tickets and logo wear for the women's game? If I suggest Zayat owes somebody, it is the fan who is putting his money where his mouth is daily. I would certainly agree he doesn't owe the twice a year fan a damn thing.

I also don't think I owe Zayat a thing. Owners will argue there is no racing without their willingness to own stock. Horseplayers will argue that without their support owning a horse loses its importance. Track management will argue that without their facility owners and horseplayers are SOL. I pay my dues by supporting the sport with my money. In return I expect as good a product as racing can put out. i get the point that it was a privilege to see Secretariat or Affirmed or Pharoah, but it was a privilege we earned by injecting the funds necessary to conduct a race meet. Purses for the races don't come from the Koch Brothers.

That being said, of course it is his right to determine when and where his horse runs. If I use the word "owe" it is certainly not in a legal sense but in a moral sense. We support racing and hope we get to witness the thrill of the best competing against the best. If Zayat believes retiring the horse is in his best interest, that's what will happen. But I'll reserve my right to gripe and not cede my hope for great racing simply to the whims of the owners. Horseplayers have historically been the tertiary part of the triumvirate that supports the sport. If you want to take away our right to be disappointed because we already got our thrill on Belmont day then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

We'll continue to debate where Pharoah fits in on the list of best horses of all time whether or not he runs again. I hope we can have the debate after we see him in the Breeder's Cup, but if he doesn't, we'll still move on and hope we see one like him in the near future.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I think it is fine to disagree, and you have a reasonable argument.

I think I would differentiate between the casual viewer of big events and the hard core racing fan. Some hundreds of millions of people watch the Super Bowl but some percentage of them are not what could be termed serious football fans. Same as the point I was making about women's soccer. We can all cheer for USA, USA but at the end of the day how much money are you putting into buying tickets and logo wear for the women's game? If I suggest Zayat owes somebody, it is the fan who is putting his money where his mouth is daily. I would certainly agree he doesn't owe the twice a year fan a damn thing.

I also don't think I owe Zayat a thing. Owners will argue there is no racing without their willingness to own stock. Horseplayers will argue that without their support owning a horse loses its importance. Track management will argue that without their facility owners and horseplayers are SOL. I pay my dues by supporting the sport with my money. In return I expect as good a product as racing can put out. i get the point that it was a privilege to see Secretariat or Affirmed or Pharoah, but it was a privilege we earned by injecting the funds necessary to conduct a race meet. Purses for the races don't come from the Koch Brothers.

That being said, of course it is his right to determine when and where his horse runs. If I use the word "owe" it is certainly not in a legal sense but in a moral sense. We support racing and hope we get to witness the thrill of the best competing against the best. If Zayat believes retiring the horse is in his best interest, that's what will happen. But I'll reserve my right to gripe and not cede my hope for great racing simply to the whims of the owners. Horseplayers have historically been the tertiary part of the triumvirate that supports the sport. If you want to take away our right to be disappointed because we already got our thrill on Belmont day then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

We'll continue to debate where Pharoah fits in on the list of best horses of all time whether or not he runs again. I hope we can have the debate after we see him in the Breeder's Cup, but if he doesn't, we'll still move on and hope we see one like him in the near future.

Perhaps our disagreement stems from our main motivation for playing this game. I confess that I don't play this game in the hope that I'll "see another horse like him in the near future". All I hope is for some nice BETS in the near future. The occasional superstar horse that I encounter I consider just a nice "bonus".

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Perhaps our disagreement stems from our main motivation for playing this game. I confess that I don't play this game in the hope that I'll "see another horse like him in the near future". All I hope is for some nice BETS in the near future. The occasional superstar horse that I encounter I consider just a nice "bonus".

It's not really a bonus unless you own part of the horse, no?

[whodoyoulike]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

... We'll continue to debate where Pharoah fits in on the list of best horses of all time whether or not he runs again. I hope we can have the debate after we see him in the Breeder's Cup, but if he doesn't, we'll still move on and hope we see one like him in the near future.

I don't think I've participated in any of the "best horses of all time" discussions on this site so, no debate will be made by me.

All I know is I saw a very good horse who raced and won each of the TC races in a different and impressive fashion each time. A come from behind, led wire to wire in the slop (and remember it was pouring) and he put away 3 attempts by running just enough to keep the lead.

I'd really like to see him run again and again. Even into next year and beyond but, we both know that won't happen. And, as was said earlier the connections don't owe us (especially me) anything except I did lose the straight exacta bet in the last race which I'd like to ....

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Perhaps our disagreement stems from our main motivation for playing this game. I confess that I don't play this game in the hope that I'll "see another horse like him in the near future". All I hope is for some nice BETS in the near future. The occasional superstar horse that I encounter I consider just a nice "bonus".

We don't disagree about why we play. At the end of the day, it's about the ledger sheet for most of us, including me. We don't care whether it is a $5,000 claimer or a Grade 1 horse that we hit for good money. I believe your statement that the occasional superstar horse that you encounter is a nice bonus is exactly the same as mine saying we'll hope to see another horse like him in the near future. I not sure how you got from hoping to see a good horse in the future to why we enjoy racing, but be assured if the entire game was $5,000 claimers I'd probably still play.

Every sport needs its superstars for obvious reasons having nothing to do with why we watch or care about the game. I'm betting you know that and recognize why it is important.