Two years ago, Teresa Genaro wrote about the poor representation of women in racing. She’s back this week with an update of little progress, in a Pink Sheet column that concludes with this indictment:
Yet when it comes to putting panels together, or hiring executives, or filling board vacancies, women seem to be elusively difficult to find.
If the problem is a dearth of women on leadership pathways in the industry, current executives should be asking themselves why, and what they are doing to cultivate women and bring them into the sport, as other industries have long done and continue to do.
Instead, racing seems content, for the most part, to pander to stereotypes, to view women as decorations rather than as customers, and to overlook them when putting people in front of microphones and in board rooms.
How many times does this have to be said? (That’s a rhetorical question.) How can we do better? (That’s not.) The issue isn’t specific to racing — it regularly flares up in media and technology (the other industries I closely follow). Does racing need some equivalent of the VIDA Count? (Would be just a start.)
To anyone who scoffs that diversity matters, know this — diversity drives market growth. As the American population becomes more diverse, diversity is only going to increase in importance to any industry’s long-term survival.
Related: “NYRA Board less diverse than GOP primary field.”
How we talk about women in racing — an ongoing series. Today’s entry begins with Scott Raymond’s appreciation for Saratoga, which includes well-deserved praise for NYRA’s announcer and in-house handicapping team:
Yes, this is your NYRA crew like we just experienced at Belmont, but they deserve credit for adding to the Saratoga experience. They are among the best in the business. You have Larry Collmus, arguably the best active announcer in horse racing. Mike Beer, Andy Serling, and all the guys on Talking Horses do a great job. They are horseplayers; they aren’t talking heads. And Maggie Wolfendale in the paddock provides solid insight. Her husband is a trainer and she has experience as an exercise rider. She’s not just a young, pretty face they put on camera. Her insight from the paddock is key, especially in analyzing younger horses and first-time starters.
Only Maggie Wolfendale’s professional ability is defined in relation to another person and physical appearance. For fun, let’s rewrite a couple of sentences:
You have Larry Collmus, arguably the best active announcer in horse racing. His wife is a trainer. He’s not just a hot, sexy voice they put on mic. Mike Beer, Andy Serling, and all the guys on Talking Horses do a great job. Beer’s significant other is a jockey. Serling’s mother is a steward. They’re horseplayers; they’re not just handsome faces they put on camera.
It’s obvious that no disrespect was meant to Wolfendale, but it’s a good example of how a compliment can display the unconscious bias that women couldn’t possibly be good handicappers in their own right.
“A lot of people see me and think my husband is picking my card, but I play my own,” [Jeannie] King said. “We don’t even sit in the same room when we’re playing.”
Judy Wagner, winner of the 2001 National Handicapping Championship, and the first horseplayer appointed to the NTRA board of directors, heard much the same when she began going to handicapping contests>.
For the record, King has finished fourth in the NHC, and Wolfendale was a great handicapper before marrying the trainer!
Men, be grateful the most important question about your professional performance is not "what does he look like?" https://t.co/sLPGj0fpwu
— dana byerly (@superterrific) August 14, 2015
Which was in response to this “joke”:
Cassidy Clerisse is the bug rider's name – congrats! – now the most important question, what does she look like?
— Jeff Siegel (@jsiegelracing) August 13, 2015
Honor Code wins the 2015 Whitney at Saratoga, earning a Beyer speed figure of 113 and a TimeformUS speed figure of 125.
So-called “mini-Breeders’ Cups” are a growing trend, but are they always a good thing? With the Saratoga meet extending over 40 days, does it make sense to cram nearly half the Grade 1s (6 of 15) into a three-hour period on a single one of those days? At a time when attendance has been in steady decline, wouldn’t it be better to keep the major attractions more evenly distributed, to give people — especially close followers of the sport — more of a reason to come to the track all seven weekends of the meet, not just four or five of them?
Copyright © 2000-2017 by Jessica Chapel. All rights reserved.