Page 12 - 2 March 2012

If you haven’t heard of “Luck,” it is HBO’s latest original series set in the “provocative world of” Thoroughbred racing.
by Stacy Pigott
There is an oft-quoted phrase that states, “There is no such thing as bad publicity.” The theory goes that any publicity—whether positive or nega- tive—that gets your name in the public eye is a good thing. And it seems there are many celebrities that live by this creed, as stars such as Lindsay Lohan and Charlie Sheen continue to be household names based on their bad behavior.
The dogma is currently being tested in the horse racing industry, as the HBO series “Luck” has pro- duced a mound of bad publicity and drawn criticism from all sides. If you haven’t heard of “Luck,” it is HBO’s latest original series set in the “provocative world of ” Thoroughbred racing.
Now to be honest, I have not watched “Luck.” I don’t subscribe to HBO, and early reports of a graphic breakdown scene in the pilot episode left me ambiva- lent about seeing the show. That being said, it was impossible to miss the media frenzy that followed the show’s debut last December. While it received some positive reviews from television critics, the negative reviews keep rolling in from mass media, animal rights groups and even horse racing fans and participants.
Astute viewers berated the show for inaccuracies such as failing to maintain consistency during rac- ing scenes. For example, a bay horse is replaced by a chestnut horse before becoming bay again. Seasoned gamblers point out inaccuracies in the show’s betting scenes, and horsemen take offense that the actors haven’t even been taught to lead a horse on the left side instead of the right. And time and time again, racing fans comment that the show casts racing in a negative light.
Those outside the horse racing industry complain that the dialog is so heavily infused with racetrack jargon they are lost as to what is actually happening. Many casual viewers tuned out because the aforemen- tioned breakdown scene was just a bit too graphic for a scene they considered unnecessary to the plot.
But the biggest piece of negative publicity came in January, sometime after the second episode aired. The shock and outrage over the breakdown scene was just starting to die down when it became public knowl- edge that two horses had actually died during the filming of “Luck.” Questions began to surface: Did the horse in the pilot episode actually break his leg? Was that real? When did the horses die? And why?
If you’ve watched any movies that involve animals, you will usually see a disclaimer in the credits that
states, “No animals were harmed” during filming and production. “Luck,” as it turns out, did not get the “No animals were harmed” disclaimer. The first and sev- enth episodes—the ones where the horses died—car- ried a modified disclaimer that stated, “The American Humane Association monitored the animal action.”
As expected, the public responded, and not
in a good way. People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals has started a petition that has already garnered more than 8,200 signatures. The petition states, “‘Luck’ exposes the darker side of racing, including the abuse that racehorses suffer regularly.”
Forbes.com ran an article entitled, “Horse Deaths Won’t Stop Production of HBO’s ‘Luck’” that negatively portrays racing and urges HBO to add the disclaimer, “Horses died to make this show as they do everyday on racetracks across America. If that bothers you, don’t watch.” The article gives facts and figures for the numbers of Thoroughbreds that die on racetracks each year, as well as the number of Thoroughbreds that went to slaughter in 2010.
Lest you think this negative publicity is confined to Thoroughbred racing... Several comments on the Forbes article mention American Quarter Horses, and even go so far as to criticize the American Quarter Horse Association. The author responds to one pro- racing comment with the statement, “No one wants the horses to die, but it’s common in racing. Do you think this is an acceptable cost to be entertained?”
Bad publicity. There can be no doubt about it, “Luck,” in it’s first few months of airing, has been bad publicity for horse racing. But is it true that there is no such thing as bad publicity? Could there be a silver lining for racing as it falls under increased scrutiny because of a television show? If there is, I don’t see it.
All of the bad publicity surrounding “Luck” can adversely affect the public perception of horse rac- ing—the same “public perception” that is referred to again and again as the Thoroughbred industry strug- gles with race-day medication issues. It also brings into the public eye the issue of breakdowns—a topic the racing industry has yet to explain satisfactorily to the non-racing world and one that is not explained at all during “Luck.”
HBO’s spin doctors are trying to minimize the effect of two dead horses on “Luck” in the hopes
it will become their next hit series. But who will minimize the effect of “Luck” on the racing industry? Because from what I can see, it’s just bad publicity.
LUCK
Is there no such thing as bad publicity?
10
SPEEDHORSE, March 2, 2012
UNDER WRAPS