Division rankings: Racing’s MVP awards deserve better

This week, we're hitting pause on the rankings as I work on recalibrating them for a big reveal next week. In the meantime, let’s dive into the hot topic of the moment: the Eclipse Awards.

Last week, the finalists were announced. At first glance, it felt like smooth sailing with few surprises in the equine categories, and all seemed well for once in the world of horse racing awards. But, as is often the case in this sport, closer inspection revealed a glaring oversight that might have cost at least one horse his rightful spot among the elite. 

In the 2-year-old male category, the finalists are Chancer McPatrick, Citizen Bull, and Gaming. A respectable trio at first glance. But as a voter who endured this process firsthand, it was immediately obvious that the winner of the Los Alamitos Futurity, Journalism, got a raw deal. 

Here’s the story: In mid-December, voters received an email with a link to cast their ballots and instructions along with a link to past performances. Voters were also mailed a past performance packet with a wide range of contenders, up to 21 deep in some categories like male turf. But the paper copy sent to voters omitted Journalism from its list of 16 potential 2-year-old males. Meanwhile, the online version corrected this omission but had its own set of errors. Only 13 horses were listed. Four from the paper version – New Century, Poster, Rated by Merit, and Sovereignty – were conspicuously absent. 

And then, the pièce de résistance of this fiasco: Gaming, the horse who lost to Journalism in the Los Alamitos Futurity, had his past performance line conveniently left outdated in both versions. It didn’t reflect that crucial defeat. Journalism, on the other hand, had his win displayed. 

Why does this matter? Too many voters suffer from Breeders’ Cup blinders, treating the rest of the racing calendar like background noise and barely bothering to glance at anything that happens before or after the big weekend when casting their ballots.

They rely too heavily on the provided past performances rather than doing the research themselves. It’s a troubling reality that laziness and a lack of historical perspective are undermining the integrity of the Eclipse Awards, our sport’s equivalent of MVP honors. 

How did this happen? Who knows. But it’s embarrassing. On January 1, by mid-afternoon, the online link was finally updated to include Gaming's complete past performances and the four previously omitted horses. Unfortunately, the damage was already done.

It’s not just the clerical errors; it’s the voters themselves. 13% of them, 32 out of 240, couldn’t even be bothered to submit a ballot. If you can’t take the responsibility seriously, you shouldn’t have the privilege. Period. Strip them of their votes and hand the opportunity to someone who actually cares. Horse racing deserves better. The fans deserve better. Journalism deserved better. And frankly, this whole process deserves better.