Harness: Out of sight means out of mind for Dan Patch voters

The Dan Patch Award winners for 2019 have been announced and they will not change regardless of what anyone thinks. The voters have spoken, and while I didn't agree with every decision, all of the winners are worthy of distinction.

The above said, I do want to touch on one vote I strongly disagreed with – McWicked vs. Lather Up. The final tally was McWicked 73 votes, Lather Up 70 votes, and four blind mice voted for American History (3) and Dorsoduro Hanover (1).

Statistically the voting should've been a slam dunk win for Lather Up. First, he equaled Always B Miki’s all-time mark of 1:46 to become the co-fastest Standardbred in history. Secondly, Lather Up had a better win percentage (66% to 35%) and a higher average earnings per start ($64,000 to $60,829). Lastly, Lather Up dominated the head-to-head matchup. The two met six times. Lather Up won four times. McWicked won none.

There were only two categories where McWicked had an edge, and one was subjective. McWicked earned more than Lather Up ($1,034,091 to $768,011), though he did it in five more starts. McWicked also won more stakes races (five to four), assuming you count the Dan Rooney Invitational, which really shouldn’t be included since not all horses are eligible.

So why did Lather Up lose to McWicked in the Older Pacing Horse Dan Patch division? The only answer I can provide is that society in general has a very short memory. Lather Up made his final start on August 31 and retired due to injury. In the months to follow, without the freakishly fast Sugar Valley Farms stallion, McWicked was able to win three stakes races, though he didn't even finish in the top three in the TVG or Breeders Crown.

The Dan Patch awards are meant to honor the best horses throughout the entire year, not just the end of the year. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Lather Up was the best horse in training regardless of age or sex in July and August, and he performed well in May and June. There was no period during the year where I would've ranked McWicked as even close to the best in North America, but McWicked was in front of the voters' eyes in the weeks leading up to when the ballots were received. I guess that counts for something, right?

Rogue voters

There was a time when I would hop on my soapbox and scream about strange votes for undeserving horses or those that I never even heard of in the various Dan Patch categories. There are certainly quite a few votes this year for horses that simply had no business getting one (you can see all of the totals here), but I’ve come to accept that with any large voting pool there are always going to be a few people who disregard the facts, just like there is always one person in the crowd who doesn’t think the sky is blue.

Rather than complain, I'd rather introduce a potential solution. I haven't submitted it as a potential change to the United States Harness Writers Association's bylaws, but maybe it is worth some thought. What if only the Top Five money earners in each division were eligible to receive votes?

Think about it, does a horse deserve to win year-end honors if it wasn't one of the top five earners in the division? Doesn't that automatically mean that the horse wasn't one of the best?

Honestly, if the rule was in effect this year it wouldn’t have changed much. The same horses would've won each division, but a few handful of votes would've gone to more deserving candidates and perhaps the public perception of the voting as a whole would be stronger.

The one horse which would've lost the most votes is Bold Eagle. On the strength of his spectacular Breeders crown win at Woodbine Mohawk Park, his only start in North America, Bold Eagle received four votes as the best older trotter.

Taking nothing away from Bold Eagle, how does a horse who only started once on these shores and never stepped on U.S. soil receive votes for an award from the United States Harness Writers as the best of his class? Is it at all possible that a horse can be so good in one race that the rest of the year doesn’t matter? I think not!

My view is that a horse should be required to start at least two times in North America to be eligible for the Dan Patch ballot. At two starts the bar is set low, but high enough that a horse with a very small body of work in North America can’t steal votes away from more deserving horses that showed up throughout all or much of the stakes season.

A two-start rule in 2019 would not only have wiped away four votes for Bold Eagle but also seven from Yonkers International Trot winner Zacon Gio. Again, while both raced great in their one start here, neither is worthy of an award that is issued for excellence for the year in North America. Now if this is an international award, then it's a different story.