Randy Moss Supports Changing the TC

[SuperPickle]

https://twitter.com/randy_moss_tv/status/874385716838617088

The twitter thread is the worth the read because it debunks several popular justifications to not change. (I.E. multiple winners of TC have done it at different setups and my favorite "don't fix what's not broken." First off every aspect of racing is broken. This is just less broken. Second, both MLB and NFL have made massive changes to their games when they were the biggest game in town (interleague play, DH, playoffs, divisions, overtime, DH, etc.) Successful businesses understand you need to constantly change to stay ahead. Meanwhile sports like boxing and golf have stayed traditional. how's that working?

[elhelmete]

https://twitter.com/randy_moss_tv/status/874385716838617088

The twitter thread is the worth the read because it debunks several popular justifications to not change. (I.E. multiple winners of TC have done it at different setups and my favorite "don't fix what's not broken." First off every aspect of racing is broken. This is just less broken. Second, both MLB and NFL have made massive changes to their games when they were the biggest game in town (interleague play, DH, playoffs, divisions, overtime, DH, etc.) Successful businesses understand you need to constantly change to stay ahead. Meanwhile sports like boxing and golf have stayed traditional. how's that working?

Why is having more frequent TC winners a better outcome than having fewer TC winners?

Asking seriously, my opinion isn't fully formed yet.

[iamt]

Are these type of horses any more likely to run in the Preakness if the spacing was longer. Don't you think it is to be expected that a stronger mile and a half horse chooses not to cut back in distance (if coming form the Derby) for the Preakness?


The idea that spreading out the races will improve the fields is also quite dangerous. Increasing the gap between the races may knock horses off the TC path earlier, as they may continue to choose to rest before targeting the lesser Derbies around the fall, much as many runners do now.

[VigorsTheGrey]

If they did alter the spacing of the Triple Crown Racing, what would the new spacing look like...?

Derby, then 6 weeks to Preakness, then another 6 weeks for the Belmont Stakes...?

Just wondering what some alternatives might look like to understand if change is warranted at this point.

[SuperPickle]

Why is having more frequent TC winners a better outcome than having fewer TC winners?

Asking seriously, my opinion isn't fully formed yet.

I'm 100% convinced moving the dates and having more time in between races makes it harder not easier. The biggest bullshit argument is longer gaps make the races easier. I'm 100% convinced that while more time gives the winner more time to recoup it also gives every other three year old a chance to recoup and improve.

Or to put it another way. The English, Irish, Japanese and Hong Kong Triple Crown's all race the last leg months after the third. All four of those Triple Crown's have less winners than the U.S. No one has won the English TC since 1970. There's only been 7 horses won the Japanese TC since 1941. And only one horse has won in Hong Kong.

There's zero evidence to suggest adding spacing makes them easier. It just makes them different.

[SuperPickle]

Are these type of horses any more likely to run in the Preakness if the spacing was longer. Don't you think it is to be expected that a stronger mile and a half horse chooses not to cut back in distance (if coming form the Derby) for the Preakness?


The idea that spreading out the races will improve the fields is also quite dangerous. Increasing the gap between the races may knock horses off the TC path earlier, as they may continue to choose to rest before targeting the lesser Derbies around the fall, much as many runners do now.

Imagine if you put the Belmont 5-6 weeks out before the BC and 5-6 weeks after the Travers. Race it the fall like the final leg of the Japanese and English Triple Crowns.

That would place it at the end of the Euro season. Do you know kind of Euros you would get for that race? Legit Euro stayers with multiple wins going a mile and a half on turf and Poly. You'd get big time Coolmoore horses.

You're telling that field isn't harder to beat that this past Saturday?

[iamt]

The English Triple Crown ranges rom 1 mile to 1 3/4 miles, the Japanese form 1 1/4 miles to 1m 7/8s while HK is form a mile to a 1 1/2 miles but for open ages.

They difficulty in them isn't necessarily a product of the spacing but the sheer demands winning on such differing distances presents.

[PaceAdvantage]

https://twitter.com/randy_moss_tv/status/874385716838617088

The twitter thread is the worth the read because it debunks several popular justifications to not change. (I.E. multiple winners of TC have done it at different setups and my favorite "don't fix what's not broken." First off every aspect of racing is broken. This is just less broken. Second, both MLB and NFL have made massive changes to their games when they were the biggest game in town (interleague play, DH, playoffs, divisions, overtime, DH, etc.) Successful businesses understand you need to constantly change to stay ahead. Meanwhile sports like boxing and golf have stayed traditional. how's that working?Maybe you and Randy can explain to me exactly how it's broken at the moment.

The other thread where we had this argument, I don't recall you offering a single concrete reason that says, HEY, THIS THING IS BROKEN and it NEEDS TO BE FIXED!

Really? How is it so broken? Attendance falling? No. Handle falling? No. TV Ratings falling? No.

What is it that is SOOOOOOO broken with the TC that we need to materially alter things?

[iamt]

Honestly at 5-6 weeks before the BC?

Any 3yo with a hint of talent but distance limitations is being set for the BC mile of Classic.

Any 10f horse with realistic classic chances, expect for those with a TC on the line is skipping the Belmont. Between the prep runs to get fit for the Belmont and the demands it places and the lack of value (A BC Classic win is worth far more).

European stars aren't turning up. You're running the race just prior to the Arc which will be the main aim for the good ones. The BC marathon showed how willing Europeans were to send out their stayers for a dirt race.


Would it be harder to win a triple crown under this, yes but only because there is more chance for a contender to have tapered off or be forced to miss the race. Does it improve the actual quality of the Belmont field, not in my eyes.

[Clocker]

If they did alter the spacing of the Triple Crown Racing, what would the new spacing look like...?

Derby, then 6 weeks to Preakness, then another 6 weeks for the Belmont Stakes...?

The Preakness is now run on the 3rd Saturday of May. The most they could move it would be a week, because Pimlico's meet ends after that last weekend in May. After that, you start running into scheduling problems at Belmont, because their spring meet ends very early in July.

[jocko699]

Maybe you and Randy can explain to me exactly how it's broken at the moment.

The other thread where we had this argument, I don't recall you offering a single concrete reason that says, HEY, THIS THING IS BROKEN and it NEEDS TO BE FIXED!

Really? How is it so broken? Attendance falling? No. Handle falling? No. TV Ratings falling? No.

What is it that is SOOOOOOO broken with the TC that we need to materially alter things?

I cannot think of any reason at all.

[Spalding No!]

https://twitter.com/randy_moss_tv/status/874385716838617088


Interesting selection of timeframe. Nice round number of 18 years. Of course, if you took the last 20 years, surprise surprise, its 10 and 10. I guess his slight "majority" by arbitrarily using only the last 18 Belmonts is enough evidence to revamp the whole schedule.

Never mind that if you went back 36 years the count goes to 26 running in-between the running of the Derby and the Belmont and 10 who "ran Derby weekend"--this bit of clever detail was so Moss could include Rags To Riches--but not again before the Belmont.

[Clocker]

I have heard a lot of people in the media, many of whom know zero about horse racing, complaining that the rarity of TC winners shows that currently it's "too hard", and the "rules" need to be changed to make it "fairer". :rolleyes:

Ir sounds like Moss might be in this camp.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

There are a few things that strike me. First, the Kentucky Derby is primarily an indication of precociousness. If you remember back to high school, there were guys who were 17 or 18 and had beards and fully adult bodies, and guys the same ages who looked more like 15 or 16. But by the time everyone was 23, the ones who looked like 15 or 16 had caught up. That is part of the reason why you see horses emerging in the late summer or fall who weren't part of the TC, and horses who looked good in the TC races who all of a sudden were getting beat (I don't care if you're a Chromie - Bayern was a better horse by November).

I get that the Derby is important to horseracing for hype reasons, but it is an overrated race in my opinion.

But if that's how soon you want to run a 3YO race at a long distance, fine. But taking young horses and subjecting them to the TC grind isn't necessarily in the best interest of anyone, and may not even be in the best interest of the sport. Might it not be better for racing to extend the TC season so that the Derby is the first Saturday in May, the Preakness is Memorial Day weekend, and the Belmont is the weekend around 4th of July. That way you have about four weeks between the first two legs, and five weeks between the second and third legs. You've got about a month after that to the Haskell, and about eight weeks to the Travers. It's pretty much a perfect schedule to prep for the BC.

It also takes away the advantage to horses running in the Derby and skipping the Preakness.

Now tell me why that would seriously damage the importance of the TC, which by the way is (1) only really important to horseplayers anyway, (2) is only important to everyone else if there is the potential of a TC winner, and (3) a change everyone will forget about in three years.

[SuperPickle]

Maybe you and Randy can explain to me exactly how it's broken at the moment.

The other thread where we had this argument, I don't recall you offering a single concrete reason that says, HEY, THIS THING IS BROKEN and it NEEDS TO BE FIXED!

Really? How is it so broken? Attendance falling? No. Handle falling? No. TV Ratings falling? No.

What is it that is SOOOOOOO broken with the TC that we need to materially alter things?


First off your premise that we need to justify changing it versus trying new things is something I philosophically disagree with. So I don't buy into it. The NFL changed their playoff format, overtime rule and even added two conversions while being the most watched sport in the country. Neutral only exists on a car. Either you're moving forward or backward and racing is going backwards.


The handle was down this year. They're saying $124 million versus $122 last year but on Apples to Apples it's down if you back out Japan and new outlets that didn't offer it. It's creative math.

But even more telling ESPN won't even bid on it. The large owner of sports media in the world dismiss your event as non-event. I would say that in itself defines broken.

But here's the real reason to change it. You're doing it wrong. The Monday after the Triple Crown every one involved in horse racing asks the same question "how do we maintain casual fans outside the five weeks of the Triple Crown?"

The answer is make the Triple Crown LONGER. That's how successful sports leagues solve for this problem. The NBA has added playoff games. The NFL added playoff games. Do you here anyone crying about how will we compare the 2016 Cavs to the 1983 Lakers? Racing fans need to get over this faux traditional system.

And I remember I said faux. We've changed the distances, the tracks and the spacing of these races multiple times. We have TC winners under different setups.

So when you say no to even exploring changing these races (again keep in mind the format of these races and every other horse race on earth has changed ) you're not a traditionalist. You're saying the 2017 version of the Triple Crown is the ideal, perfect setup of the Triple Crown.

