I've just finished writing what may be the most difficult part of Holy Bull's story, at least to me---his unexplained flop in the 1994 Kentucky Derby (USA-G1). Obviously, he did redeem himself spectacularly, but it was very clearly a painful experience for owner-trainer Jimmy Croll, who at age 74 was unlikely ever to have such a horse again (and never did).
Two parts of the tale stand out for being ugly. One was Jimmy Croll's suspicion that Holy Bull had been drugged with a tranquilizer after he (and others) observed that Holy Bull was acting uncharacteristically quiet, even lethargic. Since Churchill Downs stewards did not order the colt to be tested (which they had the authority to do), there was never any proof of this. The other part was the rush to judgment on the part of many journalists, who seemed overly ready and even gleeful to write Holy Bull off as a horse who had "stepped on his pedigree" because of his sprinting bloodlines or who was a faint-heart who couldn't handle a race in which he couldn't grab an easy lead.
Obviously, those familiar with Holy Bull's record know that the Bull thoroughly disproved both of those assertions in the 1994 Travers Stakes, but the "see-I-told-you-so" attitude is one that journalists---and too many of the rest of us---are still all too prone to today, whether we're talking about horses or humans in the public eye. Perhaps if nothing else, Holy Bull's story can serve as a warning against cavalierly writing someone off on the basis of one well-publicized incident combined with personal bias without getting further evidence.
Two parts of the tale stand out for being ugly. One was Jimmy Croll's suspicion that Holy Bull had been drugged with a tranquilizer after he (and others) observed that Holy Bull was acting uncharacteristically quiet, even lethargic. Since Churchill Downs stewards did not order the colt to be tested (which they had the authority to do), there was never any proof of this. The other part was the rush to judgment on the part of many journalists, who seemed overly ready and even gleeful to write Holy Bull off as a horse who had "stepped on his pedigree" because of his sprinting bloodlines or who was a faint-heart who couldn't handle a race in which he couldn't grab an easy lead.
Obviously, those familiar with Holy Bull's record know that the Bull thoroughly disproved both of those assertions in the 1994 Travers Stakes, but the "see-I-told-you-so" attitude is one that journalists---and too many of the rest of us---are still all too prone to today, whether we're talking about horses or humans in the public eye. Perhaps if nothing else, Holy Bull's story can serve as a warning against cavalierly writing someone off on the basis of one well-publicized incident combined with personal bias without getting further evidence.