So American racing has a Triple Crown winner at last. Will American Pharoah's success bring on a torrent like the last time, when there was a drought for 25 years and then several Triple Crown winners in a matter of a few years?

And what will it do for racing in the US? Lord knows it seems to have needed a hero for as long as anyone can remember. Is American Pharoah that hero? Will the Yanks be gripped by a new wave of enthusiasm or is the sport there now like Rome without Carthage?

Probably the hero that US racing really needs would wear a suit, vote in congress and get the game more support at a government level regarding wagering and taxation, but even Bonnie Tyler gave up doing her hair waiting for him.

We can't help thinking that the whole Super Group One "push", if we can even call it that, is some sort of ambush of American racing's drug rules

In the euphoria surrounding the Belmont meeting, the Pan American Conference on racing was held in New York, so American Pharoah doing the right thing provided a nice focal point at a time when people were gathered nearby to debate its direction and development.

For the second time in just over a year, Hong Kong's executive director of racing, Bill Nader, wheeled out the question of Super Group One races, as he had here at the Asian racing equivalent. It is a regular discussion point these days.

On one level, he made the case again that having 459 Group Ones in the world of wildly varying standards made even elite level racing confusing for the casual fan or newcomer (and never mind the more commercial tricks with smoke and mirrors that go on as far as breeding industry relevance).

All true, and a world where a Group One in Argentina is the equivalent of a Group One in Hong Kong or Britain would be a simpler one - and could even be made of gingerbread and strawberries because it's that kind of fantasy.

So the concept of the Super Group Ones is to stamp certain races with a definitive tag that they are The Most Important Races and more than "just" Group Ones.

They are the Wimbledon, French Open, US Open and Australian Open at tennis - other events might have the same players but not the same kudos or clout at the sponsor's door.

Nader also cited US college basketball and the filing down of 64 contenders to four for the play-offs; it frankly seemed a bit off-target, since horses don't get eliminated by their defeats, but he was trying to draw a comparison with the excitement of fans knowing they're seeing the best of the best.

It's a nice idea but no less confusing than the current varying standards.

Let's wonder aloud, for example, whether the Kentucky Derby or Preakness or Belmont Stakes won by American Pharoah should be Super Group Ones - this column for one would say no. In our view, only races open to all-comers can be eligible for Super Group One status and those races, along with all other Derby or Oaks events, are age- or age-and-gender-restricted.

Now how confused is your casual fan, swept up in the Triple Crown euphoria, only to find that all the fuss is about three races that aren't even Super Group Ones?

So we can't help thinking that the whole Super Group One "push", if we can even call it that, is some sort of ambush of American racing's drug rules.

Once you are able to elevate some races above even the crowd of 459 supposedly peak events, then leverage ensues.

Presumably, the Super Group Ones have more commercial stud value than your garden variety Group Ones - maybe not, since most young star horses have already been retired to stud before they have to contest majors for all-comers to see if they are any good, but let's presume that's the intention.

Well, then countries not coming into line with the best-supported rules on medication probably don't get to have Super Group Ones. Yes, we're looking at you, USA.

And looking to bring you on to roughly the same page as most others by hook or by crook, or by rummaging around in your big breeders' residuals to see if there's something that might hurt them into getting behind change.


Happy Valley, and lower classes, will decide trainers' title

As the trainers' championship again gets down to what seems to have become its compulsory, annual grandstand finish, John Moore's comments after Too Fast won on Sunday highlighted the dynamic that probably keeps the whole contest tight.

Let us say up front that it's a tremendous job for Moore to be in contention, let alone in front, at this stage, given that he starts every term with a third of his horses in Class Two or higher. That's great for stake money, not for championships, which are won in Classes Three and Four.

Moore mentioned the advantage held by reigning champion Caspar Fownes over both him and John Size regarding Happy Valley.

For the purposes of this championship, which appears three-cornered now, we haven't included Tony Cruz but his profile at Happy Valley has more in common with Fownes than Moore or Size, who concentrate their efforts at Sha Tin.

Fownes also trains plenty of winners at Sha Tin but he isn't shy about going to the Valley and it will be this that gives him the edge if he wins it.

This season, Fownes has had 169 runners at the Valley, half as many again as Size and getting towards double Moore's figure. Not only that, but his strike rate is much higher even with so many more runners there - 15.4 per cent versus 10.6 per cent for Moore and 9.3 per cent for Size.

In terms of the proportion of races run at the city track, Fownes is in line with the programme - 35 per cent of races are there and 35 per cent of his runners are too. For Size, this season he has had almost 29 per cent of his runners there while Moore has had just 20 per cent of his runners at the Valley.

So we head into the final 10 meetings now and those proportions remain - 33 races at Happy Valley and 64 at Sha Tin. Crunching past percentages into those numbers, we see Moore scramble home, finishing with 65 wins, Fownes 64 and Size 62.

But, with 67 races left for Classes Three and Four, the advantage lies with the chasers.

Comments0Comments