[Rise Over Run]

This guy couldn't win a Super Bowl, not even with one of the best teams of all time, and he's gonna get on a soap box and tell everyone what is wrong with horse racing. Unreal, 2017 has turned into a real shitshow.

[SuperPickle]

This guy couldn't win a Super Bowl, not even with one of the best teams of all time, and he's gonna get on a soap box and tell everyone what is wrong with horse racing. Unreal, 2017 has turned into a real shitshow.

What makes this comment really funny is this. Randy Moss lives in Minneapolis and lived there when the other one played on the Vikings. Also both currently are NFL commentators.

Needless to say even though two human males couldn't look less alike both have stories about being mistaken for the other.

[Spalding No!]

(I don't care if you're a Chromie - Bayern was a better horse by November).
California Chrome, off a layoff, was beaten 7 lengths in the PA Derby by Bayern who walked on the lead--this coming off a pathetic 1/2 mile pop-and-stop in the Travers.

Bayern then lasted a nose and neck in front of Chrome in the BC.

Now tell me why that would seriously damage the importance of the TC, which by the way is (1) only really important to horseplayers anyway, (2) is only important to everyone else if there is the potential of a TC winner, and (3) a change everyone will forget about in three years.
Probably would impact the general public interest in the TC and by extension possibly the network televising of the 3 races.

By the way, if the crux of your argument is that the TC is too hard physically on horses (which is probably true), then I don't see why you would keep the Kentucky Derby on the first Saturday in May. Certainly much of what you call the "TC grind" is really the grind getting to the Kentucky Derby. Most of the injuries to key horses crop up before May and not during the Triple Crown.

[jocko699]

This guy couldn't win a Super Bowl, not even with one of the best teams of all time, and he's gonna get on a soap box and tell everyone what is wrong with horse racing. Unreal, 2017 has turned into a real shitshow.

Well played sir, well played!

[SuperPickle]

California Chrome, off a layoff, was beaten 7 lengths in the PA Derby by Bayern who walked on the lead--this coming off a pathetic 1/2 mile pop-and-stop in the Travers.

Bayern then lasted a nose and neck in front of Chrome in the BC.


Probably would impact the general public interest in the TC and by extension possibly the network televising of the 3 races.

By the way, if the crux of your argument is that the TC is too hard physically on horses (which is probably true), then I don't see why you would keep the Kentucky Derby on the first Saturday in May. Certainly much of what you call the "TC grind" is really the grind getting to the Kentucky Derby. Most of the injuries to key horses crop up before May and not during the Triple Crown.

For me any and all changes are on the table. For example if you ran the Derby later you could run a longer spring Keeneland meet. You can't start it earlier because of the weather but you can run it longer.

I'm for a very simple concept to increase exposure to the sport. Make changes to the major races that increase exposure. Run the meets such as Keeneland, Del Mar and Toga longer that attract casual fans.

Essentially stop making fans adapt to your b.s. Traditions and give them what they show they want.

[Dahoss9698]

For me any and all changes are on the table. For example if you ran the Derby later you could run a longer spring Keeneland meet. You can't start it earlier because of the weather but you can run it longer.

I'm for a very simple concept to increase exposure to the sport. Make changes to the major races that increase exposure. Run the meets such as Keeneland, Del Mar and Toga longer that attract casual fans.

Essentially stop making fans adapt to your b.s. Traditions and give them what they show they want.

How about stop worrying about fans who aren't betting anyway?

[whodoyoulike]

...
But here's the real reason to change it. You're doing it wrong. The Monday after the Triple Crown everyone involved in horse racing asks the same question "how do we maintain casual fans outside the five weeks of the Triple Crown?"

The answer is make the Triple Crown LONGER. ...

I never thought of this as one of the reasons people want to have longer spacing between TC races. Very good thinking!

[SuperPickle]

How about stop worrying about fans who aren't betting anyway?

The problem with that logic than it's game over. If you market it as straight gambling the vig (i.e. Takeout) is too large to attract big money.

As much as casual sports fans are a pain to more seasoned fans and gamblers they're a necessity for the long term survival.

You're talking about having to get takeout down to 12-15% across the board. I'd love for this to happen but it's climbing Everest compared to moving three stakes races.

[Dahoss9698]

The problem with that logic than it's game over. If you market it as straight gambling the vig (i.e. Takeout) is too large to attract big money.

As much as casual sports fans are a pain to more seasoned fans and gamblers they're a necessity for the long term survival.

You're talking about having to get takeout down to 12-15% across the board. I'd love for this to happen but it's climbing Everest compared to moving three stakes races.

So I take it we saw a big jump in handle after Zenyatta and American Pharaoh?

[whodoyoulike]

California Chrome, off a layoff, was beaten 7 lengths in the PA Derby by Bayern who walked on the lead--this coming off a pathetic 1/2 mile pop-and-stop in the Travers.

Bayern then lasted a nose and neck in front of Chrome in the BC. ...

Didn't Bayern set a track record in this race?

I remember running his numbers in that race and if I recall correctly, Bayern ran each 4f faster than the prior 4f.

[SuperPickle]

So I take it we saw a big jump in handle after Zenyatta and American Pharaoh?

I'm not getting your point. Are you saying they didn't help the sport? Or are you asking for direct impact on handle?

[VigorsTheGrey]

The Preakness is now run on the 3rd Saturday of May. The most they could move it would be a week, because Pimlico's meet ends after that last weekend in May. After that, you start running into scheduling problems at Belmont, because their spring meet ends very early in July.
Exactly...with such an established date pattern, few other dates can be pigeon-hole for anything different, any talk of change is moot.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

By the way, if the crux of your argument is that the TC is too hard physically on horses (which is probably true), then I don't see why you would keep the Kentucky Derby on the first Saturday in May. Certainly much of what you call the "TC grind" is really the grind getting to the Kentucky Derby. Most of the injuries to key horses crop up before May and not during the Triple Crown.

I started with the precocious issue because I don't think three year olds at a mile and a quarter the first week of May is representative of much other than who is physically more developed. And considering your hardly see $5,000 claimers running every two weeks anymore, the physically taxing argument seems pretty obvious.

And if the "grind" is the three races they run in three months as three-year olds, well I guess so, but it's only a legitimate argument if these horses are getting hurt at a greater rate than the three year olds not running in stakes races. It seems more of an argument to not run horses who haven't hit a certain level of physical maturity. You have "three year olds" that are actually a couple of months over three, and a few barely at three.

I'm not insistent on the Derby being the first Saturday in May, but the blasphemy can only go so far.

I'd also suggest that far from spreading out the dates making it easier to win the TC, it would actually make it harder. I think the races would be even more competitive.

And while we're at it, 20 horses? Are you nuts?

[Dahoss9698]

I'm not getting your point. Are you saying they didn't help the sport? Or are you asking for direct impact on handle?

I'm saying they did not help the sport. They did not turn fans into horseplayers. That's what we need. There are enough fans. The sport needs more horseplayers.

[SuperPickle]

I'm saying they did not help the sport. They did not turn fans into horseplayers. That's what we need. There are enough fans. The sport needs more horseplayers.

Any ideas?

[elhelmete]

Any ideas?

What's the goal?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

California Chrome, off a layoff, was beaten 7 lengths in the PA Derby by Bayern who walked on the lead--this coming off a pathetic 1/2 mile pop-and-stop in the Travers.

Bayern then lasted a nose and neck in front of Chrome in the BC.


Let's not forget that four weeks earlier he had won the Haskell and four weeks before that the Woody Stephens. I thought with his style, he was outless in that year's Travers.

I'd suggest that Bayern physically matured over the summer and by November he was a better horse than CC. I guess if you see the two head to head races as not definitive of that fact you can disagree.

Of course, I didn't think either of them should have been HOY. My vote would have gone to Main Sequence.

[soonboomer]

Maybe you and Randy can explain to me exactly how it's broken at the moment.

The other thread where we had this argument, I don't recall you offering a single concrete reason that says, HEY, THIS THING IS BROKEN and it NEEDS TO BE FIXED!

Really? How is it so broken? Attendance falling? No. Handle falling? No. TV Ratings falling? No.

What is it that is SOOOOOOO broken with the TC that we need to materially alter things?

I'm in your camp on this one. When you have a card like Belmont put on Saturday, it's a horseplayer's dream. If they want to fix what's broken, make it a more attractive game to gamble on. As far as the Triple Crown, leave it be. It needs to take a great horse to win all three...a sound horse..with superior speed and stamina.

[Dahoss9698]

Any ideas?

That argument has been hashed out a few times here recently.

Lowering takeout would be a good start. Giving people a better product to bet on would help. Change the image of the sport by imposing stiffer penalties on repeat offenders.

I think purses should be lower. Entice people to run their horses more by lowering purses across the board. These ridiculous purses are allowing trainers to run infrequently, which leads to small fields and bad betting races. I figured higher purses would attract bigger fields but turns out it's the opposite.

I'm sure I could come up with more if I gave it more thought.

I respect your opinion but don't think another triple crown winner is going to do much. At least not to bettors. Our sport needs to attract the guys and gals that spend hours upon hours playing fantasy sports. They've got money and they are itching to wager with it. We need to give them a better product.

[thaskalos]

That argument has been hashed out a few times here recently.

Lowering takeout would be a good start. Giving people a better product to bet on would help. Change the image of the sport by imposing stiffer penalties on repeat offenders.

I think purses should be lower. Entice people to run their horses more by lowering purses across the board. These ridiculous purses are allowing trainers to run infrequently, which leads to small fields and bad betting races. I figured higher purses would attract bigger fields but turns out it's the opposite.

I'm sure I could come up with more if I gave it more thought.

I respect your opinion but don't think another triple crown winner is going to do much. At least not to bettors. Our sport needs to attract the guys and gals that spend hours upon hours playing fantasy sports. They've got money and they are itching to wager with it. We need to give them a better product.

Couldn't have said it better myself. :ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

[Track Phantom]

I think the real problem is money.

Here is how you "fix" the Triple Crown. The Derby/Preakness/Belmont races should all be $5M races.

Anyone who earns a check in the Preakness that ran in the Derby gets XX% bonus. Anyone who ran in both the Derby and Preakness and gets a check in the Belmont earns XX% bonus.

