Breeders’ Cup Hasn’t Quite Served as a Tonic for the Racing Game

An endangered species, not yet known to breed in captivity, the American horseplayer has become an object of worry among those dedicated to his propagation.

At the last census, there were 75,000 thoroughbreds on which to bet on this continent, and candidates to carry out this worthy mission were vanishing slowly.

Attempting to head off this distressing trend, race tracks have introduced exotic betting systems such as the pick six, super pick six, exacta, perfecta and trifecta, not to mention daily doubles and quinellas.

They also have resorted to giving away gifts, ranging from beach balls to Hong Kong watches.

And convinced that more yet must be done to develop interest in horseplaying from among the general pool of sports fans, racing has offered the last seven years a grandiose promotion called the Breeders’ Cup. The Breeders’ Cup program comprises seven races, worth $10 million in purses.

“Racing needs a World Series or a Super Bowl,” a Breeders’ Cup executive once explained to us. “This is our answer. It brings together the world’s finest horses. And the show is televised nationally for more than four hours. Such exposure has to create interest in our sport.”

It’s a romantic idea and one of unmistakable merit, if you want to overlook a few flaws.

First, the Breeders’ Cup program, designed to attract the best horses, hasn’t. Many horses don’t come, turned off by airport crowds, security checks and reservations problems.

As for television, ratings since the inception of the Breeders’ Cup have been embarrassingly low.

And, certainly, race crowds haven’t increased and, in fact, have decelerated in most places.

To add to the problem of the Breeders’ Cup, they put the show on television last Saturday at Belmont Park--and viewers think they are looking at Indianapolis.

In the first three races, two horses are killed and a third is critically injured. He later dies. A jockey goes to the hospital on a stretcher. And two others are roughed up.

So aimed at enhancing the image of racing and creating new fans, the Breeders’ Cup winds up with viewers questioning the safety of the track and whether racing isn’t cruel to horses.

As a general rule, it is crueler to horseplayers.

But what has happened the last seven years isn’t what the sport had in mind when it created the Breeders’ Cup.

At horse casinos throughout North America, people were betting this year’s Breeders’ Cup races seen on television. At Santa Anita, for instance, first post was 10:55 a.m., local time, or earlier than the average horseplayer is accustomed to getting into action. At that time of day, the delicate cerebral turbine of this scientist hasn’t yet fired, meaning that it isn’t at least until the third race that he is functioning normally.

So, finally in stride, he bets the 3-5 favorite, Go for Wand, in the third, and, a likely winner, the poor animal breaks a leg 100 yards from the wire.

Watching this tragedy, and recalling that two horses fell in the first race, the player has lost confidence now in his ability not only to pick a winner but also to pick a horse that finishes.

If the Breeders’ Cup was to offer an upbeat moment, it would come in the fourth race, won by a rider named Lester Piggott, the Pete Rose of England.

Like Rose, Piggott roamed the sporting scene an immense hero, the all-time horseback champion of his country. At 53, he is suddenly removed from society; he gets a year in prison for an oversight. He forgets to pay income tax.

He is released from jail after serving his time, and England allows him to be licensed again as a rider. And he comes to the Breeders’ Cup and wins a $1-million race astride Royal Academy.

So the burning question is as follows: If English racing permits Piggott to go back to work, will American baseball do the same for Rose?