The Director of Triple Crown Controversy

            I called up an old friend the other day.  In actuality, he holds one of the most important media jobs in the sport, although very few people are aware of the existence of his position as Director of Triple Crown Controversy.

            It was because of this lack of awareness that I explained to him that an interview might be of interest to a lot of readers and asked him to explain his job.

            “Well, Ron,” he began, “as you’re aware, it’s a well kept secret, and I can’t say who pays me to create Triple Crown controversy, but I will admit that it’s a fairly easy position.”

            “In what regard?”

            “Because these people are so good at creating their own controversy.  I admit it’s been difficult a few times when I had to come up with something, but essentially the tracks and the horsemen make this job pretty easy.”

            “Why was such a position created?”

            “That’s pretty obvious, to direct more media attention to the Triple Crown races.  After all, if you look at your sports section these days, baseball players taking steroids and dope, basketball players taking bribes, that’s what gets the headlines.  So we had to have some controversy in racing to compete, it’s that simple.”

            “So how did you get the job?”

            “Actually, I applied for it back in 1968 after the Dancer’s Image Derby made the headlines.  It seemed to me that if a scandal like that could get the races onto the front page, then a dedicated director could create lots of scandal and keep it there.”

            “And so you were hired just to write bad things about the sport?”

            “Oh, no, like I said, the people in the business take care of the controversy, all I have to do is make sure the media is kept informed about it.”

            “What do you consider your favorite controversies?”

            “Gee, that’s a tough question, there’s been so many.  I’ve always had a place in heart about Codex mugging Genuine Risk in the Preakness, especially when Andy Beyer went on television to tell people that Bill Shoemaker couldn’t carry Angel Cordero’s whip.  And when the issue ended up in the courts, well, that was the best thing since Dancer’s Image.”

            “Any other highlights?”

            “Oh sure, lots of them.  Like when Eddie Gregson wouldn’t take his Kentucky Derby winner to the Preakness and screwed up Chick Lang’s advertising campaign about ‘There’s Only One Derby Winner And We Have Him’.  Boy, the things Lang said about Gregson should probably have only been aired on the Playboy Channel.  Actually, that took a little more editing time, but it sure got the Triple Crown on the front page.”

            “Any favorite horses?” I asked.

            “Well, I had to like Gate Dancer.  After all, he was the Triple Crown’s answer to P. T. Barnum what with all that wild equipment that made him look like something left over from a Prince concert.  And the Derby disqualification didn’t hurt, probably gave Chick Lang something to think about the next time he had a meeting with his stewards.

            “Spectacular Bid and the safety pin was fun, my acupuncturist saved all the articles.

            “And Great Redeemer, the maiden owned by that born again religious nut, he was worth a lot of copy.  I mean, if God was really on his side, how come he got beat by 46 lengths?”

            “So it really is an easy job?”

            “I have to admit some years are a little tough.  The Markeys were such a nice couple, there wasn’t anything controversial to say about them.  Fortunately the media played up a sympathetic angle, so that helped.

            “1973 was pretty rough, how could you knock Secretariat?  Now I have to admit that he made the cover of three national magazines in one week, so the sport sure wasn’t lacking exposure, but my job is to highlight controversy.  If truth be told, I might have gotten fired that year, except the clockers at Pimlico came to my rescue.  I sure owe them a lot.”

            “Any other special memories?”

            “Well, I’ve done some research into medication and fixing scandals, but my heart’s not really into it.  I like it best when the sport gives me the controversy, and I know in my heart that some way they’ll always come through.”

            “Are you saying that you sometimes plan controversies?”

            “Oh, no.  I once considered it, but like I said, I took this job in 1968 because it seemed so easy.  There’s been some lean years, but overall it’s been most satisfying.  Plus, I have to thank people like Lynn Stone, my mimeograph broke down just cranking out press releases about how he wanted someone – anyone – to define the Derby eligibility.  Pimlico helped a lot when they couldn’t get an owner a table for twelve and the guy pulled his horse out of the race.  The NYRA people are a bit less cooperative, but I can always fall back on the Codex controversy if I need it.”

            “Does this mean that you’ll have to create a controversy on your own for 1985?”

            “Not really, Tom Meeker has already given me an advance for the Derby when he decided an unnominated horse could still be eligible because someone wrote his name on the back of a Santa Anita program.”

            “You mean a horse that wasn’t nominated and can’t be supplemented is going to be allowed in the Derby?”

            “Like I said, I communicate controversy, I don’t make it.  Besides, rules are made to be broken, aren’t they?”

            “Well, how about Sam Rubin?  He had to put up over a hundred grand to supplement John Henry, who didn’t even make it to the Breeders’ Cup.  No rule was broken there.”

            “Of course not, they had lots of publicity, they didn’t need my services for that.  We talking Triple Crown controversy.  Court hearings, television debates, chemists and recalcitrant stewards, that’s where it’s at.

            “If Churchill Downs wants to let in a non-eligible horse because someone scribbled the horse’s name on the back of a program even after all their babbling about eligibility restrictions, let them.  Besides, my contract comes up for renewal this year, that should help me a lot.  Might even get a raise out of that one.”

            “Well, you certainly seem set for the Derby.  What’s your outlook for the Preakness and Belmont?”

            “I imagine the Preakness will take care of itself, but I am a little worried about the Belmont.”

            “You mean because it’s less controversial?”

            “Not that so much, it’s just that my mimeograph is broken again and I’m not sure if it’ll be repaired in time.  That’s the trouble with being the Director of Triple Crown Controversy, there’s always so much to do.”

ADDENDUM –

The following Letter To The Editor appeared in the July 1985 issue of The Horsemen’s Journal:

            “I would like to thank Ron Parker for his ‘Light Side’ article on my duties as Director of Triple Crown Controversy that appeared in your May issue.

            “More importantly, I would like to thank the people in racing who helped make my job, as usual, much easier.

            “My special thanks to Bob Brennan for luring the Kentucky Derby winner away from Pimlico, I want him to know that I fully disagree with Chick Lang’s comment that he is a ‘snake oil salesman’.

            “My thanks to George Steinbrenner and Eternal Prince, that lien for unpaid feed bills was a stroke of genius, I only wish I had thought of it myself.  But you can be sure I’ll be in close contact with Fasig-Tipton’s attorneys in the future for promotional ideas.

            “My very best wishes to Cam Gambolati and Dennis Diaz, Angel Cordero and Bob Brennan, Chick Lang and Butch Lenzini for their cooperation in 1985.

            “May my job be as easy in 1986!”

--The Director of Triple Crown Controversy