$5M total purse money for what is arguably the marquee North American Horse Racing series is not good enough. Not when there are $10M - $12M races out there now.

Make the earning potential big enough and trainers / owners will make sure the best of the crop compete in all three. For christs sake...get creative.

[GMB@BP]

I think the real problem is money.

Here is how you "fix" the Triple Crown. The Derby/Preakness/Belmont races should all be $5M races.

Anyone who earns a check in the Preakness that ran in the Derby gets XX% bonus. Anyone who ran in both the Derby and Preakness and gets a check in the Belmont earns XX% bonus.

$5M total purse money for what is arguably the marquee North American Horse Racing series is not good enough. Not when there are $10M - $12M races out there now.

Make the earning potential big enough and trainers / owners will make sure the best of the crop compete in all three. For christs sake...get creative.

they did have something like that not too far back, maybe mid 90's or so.

Also had something called the ACRS I think with a similar structure for running in designated events with a bonus at the end.

[Track Phantom]

they did have something like that not too far back, maybe mid 90's or so.

Also had something called the ACRS I think with a similar structure for running in designated events with a bonus at the end.
What they had didn't fix the problem. I believe they had a points system that awarded runners who hit the board and accumulated points. That might inspire the top end runners to go on but what is needed is those middle to back end finishers in the Derby to continue on.

[dilanesp]

Maybe you and Randy can explain to me exactly how it's broken at the moment.

The other thread where we had this argument, I don't recall you offering a single concrete reason that says, HEY, THIS THING IS BROKEN and it NEEDS TO BE FIXED!

Really? How is it so broken? Attendance falling? No. Handle falling? No. TV Ratings falling? No.

What is it that is SOOOOOOO broken with the TC that we need to materially alter things?

+1

Also, the TC is just about the only thing left in American racing that incentivizes running your horse often. That's important.

[menifee]

I think the real problem is money.

Here is how you "fix" the Triple Crown. The Derby/Preakness/Belmont races should all be $5M races.

Anyone who earns a check in the Preakness that ran in the Derby gets XX% bonus. Anyone who ran in both the Derby and Preakness and gets a check in the Belmont earns XX% bonus.

$5M total purse money for what is arguably the marquee North American Horse Racing series is not good enough. Not when there are $10M - $12M races out there now.

Make the earning potential big enough and trainers / owners will make sure the best of the crop compete in all three. For christs sake...get creative.

Good idea. I wish they did this racing for all year round for all divisions. Give incentives to owners to run. A point system that rewards horses that have competed in more races within their division plus performance points depending on how well they do in the race would be awesome. You could then provide a financial reward to that owner if their horse earns the most points.

For example, right now the Breeders Cup win and your in races is frankly a dumb concept. It is one arbitrary race. Instead of doing that give that Breeders Cup spot including entry fee, cost of transport, etc. to the horse in the division that has danced the most dances and performed the best in those dances.

[Robert Fischer]

Effects have effects.

If everybody starts standing on their toes to see the parade, then we all have to stand on our toes. Vision is just as bad, and now I've got a cramp.


If we space the Triple Crown, then we have to eliminate (or 'space' :rolleyes: ) the Jim Dandy and the Haskell.

Effects have effects. This isn't happening in a vacuum.

Trainers opt to rest star 3yo's after the Preakness because the 1 1/2 mile Belmont is more risky and less rewarding than races like the Haskell and Travers. It's not just spacing, although spacing is a big part of it.

The Belmont is for horses like Tapwrit, Meantime, Gormley, J Boys Echo, Lookin At Lee. It isn't for horses like Cloud Computing, Classic Empire, Timeline, Always Dreaming etc... unless they have a triple crown on the line, have 'sporting' owners riding the high of the triple crown spotlight, or are looking to go 1-and-done to stud.

Spacing may make the Belmont, or a Derby+Preakness (2/3) more attractive, but this isn't kindergarten. You start moving things around, and you have to understand where everything else has to be adjusted to, and why.

[five-eighths]

The only thing I would think about changing is maybe adding a week between the Preakness and the Belmont. Triple Crown is not broken it's supposed to be tough, but adding that week would help out the horses that were good enough to run the first two legs.

Would be nice if there was a TC for 4yo so we could see some of the better horses race longer.

[burnsy]

Why is having more frequent TC winners a better outcome than having fewer TC winners?

Asking seriously, my opinion isn't fully formed yet.

I started a thread in the Triple Crown section that's similar. My argument has nothing to do with TC winners, ratings or handle. The fact is the trainers are admitting that these horses can't do the 5 weeks. Has nothing to do with all the crap people are arguing over.......attendance, money or more TC winners. Its about the horses and burning them out. The moniker of calling this a "TRIPLE" is now pretty much a joke. There were 20 horses in the Derby, one ran a Triple. If they don't change the logistics then they got to change the rules, these outcomes are embarrassing. To all the, handle, attendance , money screamers. Santa Anita canned two more days last week.........there will be like maybe 2 thousand people at Belmont tomorrow. Horse racing is killing it.....why change anything? :bang::lol:

Put it this way, they better do something...........anything to get more participants (horses actually running) and fan/owner interest or its just going to get worse. Forget I wrote this........its going great! :confused:

[MonmouthParkJoe]

I wouldnt change the TC.

What I would change is how narrow race conditions have become. There are so many different conditions now that trainers can opt to wait for the perfect race to help bolster their ITM %s. Yes, there would have to be cooperation between tracks, esp at this time of year where horses can ship just about anywhere in the northeast. But by doing this trainers will have to run when the opportunity presents itself.

[classhandicapper]

I think purses should be lower. Entice people to run their horses more by lowering purses across the board. These ridiculous purses are allowing trainers to run infrequently, which leads to small fields and bad betting races. I figured higher purses would attract bigger fields but turns out it's the opposite.


I can't agree with this one point.

It's almost impossible for owners to cover costs as it is now. An owner pretty much has to assume he/she is going to lose some money, but be willing to do so because of the excitement, fun, and dream of winning something big.

Making the purses lower is not going to get many owners to run more frequently. It's going to make them look for a new less expensive hobby.

I own a piece of 3 horses with some partners. We never skipped a race because the purses are large and we didn't have to run. We love large purses and want to run as often as possible to take advantage of them. But it's not always possible because sometimes there isn't an appropriate spot and sometimes the horses have physical issues.

I think there's a delicate balance between the players and owners/trainers etc...

You need both.

You need happy players to bet and raise handle, but you also need owners to be doing well so they keep buying horses. Then more will be bred and we won't have shortages.

[cj]

I can't agree with this one point.

It's almost impossible for owners to cover costs as it is now. An owner pretty much has to assume he/she is going to lose some money, but be willing to do so because of the excitement, fun, and dream of winning something big.

Making the purses lower is not going to get many owners to run more frequently. It's going to make them look for a new less expensive hobby.

I own a piece of 3 horses with some partners. We never skipped a race because the purses are large and we didn't have to run. We love large purses and want to run as often as possible to take advantage of them. But it's not always possible because sometimes there isn't an appropriate spot and sometimes the horses have physical issues.

I think there's a delicate balance between the players and owners/trainers etc...

You need both.

You need happy players to bet and raise handle, but you also need owners to be doing well so they keep buying horses. Then more will be bred and we won't have shortages.

Isn't some of that because as purses rise, so do costs? Feed goes up, day rates go up, vet bills go up. That is what I've seen happen.

[cj]

As for the Triple Crown, most of the preps have changed schedules so I see no reason the TC itself can't change. But, I hope it doesn't. It would just provide even less incentive to run horses more. If you drag it out it will have a bigger impact on the races in the summer and fall. It would damage those races just like the BC has done to former championship level races.

[PaceAdvantage]

The only thing I would think about changing is maybe adding a week between the Preakness and the Belmont.The Belmont Stakes exists for one reason and one reason only.

The Test of the Champion.

It exists to put the screws to a potential Triple Crown winner. That's the only reason it exists in its current form. You change the distance or you change the spacing between the Preakness and Belmont, and you might as well get rid of the Triple Crown altogether as far as I'm concerned.

[SuperPickle]

The Belmont Stakes exists for one reason and one reason only.

The Test of the Champion.

It exists to put the screws to a potential Triple Crown winner. That's the only reason it exists in its current form. You change the distance or you change the spacing between the Preakness and Belmont, and you might as well get rid of the Triple Crown altogether as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah but literally only 4 TC winners (AP, Affirmed, Slew, and Secretariat) won it at this set up.

Literally twice as many won it under any other setups.

You're protecting something that's isn't even that special.

[Grits]

originally posted by Super Pickle

But even more telling ESPN won't even bid on it. The large owner of sports media in the world dismiss your event as non-event. I would say that in itself defines broken.

FWIW.... ESPN, earlier this year, laid off over 100 of their folks, commentators included. So, ESPN isn't the be all, end all that it once was given they're bleeding losses. As the piece notes, viewers are finding other sources. NBCSN which picked us up is one of those.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/sports/espn-layoffs.html?_r=0

The “Worldwide Leader in Sports,” as ESPN (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/espn/index.html?inline=nyt-org) brands itself, laid off scores of journalists and on-air talent on Wednesday, showing that even the most formidable media kingdom was vulnerable to the transformation upending the sports broadcasting industry as more and more people turn away from cable television.

The network has lost more than 10 million subscribers over the past several years. At the same time, the cost of broadcasting major sports has continued to rise. ESPN committed to an e (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/sports/football/espn-extends-deal-with-nfl-for-15-billion.html)ight (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/sports/football/espn-extends-deal-with-nfl-for-15-billion.html)- (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/sports/football/espn-extends-deal-with-nfl-for-15-billion.html)year, $15.2 billion (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/sports/football/espn-extends-deal-with-nfl-for-15-billion.html) deal extension with the N.F.L. in 2011; a nine-year, $12 billion deal with the N.B.A.; and a $7.3 billion deal for the college football playoffs, among many others.

[PaceAdvantage]

Yeah but literally only 4 TC winners (AP, Affirmed, Slew, and Secretariat) won it at this set up.I'm perfectly OK with that. Our opinions obviously differ.

[Grits]

Yeah but literally only 4 TC winners (AP, Affirmed, Slew, and Secretariat) won it at this set up.

Literally twice as many won it under any other setups.

You're protecting something that's isn't even that special.

