Jack Werk is dead, but he leaves an awesome legacy.

He was a marketing genius, probably the greatest that the Thoroughbred industry has ever known. The product that he marketed has profoundly influenced Thoroughbred breeding; it’s likely that no other person in the history of breeding has had a greater influence.

That influence will probably be permanent.

Unfortunately, even tragically, the product that has exerted that influence is modern-day snake oil — worthless. But it is not just worthless; it is destructive. Untold millions of dollars have been wasted by breeders and racehorse owners who not only paid Werk and his imitators for valueless mating recommendations but spent incalculable amounts of money paying to create and race the products of those recommendations.

The product, of course, was computerized nicking, offering scientific evaluation of the racing results available in the vast Thoroughbred racing database and determining the matings — sires matched to sires of dams — most likely to produce successful runners.

Werk was the first to see the opportunity provided by that combination of the mystique of the infallible computer and the existing information database. He seized the opportunity, and it undoubtedly made him a rich man.

That was the Holy Grail of Thoroughbred breeding, that single piece of information that would exponentially increase the chance of producing a superior runner at relatively little cost. People embraced the idea with joy and enthusiasm; they believed because they wanted to believe. Now, slightly more than two decades after Werk revealed His Truth, computerized nicking is deeply, inextricably, embedded in Thoroughbred breeding.

Unfortunately, computerized nicking doesn’t work (or Werk). It doesn’t pass the most basic tests of scientific validity. It just isn’t true that it can do what it claims. Also unfortunately, breeders so badly want it to be true that they accept it without question.

True Believers even accepted, without question, the assertion that the quality of those baseless recommendations could be rated with delicate accuracy and assigned such values as A+, A, A-, B+, on down. They cherished those ratings and went on arranging matings that no rational person would have embraced.

After all, if it came out of the computer and if so many people believe it is true, then it must be true. It’s a fusing of the old song “Wishing Will Make It So” and the Nazi concept of the Big Lie.

To my knowledge, only one critical analysis of computerized nicking has ever been published. It doesn’t question the existence of nicks; it shows that it is impossible to know what they are. Click here to read it. It isn’t brief, but it is thorough and solidly grounded.

I wrote it years ago for my newsletter, and it has had no perceptible influence. People who want to believe, will believe.

In this week’s Barretts sale, 447 horses went through the ring. Of those, more than 100 didn’t get a bid.

I counted 109 (I have trouble counting that high, so that might be off by two or three), a few of which got one bid — from the consignor; the others didn’t get a bid from anybody. Either way, they effectively were all no-bids.

Jeez!

Just watched the finish of the second race @ GGF. Mile and a sixteenth on the Stupeta; erhh Tapeta.. Here are the fractions.. 25.78; 52.64; 1:17.78; 1:42.57 and 1:49 flat....

Citation and Native Diver must be rolling in their graves...

Congratulations to the California breeders who succeeded in keeping Papa Clem in the state as a stallion. It is a tremendous opportunity for those in the state to get to a very good bloodline. I hoped someone other than Kentucky would stand this nice horse and give him a chance. Hopefully he will get a full book and become the next In Excess or Bertrando for the state.

I surely am not the only one that has noticed that some of the horses who raced well in California often make the best California sires. They do not necessarily need to run elsewhere. Dirt or Synthetic or Grass, there is no place like home for California-based horses.

The CARMA funding that is sent out of state is sent to care for horses that have raced in California. That is the criteria, to support horses that have raced here no matter where they were foaled. It would be nice if the CTBA had a similar program for Cal-breds, but that has not happened to date.

Also, just for the record, the 40 Warren mares that were rescued from a feedlot in Arizona in 2008 were rescued by Tranquility Farm, which is a CA organization. We had help from wonderful folks in AZ, and the mares went to adoptive homes all over the west. Horses need help everywhere.

I just finished reading “The Blood-Horse” article on the allocation of dates for 2010. Everybody is scrambling for a piece of the fast disappearing pie.

