Harness: Reworking the benefits of competing in Sire Stakes legs

It has been said that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and perhaps that is true. What if it doesn't appear to be broken but could be improved? Do we tinker with something that "seems" to be functioning properly to try to make it better?

While in the winter months we are far from Sire Stakes races, recently they have been on my mind. In most states horses race between two and eight legs which lead up to a final. Once the dust settles on the preliminary legs, horses are ranked by earnings and the top eight to 10 are then eligible to the rich final. A post-position draw is then conducted and each horse finds out its fate.

Of course it is possible that a horse can win from the 10-hole at The Meadowlands, 9-hole at Pocono or 8-hole at Yonkers, but let's face it, those are far from ideal starting positions, and in theory a horse can dominate the series only to be punished in the end. Does that seem fair?

What if horses picked their post positions for the finals based on the Sire Stakes standings after all of the legs?

Before diving head first into why this format would be beneficial, let me firmly state that I'm in no way in favor of any "pick your post" system for any elimination/final format. I understand why they are used (to provide incentive to "try" in elimination races that go for in some cases 5% of the final purse) and accept it as perhaps the best solution in a sea of bad solutions. For me, the benefit of qualifying in an elimination race is being able to race in the final. If you want to reward horses for trying harder in what is often considered a meaningless race, make the purses higher.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, Sire Stakes. There is a huge difference between racing in one elimination and competing in multiple legs of a Sire Stakes series which requires a season-long commitment in some cases. Horses that skip other major stakes or perform well week after week leading up to the final deserve the opportunity to choose their post.

Think about it from this perspective. Other than the Super Bowl, which is played at a neutral warm-weather site each year, teams in all major sports play an entire season to gain position in the standings so they can either a) get a bye in the opening round or b) gain home-field advantage. Drawing the worst post after dominating the Sire Stakes standings is like winning your division in baseball and playing all of your games on the road.

► Sign up for our FREE DRF Harness Digest Newsletter

Fairness aside, a system where posts are earned could lure additional horses. It would be much more appealing for a horse to skip a major race for the Sire Stakes if the reward was a good post.

Another benefit could be horses racing in divisions where they belong and more equally-matched races during the preliminary legs. It makes less sense to take a shot in the top level of a Sire Stakes to end up in an outside post for the final when you can potentially race in the second-tier of the series and earn a great post. It is better to start from post 4 as one of the best horses racing for $50,000 than post 10 going for $250,000 where you are the worst horse.

Now imagine what the final legs will be like as horses battle for placement in the standings. Now if you are sitting fourth with no chance of missing the final there is little reason to "go hard" or even race in the last leg, but with the "pick your post" rule in place they have to show up or risk being stuck on the outside.

Some horsepeople will hate this, but the new system will also help keep horses from racing infrequently and getting into the final. Think about it, will a horse show up in one of the last legs if the best they can do is earn the worst post? The new system rewards those that support the series, as it should!

There is one clear negative to the new system and that is the worst horses in the series could very well draw the worst posts in the final. Some will say that leads to a bad race because two or three horses won't have a big chance to win. I respect that opinion and will counter with the possibility of an even better race because all of the contenders will be in good starting spots.

So, what do you think? Is my idea something a Sire Stakes region should try? Email your thoughts to dgiwner@drf.com.

Truth be told, that's not my only Sire Stakes thought. What if we took 5% (the percent is negotiable) of every Sire Stakes race from every region and created a championship race with the winners of each final coming together?

Think about it: New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Ohio, Ontario, Massachusetts, and maybe more could send a horse from each division to compete in this North American Championship.

I saw an email from Blue Chip Farms estimating that the total purses from Sire Stakes races from NY, PA, Ont, In and Oh were estimated to be $52 million. Taking 5% of that amount and splitting it among eight races (divisions for both sexes and gaits for 2- and 3-year-olds) would result in an octet of $325,000 championships. Add in NJ/MA and that number surely grows near $400,000 each.

The tricky part could be when to have these races on the calendar. For me the first week of December makes the most sense, but some of the horses could be turned out by then. There is also the issue of states perhaps being unable to use money designated for hometown use for national purposes. These obstacles leave me with the conclusion that it will never happen. At least no one can accuse me of not trying to come up with new ideas.