Your point is foolish and nitpicking. Do the math, there's only been 12 of them, and this is a third of the 12. :rolleyes:

Last I heard, and this was at Belmont all last week, TCs are still a pretty big deal. It's fine like it is.

[thaskalos]

I can't agree with this one point.

It's almost impossible for owners to cover costs as it is now. An owner pretty much has to assume he/she is going to lose some money, but be willing to do so because of the excitement, fun, and dream of winning something big.

Making the purses lower is not going to get many owners to run more frequently. It's going to make them look for a new less expensive hobby.


I fully remember Bob Baffert -- the trainer that you admire so much -- telling the media that the trainers have to be catered to in this game...because they are "fully invested" in this game...while the "gamblers" have OTHER gambling options to resort to if this game ceases to be "to their liking". I know that, by "gamblers", Baffert was referring to the bettors...but his comment could easily fit the OWNERS, as well.

As Dahoss so accurately stated...the elevated purses were supposed to play a certain role...but they brought about the OPPOSITE side-effect from the one that was initially predicted. Instead of the fields becoming fuller and more competitive...they became smaller, and more UNBETTABLE. Do we continue rewarding the connections, for not delivering on the promises that they initially made?

Align the purses in accordance to field size, I say...and try to do something to breathe some life into this game. Otherwise...we will ALL be looking for a "new, less-expensive hobby".

[PaceAdvantage]

It would be so cool if you actually looked like your avatar. Just sayin'

[Jeff P]

Racing's special event days (Derby, Preakness, Belmont, Breeders Cup Saturday, etc.) aren't the problem.

Racing's problem are the other 360 odd non special event days each year.

The fact that racing is still able to draw big crowds big handle on special event days should tell you something:

Namely that there are still thousands of horseplayers and fans who WANT to support horse racing.

The fact that racing is completely unable to draw big crowds big handle on the other 360 odd non special event days each year should also tell you something:

Namely that because of high takeout, drugs, odds that change after the bell, and the myriad other negatives that have been mentioned thousands and thousands of times over the years by horseplayers right here on Paceadvantage.com...

While at the same time horse racing's decision makers (defined as track management, leadership at horsemen's alphabet groups, racing commissioners, and politicians) have buried their collective heads in the sand:

By refusing to admit you have a problem you have driven the current horseplayer fan base down to a mere fraction of what it once was.

I submit to you the novel idea that - if you want an outfit like ESPN to consider your special event days as "must broadcast" content:

You need to create more horseplayers.

Period.



-jp

.

[thaskalos]

By refusing to admit you have a problem you have driven the current horseplayer fan base down to a mere fraction of what it once was.

I submit to you the novel idea that - if you want an outfit like ESPN to consider your special event days as "must broadcast" content:

You need to create more horseplayers.

Period.



-jp

.

In the great gambling laboratory known as Las Vegas...horse-betting is officially DEAD. The few remaining horseplayers have been relegated to remote corners of the specious sportsbooks...and there are no assigned tellers to take their bets. I spent all day yesterday standing behind sports bettors...who were betting on baseball games, six hours before they were scheduled to begin.

And our game is looking for "network coverage"? :lol:

[thaskalos]

It would be so cool if you actually looked like your avatar. Just sayin'

The only difference is that my mustache has gotten a little grayer in recent years. And I dumped the overcoat...since my move to Vegas.

[classhandicapper]

Isn't some of that because as purses rise, so do costs? Feed goes up, day rates go up, vet bills go up. That is what I've seen happen.

It could be. I'm not around it long enough to know.

I think there's going to be some increase in costs just due to inflation, but I'm not sure how much increased purses impact day rates and things like that. If the purses go up, the trainers/jockeys get more when the horse runs well. 10% of a bigger purse is more money for them too.

[classhandicapper]

I fully remember Bob Baffert -- the trainer that you admire so much -- telling the media that the trainers have to be catered to in this game...because they are "fully invested" in this game...while the "gamblers" have OTHER gambling options to resort to if this game ceases to be "to their liking". I know that, by "gamblers", Baffert was referring to the bettors...but his comment could easily fit the OWNERS, as well.

As Dahoss so accurately stated...the elevated purses were supposed to play a certain role...but they brought about the OPPOSITE side-effect from the one that was initially predicted. Instead of the fields becoming fuller and more competitive...they became smaller, and more UNBETTABLE. Do we continue rewarding the connections, for not delivering on the promises that they initially made?

Align the purses in accordance to field size, I say...and try to do something to breathe some life into this game. Otherwise...we will ALL be looking for a "new, less-expensive hobby".

I think aligning purses and "take" to field size is a great idea, but to get to your other points.

Without owners being willing to buy horses and lose money on a net basis, there is no game. That's no different than without bettors making wagers, there is no game.

So you have to balance the two.

Also, it may be accurate to say that as purses have risen field sizes have fallen, but I believe this may be a case of "correlation" is not the same thing as "causation".

Fields are smaller for a few reasons I can think of and there may be more.

1. Crop sizes are WAY down and we haven't had a corresponding consolidation of tracks/races to match. You'd have to ask breeders why crop sizes are down, but I'm going to guess it's because there wasn't enough demand from owners to buy horses at appropriate prices because they were losing money and economic times were a little tougher.

2. Trainers are saying the horses aren't as sound (I wouldn't know).

3. Perhaps Lasix use is an issue (some think there is a longer recovery time)

4. Some trainers think greater spacing races leads to more "A" efforts (which may or may not be related to #2 and 3#).

To me, #4 is the most controversial. Even if some trainers get better results that way, no one has demonstrated to me that you make more money that way. My group likes running, buy we always defer to the trainer on what's best for the horse's health and well being.

I wouldn't change the Triple Crown. If it's hard to hold a horse together for 3 grueling races and trainers want to space more, I can see how that hurts the series. But when a horse actually pulls it off, it seems like it means more.

[thaskalos]

I think aligning purses and "take" to field size is a great idea, but to get to your other points.

Without owners being willing to buy horses and lose money on a net basis, there is no game. That's no different than without bettors making wagers, there is no game.

So you have to balance the two.


When do you suppose this "balance" is to take place? Millions and millions of dollars in increased purses have been handed out to the owners in order to lighten the burden that they carry in this game. As an owner yourself...can you tell us when this "balance" is set to kick in...so the horseplayers can ALSO see some benefit from all this "extra money" that has been funneled to this sport in recent years?

[ronsmac]

Yeah but literally only 4 TC winners (AP, Affirmed, Slew, and Secretariat) won it at this set up.

Literally twice as many won it under any other setups.

You're protecting something that's isn't even that special.
I agree. Back in the old days, many of the horses would even run a race between the Preakness and Belmont.

[Jeff P]

Without owners being willing to buy horses and lose money on a net basis, there is no game. That's no different than without bettors making wagers, there is no game.

So you have to balance the two.
--and:Crop sizes are WAY down and we haven't had a corresponding consolidation of tracks/races to match. You'd have to ask breeders why crop sizes are down, but I'm going to guess it's because there wasn't enough demand from owners to buy horses at appropriate prices because they were losing money and economic times were a little tougher.

I would argue that CUSTOMER demand for the product has always played a direct role in shaping OWNER demand to purchase horses.

Think about it.

Back when racing at B, C, and D tracks could still regularly draw (what?) 5k? 10k? maybe even 12k? fans on a non special event day?

Obviously, customer demand for the product was much higher then vs. now.

As was owner demand to purchase horses.

Fast forward to present day...

Where B, C, and D tracks now regularly draw (what?) 60? 70? maybe even 150? fans on a non special event day?

Obviously, customer demand for the product is much lower now vs. then.

As is owner demand to purchase horses.

I also submit to you the idea that a certain percentage of horseplayers -- that's right I said horseplayers -- have always become owners.

As the number of horseplayers dwindles... So does the number of owners.

I agree. You need both horseplayers and owners.

As you put it:

You have to balance the two.



-jp

.

[barn32]

In the great gambling laboratory known as Las Vegas...horse-betting is officially DEAD. The few remaining horseplayers have been relegated to remote corners of the specious sportsbooks...and there are no assigned tellers to take their bets. I spent all day yesterday standing behind sports bettors...who were betting on baseball games, six hours before they were scheduled to begin.

And our game is looking for "network coverage"? :lol:Have you been to Southpoint lately?

[thaskalos]

Have you been to Southpoint lately?

No...but I will make it my next stop.

[elhelmete]

No...but I will make it my next stop.

Southpoint is very very good as is the Westgate (Hilton). Love that book.

[dilanesp]

One thing I am surprised Moss doesn't realize, given he works in TV:

The current schedule is ideal for television. It maintains interest. Stretch it out and I bet the rights fees, especially for the Belmont, go down.

[classhandicapper]

When do you suppose this "balance" is to take place? Millions and millions of dollars in increased purses have been handed out to the owners in order to lighten the burden that they carry in this game. As an owner yourself...can you tell us when this "balance" is set to kick in...so the horseplayers can ALSO see some benefit from all this "extra money" that has been funneled to this sport in recent years?

I'm not sure where the balance is or that it actually exists. I see a lot of interests (owners, players, jockeys/trainers, and government) all fighting for a piece of a pie that is way too small to make most of them whole.

I'm not smart enough to solve these problems, but I understand the totality of them a little better now when the vet bills come in. :lol:

[classhandicapper]

I also submit to you the idea that a certain percentage of horseplayers -- that's right I said horseplayers -- have always become owners.

As the number of horseplayers dwindles... So does the number of owners.

I agree. You need both horseplayers and owners.

As you put it:

You have to balance the two.

-jp

.

Great insight. I hadn't thought of it in those terms before now, but you are right. I guess I'm smarter now than I was an hour ago. ;)

[Track Phantom]

Southpoint is very very good as is the Westgate (Hilton). Love that book.
I know the director at Westgate pretty well (Jay Kornegay). If you're heading there on a big day and need seats, let me know. He's always accommodating. Great guy.

[elhelmete]

I know the director at Westgate pretty well (Jay Kornegay). If you're heading there on a big day and need seats, let me know. He's always accommodating. Great guy.

Thanks, TP, very kind. He really does run a great book, and they're renovating and expanding it some more (I was just there last weekend).

I also checked out Sunset Station's book and liked that joint too. Big and comfortable and they didn't completely marginalize horse racing.