The most alarming thing to me was the remarks on the diminishing horse population available to fill races in the state. It seems no one wants to place the blame where it belongs. The reduction in breeding hasn’t really shown up yet and true, we have lost some owners due to the financial downturn but we are also bleeding profusely from the loss of horses that are moving east in search of different surfaces to race on. A recent conversation with a booking agent for one of the “big three” transporters had him telling me that their shuttle business from Hollywood Park to Santa Anita was almost dead due to the declining horse population but that their cross country business had doubled and that was keeping them alive.

Just the other morning in the kitchen at Golden Gate Fields an owner and two trainers bemoaned the reality of trying to keep their horses sound on the surface and a long time shoer said he had never seen the foot problems like he is having now. The unfortunate truth is we have a small percentage of foals born that make it to the races. Now we have to deal with the percentage of those that can physically handle the mechanics of running on an artificial surface.

This is just a rant to keep from screaming at the current state of racing. I know that given the financial state and current track ownership, no money will be spent to undo what has been done, and with a lack of government support on the gaming issue, all we can do is sit by helpless and hope that we can somehow overcome these obstacles.

Don,

I have to disagree with you about CARMA giving money to the retirement facilities in Arizona. As long as California horses run anywhere, if they are retired in a facility that will care for them, let the money be given. Encore Equine Foundation near Tucson probably has many Cal-breds there and I know there are New Mexico-breds, Ky-breds and Arizona-breds plus others there.

Any facility that cares for our unwanted Thoroughbreds deserves funding. I don’t care where the horses are foaled. Remember the Warren horses were rescued by Arizona people and fortunately California stepped up and placed many of them.

We adopted a gelding from a retirement facility. One of our trainers here has tried to get owners to donate a per start fee for retirement of NM-bred horses but I am not sure many participate. Too easy to sell the horses in El Paso for $100 and off to slaughter in Mexico.

I praise CARMA for funding all of the retirement facilities that they do. Please give credit for not discriminating.

And, Larry Stevens, we agree 100% about the California Governator. He should have been embarrassed to even be at the track Breeders’ Cup Day and when Zenyatta was honored. The boos were totally deserved although it is a shame it had to be in front of Zenyatta. She and her owners are way above him in class and he has done nothing to help California racing. It would be nice if politicians would keep campaign promises instead of thinking only of their own pockets. Thanks for your observations.

Lisa,

Concerning your article on the unsportsmanship conduct that was shown towards the CA Governor (see November 29, 2009 blog entry), I have to take some exception. True, maybe the crowd should have restrained themselves some, but what did the authorities think they would do? Here is a man that in his campaign speeches said he would create some sort of parity in the casino gambling issue, only to turn his back on CA racing by allowing the Native Americans even more opportunities to expand their gambling.

Did Zenyatta deserve the award? Yes, by all means she deserves any award that they want to give her. If I had owned her, I’d rather that award be presented by anyone other than the Governor. A busy man? Well, I guess considering his public office (although not a good governor). Famous? For poorly acting in violent R-rated movies, blowing up hundreds of people. I have a hard time with the word “famous” and “stars” when attached to the Hollywood Jet Set.

Although I’m retired from the Thoroughbred business, I guess I’m not entirely out of the loop, because I received a press release from TOC a few days ago announcing that CARMA is distributing $264,000 “to twelve different charitable organizations caring for retired California racehorses.”

Great! When I was involved in such things, I campaigned vigorously for somebody to help care for those retired warriors on whom the entire industry depends. I doubt that I had anything to do with it, but CARMA was created to provide help. It hasn’t been able to give all the help that’s necessary, but it’s trying.

One of the most important sources of funding for CARMA is a system of voluntary contributions by California racehorse owners in the form of small — very small — deductions for purses that their horses earn. That is as it should be, owners helping pay for the retirement of their horses.

