Tuesday, February 3, 2004
Are the Euros really that deserving?
By Bill Finley
Special to ESPN.com
Our infatuation with European horses at Eclipse Award time reached a new level of absurdity this year when Breeders' Cup Turf winner High Chaparral was voted champion male turf horse. His credentials: he made one start in the U.S. and finished in a dead-heat for the win. Maybe there has been a less deserving Eclipse Award winner, I just can't think of one.
But it wasn't exactly a surprise when he was named turf champion. Ever since the second edition of the Breeders' Cup way back in 1985, Europeans have been running off with our most prestigious award. All that is required is for them to swoop in, win one race and go home. To the majority of voters, that is often good enough. It started with Pebbles in 1985, continued with horses like Miesque, Arazi and Johannesburg and kept going this year when Eclipses where handed to High Chaparral and Islington (Filly & Mare Turf Champion). For five straight years, at least one European horse has been given an Eclipse Award after winning just a Breeders' Cup race.
There are no set-in-stone qualifications for winning an Eclipse Award, but the intent of the honor is obvious. It is supposed to reward the horses with the best overall performances during the course of a year in North American racing. It was never supposed to be about one day of racing.
Occasionally, a credible argument can be made that a win in a Breeders' Cup race alone is enough. He didn't get my vote, but 2003 2-Year-Old Champion Action This Day was a deserving champion even though he won only a maiden race and the Breeders' Cup Juvenile. His competition for the title was extremely weak and he did win the most important 2-year-old race on the calendar.
The problem is that some European horses (e.g. High Chaparral) have been winning at the expense of deserving North American candidates. Storming Home won three stakes races on U.S. soil this year and was disqualified from first in another (the Arlington Million). Yet he received only 73 votes to 138 for High Chaparral. Even Johar seems like a lot more logical selection than High Chaparral. He dead-heated with the eventual Eclipse winner in the Breeders' Cup Turf and also won the Grade II San Marcos earlier in the year. It's indisputable that he accomplished more in North America last year than High Chaparral did.
Islington defeated, among others, Heat Haze for the Filly & Mare championship. Heat Haze won two Grade I races during the year and four stakes races overall, by any definition a more complete and successful season that the mini-North American campaign turned in by Islington. Yet, she received 74 votes to 90 for Islington. The margin would have been even more lopsided, but Breeders' Cup Mile winner Six Perfections, another European shipper, split the vote with Islington among Europhiles.
Eclipse voters have always given more credit to Breeders' Cup races than they deserve, but that still doesn't begin to explain the love affair with European horses. American-based one-race wonders who have won Breeders' Cup races, horses like Volponi and Cat Thief, rarely get Eclipse Awards. Why, then, do we give them to Europeans?
One explanation is that we are somehow falsely romanticized by European horses. Why? The other, more disturbing, possibility is that we are giving horses credit for what they have accomplished in Europe. It seems voters gave credence to High Chaparral's campaign in Europe, where he won two of three starts, including the Group I Irish Champion Stakes. Otherwise, how is he possibly more deserving than Johar? Islington also won a Group I race in Europe and finished third in the Irish Champion Stakes against males.
If so, that's a clear violation of the spirit of the Eclipse Awards. These awards were not meant to recognize anything other than excellence in North American racing. It should not matter one bit what a horse accomplished in any other countries.
There are no rules or guidelines regarding criteria for an Eclipse Award. For the most part, that's been a good thing. It creates some healthy debate and allows the voters to keep an open mind. Maybe that should change. At the very least, voters should be apprised that races in foreign countries should not be considered when deciding championships. Perhaps that will do something to get the awards back on track, which needs to happen. We have become European-crazy, and some very deserving North American horses have been paying the price.