[SuperPickle]

I'm perfectly OK with that. Our opinions obviously differ.


I would say our end game is the same. I think using the setups of other Triple Crowns as data points the idea that more time makes it easier is simply false. Those Triple Crowns reflect it doesn't. You're giving every other three year old a rest/ chance to point to races in addition to the leg winners. It's a draw at best.

PA, the best argument to change it isn't TV ratings, handle or the traditionalism of the the year 1968 (first year of this setup.) It's this. Things have already changed.

I don't mean this as a shot but you're the guy screaming to preserve the one house in the neighborhood from the 1800's even though all the other houses have already been torn down. Your fight has already been lost. Racing evolves. The way horses are bred and raced is completely different than 1968. The idea that preserving the race setup from then makes AP's TC similar to Affirmed's TC is just silly. You've already lost the fight.

Let's look at the evidence...

Prior to Spend A Buck's skipping the Preakness for the Jersey Derby the idea of a top, healthy three year-old not racing in all three legs was sheer madness. It was a non-starter. The next year Visa started the bonus. This incentivized racing in all three legs. Then about 10-15 years ago Visa ended the bonus and it became envogue to skip legs.

So in 1970's you had Secretariat beating Sham three times. You had Affirmed and Alydar three times. You had Easy Goer and Sunday Silence.

Let's pretend for a second Alydar and Affirmed were born in 2014. Baffert would train one and Pletcher the other because that's the law as CJ will tell you. So the Baffert trained Alydar wins the Derby. The Pletcher trained Affirmed then skips the Preakness. Alydar romps in Baltimore at 1-9. Then has to meet a rest Alydar in the Belmont. Now obviously there's no way to predict who would win but given the small margin in the actual race its very reasonable to say Alydar gets him with the extra rest. So in 2017 you can argue Affirmed wouldn't be a Triple Crown winner. You can argue those horses from the 60's, 70's and 80's didn't have to deal with horses skipping legs.

Obviously all this is hypothetically but my point is this. You're fighting a fight that's been lost already. You can dig in your heals all you want say "its got to be five weeks at those distances" but as long as breeders bred horses differently and trainers race horses differently the idea that the TC is the same isn't true. Because if you choose not to change something but everything around it, everything in its environment changes it to changes whether you want it to or not.

The Triple Crown of 2017 isn't the Triple Crown of 1968. You're fight has been lost already.

[Track Phantom]

Thanks, TP, very kind. He really does run a great book, and they're renovating and expanding it some more (I was just there last weekend).

I also checked out Sunset Station's book and liked that joint too. Big and comfortable and they didn't completely marginalize horse racing.
I also know the director at Palace Station (did the BC and KY Derby seminar in the last year). He's another really good guy and will look out for players. Anyone on this forum that plans on going to either of these two places, let me know.

In my opinion, the Westgate is the best place to watch sports or horses. It's off the strip, so that might deter some, but the environment is great.

[whodoyoulike]

I think the real problem is money.

Here is how you "fix" the Triple Crown. The Derby/Preakness/Belmont races should all be $5M races.

Anyone who earns a check in the Preakness that ran in the Derby gets XX% bonus. Anyone who ran in both the Derby and Preakness and gets a check in the Belmont earns XX% bonus.

$5M total purse money for what is arguably the marquee North American Horse Racing series is not good enough. Not when there are $10M - $12M races out there now.

Make the earning potential big enough and trainers / owners will make sure the best of the crop compete in all three. For christs sake...get creative.

Sounds like you're an owner.

Didn't some sponsor offer a $5 mil bonus towards a TC winner about 30 years ago?

[whodoyoulike]

I can't agree with this one point.

It's almost impossible for owners to cover costs as it is now. An owner pretty much has to assume he/she is going to lose some money, but be willing to do so because of the excitement, fun, and dream of winning something big.

Making the purses lower is not going to get many owners to run more frequently. It's going to make them look for a new less expensive hobby.

I own a piece of 3 horses with some partners. We never skipped a race because the purses are large and we didn't have to run. We love large purses and want to run as often as possible to take advantage of them. But it's not always possible because sometimes there isn't an appropriate spot and sometimes the horses have physical issues.

I think there's a delicate balance between the players and owners/trainers etc...

You need both.

You need happy players to bet and raise handle, but you also need owners to be doing well so they keep buying horses. Then more will be bred and we won't have shortages.

I think I understand where the lower purses suggestions would encourage more frequent running because when the purses practically doubled over the last 20 years I've noticed the starts went from around 3 weeks+ to now of 5 - 6 weeks +/-.

[whodoyoulike]

The Belmont Stakes exists for one reason and one reason only.

The Test of the Champion.

It exists to put the screws to a potential Triple Crown winner. That's the only reason it exists in its current form. You change the distance or you change the spacing between the Preakness and Belmont, and you might as well get rid of the Triple Crown altogether as far as I'm concerned.

Exactly and for future breeding rights for possible stamina. The entire TC schedule is set up for this purpose.

[PaceAdvantage]

I would say our end game is the same. I think using the setups of other Triple Crowns as data points the idea that more time makes it easier is simply false. Those Triple Crowns reflect it doesn't. You're giving every other three year old a rest/ chance to point to races in addition to the leg winners. It's a draw at best.

PA, the best argument to change it isn't TV ratings, handle or the traditionalism of the the year 1968 (first year of this setup.) It's this. Things have already changed.

I don't mean this as a shot but you're the guy screaming to preserve the one house in the neighborhood from the 1800's even though all the other houses have already been torn down. Your fight has already been lost. Racing evolves. The way horses are bred and raced is completely different than 1968. The idea that preserving the race setup from then makes AP's TC similar to Affirmed's TC is just silly. You've already lost the fight.

Let's look at the evidence...

Prior to Spend A Buck's skipping the Preakness for the Jersey Derby the idea of a top, healthy three year-old not racing in all three legs was sheer madness. It was a non-starter. The next year Visa started the bonus. This incentivized racing in all three legs. Then about 10-15 years ago Visa ended the bonus and it became envogue to skip legs.

So in 1970's you had Secretariat beating Sham three times. You had Affirmed and Alydar three times. You had Easy Goer and Sunday Silence.

Let's pretend for a second Alydar and Affirmed were born in 2014. Baffert would train one and Pletcher the other because that's the law as CJ will tell you. So the Baffert trained Alydar wins the Derby. The Pletcher trained Affirmed then skips the Preakness. Alydar romps in Baltimore at 1-9. Then has to meet a rest Alydar in the Belmont. Now obviously there's no way to predict who would win but given the small margin in the actual race its very reasonable to say Alydar gets him with the extra rest. So in 2017 you can argue Affirmed wouldn't be a Triple Crown winner. You can argue those horses from the 60's, 70's and 80's didn't have to deal with horses skipping legs.

Obviously all this is hypothetically but my point is this. You're fighting a fight that's been lost already. You can dig in your heals all you want say "its got to be five weeks at those distances" but as long as breeders bred horses differently and trainers race horses differently the idea that the TC is the same isn't true. Because if you choose not to change something but everything around it, everything in its environment changes it to changes whether you want it to or not.

The Triple Crown of 2017 isn't the Triple Crown of 1968. You're fight has been lost already.That's all well and good, but what proof, exactly, do you have, that making changes for the sake of making changes will actually make things better overall? The law of unintended consequences is bound to creep into the mix (as someone has already pointed out), and your nice and neat scenario above becomes just one of many possible different outcomes given a "new arrangement."

Your goal here seems to be to make the TC more competitive by somehow enticing horses to run in all three legs, yet also make the TC easier to win by giving more rest between races.

What makes you so sure that by doing that, trainers/owners will indeed want to run their horses in all three legs, especially if they don't finish well in the Derby and/or the Preakness? I really don't see any way (short of providing some sort of monetary incentive) of changing the TC races that will make it more enticing to run a horse in all three legs.

[dilanesp]

Prior to Spend A Buck's skipping the Preakness for the Jersey Derby the idea of a top, healthy three year-old not racing in all three legs was sheer madness. It was a non-starter.

Gato Del Sol did it just three years before Spend a Buck. (Swaps did it too, but that was farther back.)

Also, I don't know where this fits, but one other point.

The big change nobody is talking about is in the nature of the Kentucky Derby. Specifically, it draws 20 starters every year, and most of those starters have only had a handful of starts. Essentially, what owners do now is barely clear the qualifying threshold (now points, used to be graded stakes earnings) and then enter any qualified horse in the Derby.

That is VERY different than the situation even just 20 years ago. Silver Charm's 1997 Derby didn't even use the auxiliary starting gate. The reason is that what used to happen is that there were plenty of horses who COULD enter the Derby but didn't, because their owners and trainers didn't think they were ready or didn't think they were good enough.

Think about this-- a 20 horse Derby every year means that every year there's going to be 5 or 6 or 7 horses who run up the track in the Derby but who were at least fairly highly regarded, and then become candidates to skip the Preakness and run in the Belmont. Not all of them will do it, but that route is available, and it produces a pool of potential Belmont upsetters who skipped the Preakness every year.

Whereas beforehand, when the Derby field was shorter and the horses in the Derby were more seasoned, the highly regarded horses were far less likely to finish 8th or 12th or 14th in the Derby. Instead they finished 2nd or 4th or 5th and then went ahead and ran in the Preakness.

I understand the 20 horse Derby filled with horses with very little established form is a fun gambling crapshoot. And it's probably good television (ratings have gone up). But I've never been convinced this is good for the sport. Shorter Derby fields full of horses who have started a lot more and established a lot more good form would probably get us both more TC's and more horses running in the three races.

[SuperPickle]

That's all well and good, but what proof, exactly, do you have, that making changes for the sake of making changes will actually make things better overall? The law of unintended consequences is bound to creep into the mix (as someone has already pointed out), and your nice and neat scenario above becomes just one of many possible different outcomes given a "new arrangement."

Your goal here seems to be to make the TC more competitive by somehow enticing horses to run in all three legs, yet also make the TC easier to win by giving more rest between races.

What makes you so sure that by doing that, trainers/owners will indeed want to run their horses in all three legs, especially if they don't finish well in the Derby and/or the Preakness? I really don't see any way (short of providing some sort of monetary incentive) of changing the TC races that will make it more enticing to run a horse in all three legs.


