Ron Parker

Daily Racing Form's Steven Crist recently penned an online dissertation entitled "Zenyatta must earn title on the track" in which he opined that if "Zenyatta loses the [Breeders' Cup] Classic to Blame, Looking At Lucky, or Quality Road, she does not deserve to be Horse of the Year for 2010."

Crist goes on to make a case for Quality Road who, should he defeat Zenyatta in the Classic, would sport a 5 for 6 record for the year--same as Zenyatta. He supports his case citing Quality Road's accomplishments against Grade 1 winners and "several champions," whereas "Zenyatta would not have won a race with a single Grade 1 winner in it this year."

Whenever someone raises the question about any successful horse by asking 'who did he/she beat,' my response has always been, "Whoever showed up."

But while Crist arms his argument with statistical observations pertaining to races, he almost seems to resent the popularity that has endeared Zenyatta to thousands of fans, and he goes on to express his dismay that several Eclipse Award voters "have already publicly declared that they will ignore anything that happens on the track Saturday and vote for Zenyatta."

Crist obviously considers this narrow if not heretical thinking, observing that it would "make a travesty of an awards process that is supposed to be ruled by fairness and reason rather than revenge and sentimentality."

While Quality Road stopped after six furlongs and faded to 12th and last in this year's Classic and failed to live up to Crist's expectations, the victory by Blame has various observers conceding the Horse of the Year crown to Blame by virtue of the few inches he beat Zenyatta by. Others are at least willing to suggest it might be a tough decision for some voters.

But all are willing to admit that Zenyatta's performance in this year's Breeders' Cup Classic was possibly--especially since she didn't get an ideal trip--her greatest race.

One of Zenyatta's strongest critics during her 19-race win streak has been Andy Beyer, but even his cynicism seems to have been tempered by her performance.

"Zenyatta was more ennobled by this defeat than by almost anything she did during the 19-race winning streak she brought into Saturday's race," Beyer wrote online at drf.com, going on to add that "Zenyatta's historic winning streak and her two performances in the Classic constitute a formidable body of work, and nobody ought to hold her one defeat against her."

What seems to have been thrown under the bus by Blame's supporter's 'look at the cold record' analysis is the simple fact that what Zenyatta--and her connections--have done for the sport of racing should be an important consideration in declaring who most deserves a championship title, whether it's Horse of the Year or any of the other Eclipse Award categories.

And what Zenyatta, the Mosses, John Shirreffs, Mike Smith, and everyone else connected to the horse has done for the sport goes far beyond 'statistics.'

Zenyatta has built a positive image for racing that transcends mere numbers. The public flocks to the track to see her, waving signs and banners and cheering, and she seems to respond to their affection, which only enhances the love affair.

That popularity was never more evident than when jockey Garrett Gomez brought Blame back to the winner's circle after the Classic and raised his arms trying to elicit applause for the victory from the 72,739 fans on hand. Gomez got very little response. The cheers came when Zenyatta returned to be unsaddled.

Zenyatta's attraction is not limited to her exploits since it is well documented that she is available to fans who have the opportunity to visit her on the backstretch. They can pet her, have their picture taken with her, little girls bring apples, and she calmly accepts this attention between nibbles of grass.

While some Thoroughbreds wouldn't tolerate a minute of such intrusions, variables of this 'up close and personal' exposure would do much to enhance the reputation of the sport, certainly one of the reasons trainer John Sherriffs encourages the practice.

"How often does a person have a chance to get close to a horse like Zenyatta?" Shirreffs told a group of media the morning after the Classic and documented by Daily Racing Form's Jay Privman. "One of the things I think this sport needs to do is allow the fans to get closer. Horses like Zenyatta allow the fans to get closer. Just watching a Thoroughbred on television, you don't get the feel for the Thoroughbred. As a trainer, I'd like to see fans get close."

It is the type of thinking--and his accomplishments with Zenyatta--that have made Shirreffs one of the most respected and visible trainers in the country.

And popular in his own right. Steve Anderson, a Southern California correspondent for Daily Racing Form and an ardent Zenyatta supporter, observed this phenomenon at a small Louisville restaurant where Shirreffs and wife Dottie were having dinner a few hours after the Classic. Anderson noted that they were pretty much left alone to enjoy their meal.

"But the other diners knew who was in the room," Anderson wrote. "When the couple began to leave, the crowd broke into applause."

Someone wrote that these days Hollywood Park is a ghost town, a sea of empty concrete. But on the days that Zenyatta ran there, you could barely see the concrete.

It is a popularity that carries forward with the merchandising of Zenyatta memorabilia which Steve Haskin, writing in W Magazine, pointed out "has contributed large sums to college-scholarship funds and horse retirement organizations."

Yes, helping youth and less fortunate horses is another if little known part of what Zenyatta has given us.

More important for promoting racing is the snowball effect of this popularity that gives the sport a national stage, devoid of scandals and presenting all that is right with racing. Sports Illustrated, which seems to have pretty much forgotten that Thoroughbred racing even exists, did a four-page spread by Tim Layden in a recent issue.

You want national exposure for the sport? When was the last time Sixty Minutes devoted a segment of their program to a Thoroughbred?

Certainly there is a precedent for considering the impact a Thoroughbred has on the national psyche when Horse of the Year ballots are being considered. In 1981 John Henry won eight races, but he also finished fourth--as in off the board--in two races in those pre-Breeders' Cup days: the Hollywood Gold Cup and the Hollywood Turf Cup. But his popularity transcended those defeats and John Henry was not just named Horse of the Year, he received all 191 votes in that category, the only unanimous Horse of the Year selection since they started polling the three voting groups.

We give special awards of recognition to various humans. The National Turf Writers hands out the Mr. Fitz Award, "for typifying the spirit of racing," while the Turf Publicists of America annually present their Big Sport of Turfdom Award.

So shouldn't these acknowledgements of contributions to the sport carry over at least to some degree to considering what a horse has also given to the sport?

Shouldn't the body of work--on the track as well as off--contribute to our proclamation as to who the best horse of the year is?

Shouldn't it be more than a numbers game?

But if Crist is correct, if mere statistics should be the only criteria, and some people are making "a travesty of an awards process," then I suggest we simply do away with the voting process altogether.

Instead, we should take a cue from college football and establish computer rankings along the lines of their Bowl Championship Series.

Sure, the BCS has its share of critics who question the system, the process, and often the choices. But the results are accepted as the final authority on who the best teams are.

So let's take the human element out of the Eclipse Awards and just let a computer do our thinking for us.

We certainly don't want things like "sentimentality" cluttering things up.