But that money should never be used to pay for the retirement of ALL horses. That would be an egregious misuse of the funds. That money should go only to help horses that have raced in California.

So I was stunned to see that the list of 12 beneficiaries of the latest distribution of CARMA funds included two Arizona facilities. With California retirement facilities in desperate need of funding, California owners are paying to support Arizona horses?

I have to assume that CARMA believes that retired California racehorses are domiciled at those Arizona facilities, but I can’t conceive of there being a way to assure that the money is going only to their support.

I don’t know whether state law allows CARMA to fund out-of-state facilities, but it certainly should. Whether it’s legal or illegal, it is ABSOLUTELY WRONG! What were these people thinking?

I’m no longer involved in all this, but I can’t help being outraged.

Eric,

That’s not a bad idea, but I don’t think it will ever fly and here is why. The old saying “that you never really know a man until you deal with him for money” is very true.

Let’s say that the winners share was $1 million dollars and the jockey gets $100,000 and then someone says to him give $10,000 to this cause. To be asked to ride in that higher echelon takes years of work and not a lot of them ever get the chance. Those are the races where they can have a chance to put some serious money away for retirement, if they are smart enough.

Most retire by 50+ years of age and have no further education than the race track. Not very many that can play in “movies” like Gary Stevens or occupy the broadcast booth and write a book telling you how to bet like Jerry Bailey. A lot of them are great family men and want to be able to take care and educate their children and knowing what that costs are going to be very reluctant to part with that 10%.

Reading about the jockeys’ plight for an increase in mount fees, I felt inspired to come up with something novel.

Owners have to pay for mounts in Breeders’ Cup, Triple Crown and marquee races that are much more than the minimum to get their lad (or lass) to commit; what if those same BC/Triple Crown/marquee event jockeys commit 10% of their gross take on those “big event” mounts (this is mount fees, as well as purse money and any owner guaranteed money to their rider) to the Jockeys’ Guild to spread across to the dozens of riders not in those “big event” events?

Sure, it wouldn’t be the same as a flat increase per mount that is always passed on to the owners; it could serve as a stimulus for the upper echelon riders to decrease their fees on those event days and maybe that small portion of owners (who likely own and race a large percentage of the overall running population) would feel more obliged to discuss a per mount fee increase. 

Once again, the CTBA Board of Directors is having their protective custody of keeping its members in the dark about the annual elections. I have not seen any announcement in the CTBA magazine and not on the CTBA web site and not in the CTBA weekly newsletter for any person that wants to run for the board.

The TOC magazine had a full page discussion on their elections for next year. The nominations close 90 days prior to the annual meeting and that will be approximately the middle of November. How is one expected to obtain the necessary signatures and submitted to the CTBA in a reasonable time schedule.

If it takes 25 signatures for your petition, I strongly urge any person that gets their petition in to have 30 signatures. The CTBA needs new directors for leadership.

I mentioned this last year and believe it or not, the following week information came out about the election.

The CTBA Board does not help our members who look for guidance. Look at the California sales for the last two years in Northern California and in association with Barretts for yearlings. Sellers are losing money at an alarming rate. Our breeding industry is hurting and what does the CTBA do to help us. NOTHING. The board members meet every other month and do we know how many board members actually show up? The minutes are never disclosed.

The board members are not helping us, and what is needed are new people on the board; but the CTBA under the guidance of Doug Burge has not given the California breeder any hope for the future.

Why can’t the CTBA have a venue for a sale and not depend on the Barretts sales company. The only sale a breeder has for a mixed sale is January and that will be a blood bath, with an average that will be below any in the past ten years.

Perhaps giving your horses to CERF is the most logical way to end your demise and suffering.

How does Barry Abrams even consider running a horse, Lethal Heat, two days in a row? It worked ok one week apart, but I have to think this is cruel and the trainer out of his mind. Of course, I could be. The mare surely cannot win both races, maybe neither. I would stick with one race and call it even. If anything happens to the mare, he will really get some heat.