You're looking for a guarantee that this makes things better. Life doesn't work that way. I have no idea what happens till it happens.

However two points on that...

1. I mentioned this on Page One. The NBA, MLB and NFL constantly change their sports. They add playoffs, have teams switch divisions, change the length of seasons and CONSTANTLY change the rules of their game. Well run sports leagues understand you have to keep changing and trying new things or you die. That's why my philosophy is you have to throw EVERYTHING on the table. It's the only way success comes. It's how successful sports leagues operate. Everything is on the table for change.

2. You could run the Derby any day and its still the Derby. 100K people will show up even on Christmas morning. To the casual fan and media companies could care less. So really the only people who would care if the races moved or are altered are the hardcore people. Essentially the commentators on this board.

But here's the rub on that. We all acknowledge that demo is shrinking. There's less hardcore horse racing fans now than ever. So by not even exploring a change you're essentially accommodating a demo which you concede is shrinking for a chance to grow the business. It's the very definition of a bad business decision.

At the end of the day the game is shrinking. It's dying. And by saying no to even considering adjusting the Triple Crown to grow it you're essentially waving the white flag. The notion that the TC is doing great but racing is in shambles simply isn't accurate because to have a healthy, successful TC you need healthy successful racing and that is lacking.

[SuperPickle]

Gato Del Sol did it just three years before Spend a Buck. (Swaps did it too, but that was farther back.)

Also, I don't know where this fits, but one other point.

The big change nobody is talking about is in the nature of the Kentucky Derby. Specifically, it draws 20 starters every year, and most of those starters have only had a handful of starts. Essentially, what owners do now is barely clear the qualifying threshold (now points, used to be graded stakes earnings) and then enter any qualified horse in the Derby.

That is VERY different than the situation even just 20 years ago. Silver Charm's 1997 Derby didn't even use the auxiliary starting gate. The reason is that what used to happen is that there were plenty of horses who COULD enter the Derby but didn't, because their owners and trainers didn't think they were ready or didn't think they were good enough.

Think about this-- a 20 horse Derby every year means that every year there's going to be 5 or 6 or 7 horses who run up the track in the Derby but who were at least fairly highly regarded, and then become candidates to skip the Preakness and run in the Belmont. Not all of them will do it, but that route is available, and it produces a pool of potential Belmont upsetters who skipped the Preakness every year.

Whereas beforehand, when the Derby field was shorter and the horses in the Derby were more seasoned, the highly regarded horses were far less likely to finish 8th or 12th or 14th in the Derby. Instead they finished 2nd or 4th or 5th and then went ahead and ran in the Preakness.

I understand the 20 horse Derby filled with horses with very little established form is a fun gambling crapshoot. And it's probably good television (ratings have gone up). But I've never been convinced this is good for the sport. Shorter Derby fields full of horses who have started a lot more and established a lot more good form would probably get us both more TC's and more horses running in the three races.


You'd love my Derby qualifying idea. You make the Derby an Invitational. Automatic bids for all the major preps starting with the BC. The balance of the field is filled out by selection committee like the NCAA tourney. Racing Secretaries, horseplayers, breeders, and horseman vote in the rest. They meeting in Louisville the Sunday after the Arkansas Derby. That night like the NCAA's is a selection show. 20 horses are invited at that point. If only 12 or 14 or 18 or how every man show up that's your field. No additional invites. If you can't crack the top 20 by the committee or win a prep you don't below.

[Grits]

Dilane, your post is a good one. I've come to think the primary state we find ourselves in currently has to do with the fact that many trainers are businessmen not horsemen. I fully understand success and making money but I don't see where we are today as beneficial. I don't see breeding solely for speed without stamina as beneficial.

I don't know much. But, in this game, I do know that there are three sure things.

1. Good luck

2. Bad luck

3. Greatness

We see the first two play out hourly, every day. The last one comes along rarely. And we don't need to change the Triple Crown to witness it. Without fail, it will rise, and we know it when we see it!!!

Gato Del Sol did it just three years before Spend a Buck. (Swaps did it too, but that was farther back.)

Also, I don't know where this fits, but one other point.

The big change nobody is talking about is in the nature of the Kentucky Derby. Specifically, it draws 20 starters every year, and most of those starters have only had a handful of starts. Essentially, what owners do now is barely clear the qualifying threshold (now points, used to be graded stakes earnings) and then enter any qualified horse in the Derby.

That is VERY different than the situation even just 20 years ago. Silver Charm's 1997 Derby didn't even use the auxiliary starting gate. The reason is that what used to happen is that there were plenty of horses who COULD enter the Derby but didn't, because their owners and trainers didn't think they were ready or didn't think they were good enough.

Think about this-- a 20 horse Derby every year means that every year there's going to be 5 or 6 or 7 horses who run up the track in the Derby but who were at least fairly highly regarded, and then become candidates to skip the Preakness and run in the Belmont. Not all of them will do it, but that route is available, and it produces a pool of potential Belmont upsetters who skipped the Preakness every year.

Whereas beforehand, when the Derby field was shorter and the horses in the Derby were more seasoned, the highly regarded horses were far less likely to finish 8th or 12th or 14th in the Derby. Instead they finished 2nd or 4th or 5th and then went ahead and ran in the Preakness.

I understand the 20 horse Derby filled with horses with very little established form is a fun gambling crapshoot. And it's probably good television (ratings have gone up). But I've never been convinced this is good for the sport. Shorter Derby fields full of horses who have started a lot more and established a lot more good form would probably get us both more TC's and more horses running in the three races.

[Spalding No!]

You can argue those horses from the 60's, 70's and 80's didn't have to deal with horses skipping legs.

Your heart and your best intentions might tell you that's true, but the facts and the evidence say otherwise...

1960 - Celtic Ash wins Belmont after skipping Derby
1962 - Greek Money wins Preakness after skipping Derby
Jaipur (skipped Derby) wins Belmont by a nose over Admiral's Voyage (skipped Preakness)
1968 - Stage Door Johnny wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs; TC foiled
1971 - Pass Catcher wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs; TC foiled
1972 - Bee Bee Bee wins Preakness after missing Derby; Riva Ridge won other 2
1979- Coastal wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs; TC foiled
1980 - Codex wins Preakness after skipping Derby
Temperence Hill wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs
1981 - Summing wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs; TC foiled
1982 - Aloma's Ruler wins Preakness after skipping Derby
Conquistador Cielo wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs
1983 - Deputed Testamony wins Preakness after skipping Derby
Caveat wins Belmont, skipped Preakness
1985 - Creme Fraiche wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs
1986 - Danzig Connection wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs

[elhelmete]

Your heart and your best intentions might tell you that's true, but the facts and the evidence say otherwise...

1960 - Celtic Ash wins Belmont after skipping Derby
1962 - Greek Money wins Preakness after skipping Derby
Jaipur (skipped Derby) wins Belmont by a nose over Admiral's Voyage (skipped Preakness)
1968 - Stage Door Johnny wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs; TC foiled
1971 - Pass Catcher wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs; TC foiled
1972 - Bee Bee Bee wins Preakness after missing Derby; Riva Ridge won other 2
1979- Coastal wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs; TC foiled
1980 - Codex wins Preakness after skipping Derby
Temperence Hill wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs
1981 - Summing wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs; TC foiled
1982 - Aloma's Ruler wins Preakness after skipping Derby
Conquistador Cielo wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs
1983 - Deputed Testamony wins Preakness after skipping Derby
Caveat wins Belmont, skipped Preakness
1985 - Creme Fraiche wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs
1986 - Danzig Connection wins Belmont after missing first 2 legs

All tomato cans :lol::lol::lol:

[Gander36]

Perhaps some in the industry are putting TOO MUCH emphasis on the Triple Crown as the the industry savior?

Yes, the three races are the signature event(s) for horse racing, drawing the most attention from the very casual fan, but the three races seem to be doing just fine on attendance, handle, and TV viewership. And yes, there is always more interests if the there is the chance of a TC winner going into the Belmont, but that seems to occur regularly enough already.

The Triple Crown is like the World Cup or playoffs. If you spaced it out, the general public would lose interests, especially if there was no chance for a TC winner. And I believe it would be HARDER to win spaced out.

One of the reasons you get a decent percentage of horses that can win the first 2 legs is the short spacing between the Derby and the Preakness. Given the point system now in place on the road to the Derby, it really makes no sense whatsoever for a campaigned 3-year old Derby also-ran to compete in the Preakness two weeks after the Derby. Of the few that do, they often face a Derby winner at the top of his game. The others in the race are Maryland locals or 2nd tier stakes horses. (I realize this year was a big exception). If you added more time between the Derby and Preakness, more Derby contestants would participate, the Derby winner has a better chance of going off form, and new talent would emerge to challenge. Not that this is bad, but it would make it harder to get a first two-legs winner to the Belmont, making it harder to win all three!

Anyway, Horse Racing as many major issues. The popularity and format of the Triple Crown as it is - is not one of them.

[Jeff P]

USA Today Sports article | By: Chris Korman | May 6, 2016 4:24 pm
Last year's Triple Crown didn't change horse racing (and it didn't need to)
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/05/horse-racing-triple-crown-hangover-drought-kentucky-derby

American Pharaoh winning the Triple Crown appears to have done little to make horse racing more popular with the average fan. There’s been no long-awaited bounce back into the mainstream.

My takeaway was that American Pharaoh winning the Triple Crown -- while a great moment in and of itself -- did very little in converting the casual fan into horseplayers department.

And I have also come to believe - before it happened - that more than a few of racing's decision makers (track management, leadership at horsemen's alphabet groups, racing commissioners, and politicians) actually thought it would.

You know what converts casual fans into horseplayers?

Using your wits to cash a nice win ticket or a nice exacta. (Or witnessing someone else accomplish that feat during those first few track visits.)

That's what converts the casual fan into a new horseplayer.

If there's any one thing racing needs the most: IT'S THAT.




-jp

.

[Gander36]

USA Today Sports article | By: Chris Korman | May 6, 2016 4:24 pm
Last year's Triple Crown didn't change horse racing (and it didn't need to)
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2016/05/horse-racing-triple-crown-hangover-drought-kentucky-derby

You know what converts casual fans into horseplayers?

Using your wits to cash a nice win ticket or a nice exacta. (Or witnessing someone else accomplish that feat during those first few track visits.)

That's what converts the casual fan into a new horseplayer.

If there's any one thing racing needs the most: IT'S THAT.

-jp

.
Agree, but...

Horse racing today is competing for gambling market share. As opposed to it's heyday, when it was the only (legal) game in town, it now competes with poker, casinos, fantasy, lotto, and even itself. Think about horse racing compared to other forms available from these perspectives:

FACILITIES - Compare LeBergeDuLac Casino in Lake Charles to Delta Downs, or ANY casino to most tracks

ACTION - time it takes between new action, like the time for 10 hands of poker compared to 10 races. Then if you are wise enough to sit out the unplayable races you realize there's not much action at all.

BIG WINS - Chance (or dream) of a meaningful WIN (even life changing) like you have with slots or lotto. Casual fans that attend horse races bet $2 across on the favorite, either lose, or win peanuts. I love seeing the newbie scream and hollar after their 3-5 horse won, then watch their faces when they get their winnings.

KNOWLEDGE - its a lot easier to get up to speed on Black Jack than handicapping, no? Today's millennials (in general) are not going to spend the time or give the effort to create an advantage for themselves, so if some do try racing, they won't last long.

PERKS - I STILL pay to get in some tracks and have never gotten a meal or free drink because of my horse wagers. I've never been invited to see a decent concert or given a hotel room because of my horse wagers.

INTEGRITY! - Every race card has suspect situations, trainers hiding info, jockeys giving unexplainable rides, trainers that are allowed to list their wives or assistants as trainers when they get caught using illegal medicine, inconsistent rulings, nonsensical exotic payoffs. Only BAD news reaches the mainstream media. Casinos go overboard to make patrons feel like the games are on the up and up with cameras everywhere, documentaries explaining how machines work, smaller takeouts, etc.

I don't have the answers, but horse racing's controlling influence are rich breeders, owners, top trainers and top jockeys. They all are inter-connected and are all doing fine. When we are down to 5 tracks they'll still do fine.
Why would they want to change anything?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Your goal here seems to be to make the TC more competitive by somehow enticing horses to run in all three legs, yet also make the TC easier to win by giving more rest between races.

I'm going to disagree with your premise that the TC would become easier to win. For one thing, ALL the horses get whatever extra rest there is. They all benefit equally.

If your point is that a tired horse is less likely to get beat by a fresher horse, that may be so. But on the flip side, you'll have horses that have a little more time to mature, and that may work against a Derby/Preakness winner. I think for every argument in favor of a longer schedule helping the Derby winner, there is one that would be disadvantageous.

I think at best you could call it a wash.

[thespaah]

https://twitter.com/randy_moss_tv/status/874385716838617088

The twitter thread is the worth the read because it debunks several popular justifications to not change. (I.E. multiple winners of TC have done it at different setups and my favorite "don't fix what's not broken." First off every aspect of racing is broken. This is just less broken. Second, both MLB and NFL have made massive changes to their games when they were the biggest game in town (interleague play, DH, playoffs, divisions, overtime, DH, etc.) Successful businesses understand you need to constantly change to stay ahead. Meanwhile sports like boxing and golf have stayed traditional. how's that working?

First point. The Kentucky Derby, CDI and others will never allow that race to run any other day except the first Saturday on May.
Second. The Preakness is kind of 'stuck' because the following weekend is Memorial Day. There are two very huge sporting events on that weekend.
The Indianapolis 500 and NASCAR's Coca Cola 600.
Both evens receive very good tv ratings.
May sweeps is over. May is a huge month for tv viewing. After Memorial Day weekend, tv viewership drops off significantly. So does ad revenue.
So in order for NBC to justify the expense of producing the TC races, must receive the ad revenue and ratings necessary to justify the ad rates they must charge.
Moving the Preakness off its present traditional weekend will be a difficult undertaking.

[thespaah]

If they did alter the spacing of the Triple Crown Racing, what would the new spacing look like...?

Derby, then 6 weeks to Preakness, then another 6 weeks for the Belmont Stakes...?

Just wondering what some alternatives might look like to understand if change is warranted at this point.

That much time between the TC races will result in interest waning among the casual racing viewer. You are asking the typical American that has the attention span of a gnat to pay attention to a series that takes 12 weeks to complete?
Don't think so.

[thespaah]

FWIW.... ESPN, earlier this year, laid off over 100 of their folks, commentators included. So, ESPN isn't the be all, end all that it once was given they're bleeding losses. As the piece notes, viewers are finding other sources. NBCSN which picked us up is one of those.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/26/sports/espn-layoffs.html?_r=0

Hi GRITS!!!
Trip to the Spa this summer?
Its closing in fast.
Just 38 days til opening day

[thaskalos]

I don't have the answers, but horse racing's controlling influence are rich breeders, owners, top trainers and top jockeys. They all are inter-connected and are all doing fine. When we are down to 5 tracks they'll still do fine.
Why would they want to change anything?

I can't speak for any other horseplayer...but I was hoping that TRACK MANAGEMENT would be the agent for some badly-needed radical change within the game...once it became apparent that the wagering pools were in a state of perpetual decline. But it has now become equally apparent that the racetracks' main aspiration is to transform themselves into CASINOS, so...any real hope that I entertained for the betterment of this game, is now gone.

[thaskalos]

That much time between the TC races will result in interest waning among the casual racing viewer. You are asking the typical American that has the attention span of a gnat to pay attention to a series that takes 12 weeks to complete?
Don't think so.

Does the "typical American" have any trouble keeping his "fleeting attention span" on the lengthy regular seasons of our more POPULAR sports?

[Tom]

I lose interest in a football game during halftime.

[classhandicapper]

I can't speak for any other horseplayer...but I was hoping that TRACK MANAGEMENT would be the agent for some badly-needed radical change within the game...once it became apparent that the wagering pools were in a state of perpetual decline. But it has now become equally apparent that the racetracks' main aspiration is to transform themselves into CASINOS, so...any real hope that I entertained for the betterment of this game, is now gone.

I'm not sure it's fair to blame it all on management when government has a role in what management can do and takes such a big piece of the handle.

In my idealistic world there would be only be some basic regulation over racetracks. The tracks would be able to set the take at whatever level they think will maximize their return, pay whatever amount in purses they wanted, run as many days and races as they think would optimize their business, etc... and they would only pay taxes to the government on profits (if there were any). They would no longer pay a percentage of the handle. They would no longer need approval for all sorts of things that should take about 5 minutes of thought but that get hung up in government for years now.

IMO, that would unleash the brightest, most innovative, and most courageous minds in the business to try all sort of things and make all sorts of investments because they'd actually have a shot of making a decent return on investment. Some of the experiments might fail miserably, but imo some would be spectacularly successful and be copied by others.

The entire thing is delusional though because it can't happen in a world where corrupt governments and corrupt politicians are more interested in lining their pockets and getting re-elected than doing anything sensible and corrupt private interests are more than willing to play along.

[thespaah]

Does the "typical American" have any trouble keeping his "fleeting attention span" on the lengthy regular seasons of our more POPULAR sports?

allow me to rephrase.
The NFL is 256 regular season games plus the playoffs
The NHL.....Do I need to go on?
The TC is THREE events which would be spread out over 12 weeks. That's 3 months.
Big difference
And the proposed spread is no guarantee it would accomplish the desired effect.

[thespaah]

I'm not sure it's fair to blame it all on management when government has a role in what management can do and takes such a big piece of the handle.

In my idealistic world there would be only be some basic regulation over racetracks. The tracks would be able to set the take at whatever level they think will maximize their return, pay whatever amount in purses they wanted, run as many days and races as they think would optimize their business, etc... and they would only pay taxes to the government on profits (if there were any). They would no longer pay a percentage of the handle. They would no longer need approval for all sorts of things that should take about 5 minutes of thought but that get hung up in government for years now.

IMO, that would unleash the brightest, most innovative, and most courageous minds in the business to try all sort of things and make all sorts of investments because they'd actually have a shot of making a decent return on investment. Some of the experiments might fail miserably, but imo some would be spectacularly successful and be copied by others.

The entire thing is delusional though because it can't happen in a world where corrupt governments and corrupt politicians are more interested in lining their pockets and getting re-elected than doing anything sensible and corrupt private interests are more than willing to play along.

You are so SPOT ON here.
Unfortunately, government which originally looked upon betting on horse racing as a cash cow, now treat it with the disdain shown a stray dog that they finally rescued but keep outside in the rain.
The cash cow era saw legislation which no one cared about because everyone was making money. The tracks made money. The respective governments got their revenue stream.
Now that the laws are grinding the business into the ground, the politicians ( revert to previous descriptor above) don't care enough to release the industry from the clutches of government stupidity.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I'm not sure it's fair to blame it all on management when government has a role in what management can do and takes such a big piece of the handle.

In my idealistic world there would be only be some basic regulation over racetracks. The tracks would be able to set the take at whatever level they think will maximize their return, pay whatever amount in purses they wanted, run as many days and races as they think would optimize their business, etc... and they would only pay taxes to the government on profits (if there were any). They would no longer pay a percentage of the handle. They would no longer need approval for all sorts of things that should take about 5 minutes of thought but that get hung up in government for years now.

IMO, that would unleash the brightest, most innovative, and most courageous minds in the business to try all sort of things and make all sorts of investments because they'd actually have a shot of making a decent return on investment. Some of the experiments might fail miserably, but imo some would be spectacularly successful and be copied by others.

The entire thing is delusional though because it can't happen in a world where corrupt governments and corrupt politicians are more interested in lining their pockets and getting re-elected than doing anything sensible and corrupt private interests are more than willing to play along.

I've written about allowing horse tracks to be treated as regular businesses. However, it is the regulation part that creates a problem, because even if the racetrack made no profit, as long as there is independent regulation by the state, the track would still be liable for paying the regulatory groups. Using CA as an example, if the blended takeout rate is 18.52% of handle, for on-track revenues that gets divided 6.24% to the state, 0.10% to the lab at UC Davis, and 0.33% to cities like Arcadia (for City services like security and traffic control). The track gets 6.23%, the breeder's fund gets 0.47%, and 5.15% goes to purses. Without thinking about it too long, I'd say it can't cost CHRB as much to regulate racing as it does to operate the racetracks.

I have less optimism than I used to that racetracks would drop the take significantly if they were able to operate as a business does, only paying taxes on profits. I think it's just as likely they'd try to put more money in the track owner's pocket by leaving the take high and cheaping out on track expenses and purses, rather than operating closer to non-profit, dropping the take and putting money into the facility.

[thespaah]

I've written about allowing horse tracks to be treated as regular businesses. However, it is the regulation part that creates a problem, because even if the racetrack made no profit, as long as there is independent regulation by the state, the track would still be liable for paying the regulatory groups. Using CA as an example, if the blended takeout rate is 18.52% of handle, for on-track revenues that gets divided 6.24% to the state, 0.10% to the lab at UC Davis, and 0.33% to cities like Arcadia (for City services like security and traffic control). The track gets 6.23%, the breeder's fund gets 0.47%, and 5.15% goes to purses. Without thinking about it too long, I'd say it can't cost CHRB as much to regulate racing as it does to operate the racetracks.

I have less optimism than I used to that racetracks would drop the take significantly if they were able to operate as a business does, only paying taxes on profits. I think it's just as likely they'd try to put more money in the track owner's pocket by leaving the take high and cheaping out on track expenses and purses, rather than operating closer to non-profit, dropping the take and putting money into the facility.

Good points.
Aas with any business, the way a business is operated depends upon the ownership.
For example, facilities such as Keeneland or Saratoga would probably remain as top flight operations.One could probably throw Santa Anita, Del Mar, Kentucky Downs in that same mix.
other tracks..Who knows.
My attention turns to Retama Park. Which lost its tote board to a severe storm. To my knowledge, that tote board has not been rebuilt/repaired.
I would imagine this particular facility is one that has a management would be on the other end of the spectrum. Skimping on facility amenities and the like.
I think it is a pipe dream that states will ever let go of the horse racing industry. However, I'd like to see ONE state give it a whirl.

[dilanesp]

I'm not sure it's fair to blame it all on management when government has a role in what management can do and takes such a big piece of the handle.

In my idealistic world there would be only be some basic regulation over racetracks. The tracks would be able to set the take at whatever level they think will maximize their return, pay whatever amount in purses they wanted, run as many days and races as they think would optimize their business, etc... and they would only pay taxes to the government on profits (if there were any). They would no longer pay a percentage of the handle. They would no longer need approval for all sorts of things that should take about 5 minutes of thought but that get hung up in government for years now.

IMO, that would unleash the brightest, most innovative, and most courageous minds in the business to try all sort of things and make all sorts of investments because they'd actually have a shot of making a decent return on investment. Some of the experiments might fail miserably, but imo some would be spectacularly successful and be copied by others.

The entire thing is delusional though because it can't happen in a world where corrupt governments and corrupt politicians are more interested in lining their pockets and getting re-elected than doing anything sensible and corrupt private interests are more than willing to play along.

Government regulation is part and parcel of legal betting. Without regulations, the sport would get even more dishonest than it is, and that would result in something unbettable.

[AndyC]

Government regulation is part and parcel of legal betting. Without regulations, the sport would get even more dishonest than it is, and that would result in something unbettable.

You can't tell me with a straight face that all of the regulations heaped upon the racing industry are necessary.

You underestimate the ability of the industry to self-regulate due to the actions of their customers.

[dilanesp]

You can't tell me with a straight face that all of the regulations heaped upon the racing industry are necessary.

You underestimate the ability of the industry to self-regulate due to the actions of their customers.

Can you show me a single example of large scale unregulated betting in human history that was honest?

Libertarianism is a wonderful ideology, but if you want to make money as an honest gambler, you need government regulation.

[classhandicapper]

Government regulation is part and parcel of legal betting. Without regulations, the sport would get even more dishonest than it is, and that would result in something unbettable.

It's a matter of degree and balance.

You can't allow corrupt private people to run amok in a gambling operation but you can't allow incompetent corrupt people in government to hold back progress and line their pockets with payoffs from corrupt private people that are running amok using government for their own personal benefit.

[classhandicapper]

I have less optimism than I used to that racetracks would drop the take significantly if they were able to operate as a business does, only paying taxes on profits. I think it's just as likely they'd try to put more money in the track owner's pocket by leaving the take high and cheaping out on track expenses and purses, rather than operating closer to non-profit, dropping the take and putting money into the facility.

It's certainly possible that if we had a real world experiment it would show that the best way for private tracks to maximize profits is with a similar or (gasp) even higher track take. I'm not smart enough to know that answer. That's what the market would tell us. But I'd be willing to give it a shot because I think someone out there would try a 10% take, steal a lot of market share, and make a lot more money. He might put a lot of other tracks out of business while he was at it, but that's true of all competition. Amazon is leaving a path of destruction, but it's changing the world.

[classhandicapper]

Can you show me a single example of large scale unregulated betting in human history that was honest?

Libertarianism is a wonderful ideology, but if you want to make money as an honest gambler, you need government regulation.

A friend of mine ran an "In Grade Betting" operation (instead of OTB) in the 4th grade at St Adalbert's parish in Queens until one of the nuns busted him and hit him with yard stick. It was a totally honest operation. ;)

[dilanesp]

A friend of mine ran an "In Grade Betting" operation (instead of OTB) in the 4th grade at St Adalbert's parish in Queens until one of the nuns busted him and hit him with yard stick. It was a totally honest operation. ;)

LOL! Small scale you can definitely run without a regulator. People run home poker games all over the country.

But when there's enough money involved and enough strangers involved that there becomes an opportunity for dishonest people to start engaging in graft, at that point you have to have a regulator.

We take even simple things for granted like "the people who decide disqualifications don't have bets on the outcome of the races", but that doesn't necessarily happen unless you have a regulation that requires it.

[AndyC]

Can you show me a single example of large scale unregulated betting in human history that was honest?

Libertarianism is a wonderful ideology, but if you want to make money as an honest gambler, you need government regulation.

Every illegal bookie is unregulated! If they cheat their clients they are out of business. No government regulation needed.

[Jeff P]

I think it's a bit disingenuous to blame politicians alone for the anti-customer regulations thoroughbred racing has on the books.

In many states - most if not all of the anti-customer stuff written into the regs or state law got there in the first place because leadership of the horsemen's alphabet group in that state lobbied to get very specific language adopted.

For example:

1. In California, in 2011 and then again in 2015, horseplayers pushed the CHRB for a rules change that would have required trainers to report first time geldings in a timely manner -- 30 minutes prior to post time for R1. The proposed rules change called for scratch of the horse and a $3k fine in instances where the trainer failed to report a first time gelding.

Both times the horsemen objected and the CHRB failed to act.

Fast forward to the incident last weekend where a misreported first time gelding trained by Peter Miller won the 5th leg of a single jackpot pick six -- on a day where the error (a misreported first time gelding listed as a colt in the Equibase data) may have played a part in the jackpot being paid out.

The degree to which misreporting the horse had been gelded and how big (or how small) of a role that played in there being only one ticket that day with all six correct can certainly be argued. But that misses the point.

The real point in seeking a rules change is one of integrity. The current CHRB rule does little to discourage a trainer from intentionally misreporting a first time gelding and taking unfair advantage in the pools.


2. In California, in 2010, Speaker of the House John Perez didn't come up with the idea for 22.68% exacta takeout on his own. Track management, the CHRB, and the TOC lobbied him to sponsor a bill written just for them to get 22.68% exacta takeout written into California State Law.

3. In Virginia, in 2009, the legislature and state senate didn't come up with the idea for 10% source market fee on their own. The Virginia horsemen lobbied to get source market fee written into state law.

4. In Arizona, in 2007, the legislature and state senate didn't come up with the idea to make ADW wagering a FELONY on their own. The Arizona horsemen lobbied to get a bill written just for them that made ADW wagering a FELONY under Arizona state law.

I could list many more examples where horsemen have done this (or tried to and were stopped) over the years.

But I'll stop here... hopefully having made my point.


-jp

.

[thespaah]

Can you show me a single example of large scale unregulated betting in human history that was honest?

Libertarianism is a wonderful ideology, but if you want to make money as an honest gambler, you need government regulation.

There is no one on here who has stated or implied there should be no regulations.
The industry however is severely over--regulated.
Said ham handedness of government is a major part of the woes of the sport

[AndyC]

.......I have less optimism than I used to that racetracks would drop the take significantly if they were able to operate as a business does, only paying taxes on profits. I think it's just as likely they'd try to put more money in the track owner's pocket by leaving the take high and cheaping out on track expenses and purses, rather than operating closer to non-profit, dropping the take and putting money into the facility.

I sure hope they would try to put more money in the owner's pockets. That would mean they are making their customers happy with the product and services that they are providing. Why would a track owner invest vast sums of money to own a track and then not put money into the facility to maintain it?

[classhandicapper]

I think it's a bit disingenuous to blame politicians alone for the anti-customer regulations thoroughbred racing has on the books.

In many states - most if not all of the anti-customer stuff written into the regs or state law got there in the first place because leadership of the horsemen's alphabet group in that state lobbied to get very specific language adopted.

For example:

1. In California, in 2011 and then again in 2015, horseplayers pushed the CHRB for a rules change that would have required trainers to report first time geldings in a timely manner -- 30 minutes prior to post time for R1. The proposed rules change called for scratch of the horse and a $3k fine in instances where the trainer failed to report a first time gelding.

Both times the horsemen objected and the CHRB failed to act.

Fast forward to the incident last weekend where a misreported first time gelding trained by Peter Miller won the 5th leg of a single jackpot pick six -- on a day where the error (a misreported first time gelding listed as a colt in the Equibase data) may have played a part in the jackpot being paid out that day.


2. In California, in 2010, the Speaker of the House John Perez didn't come up with the idea for 22.68% exacta takeout on his own. Track management, the CHRB, and the TOC lobbied him to sponsor a bill written just for them to get 22.68% exacta takeout written into California State Law.

3. In Virginia, in 2009, the legislature and state senate didn't come up with the idea for 10% source market fee on their own. The Virginia horsemen lobbied to get source market fee written into state law.

4. In Arizona, in 2007, the legislature and state senate didn't come up with the idea to make ADW wagering a FELONY on their own. The Arizona horsemen lobbied to get a bill written just for them that made ADW wagering a FELONY under Arizona state law.

I could list many more examples where horsemen have done this (or tried to and were stopped) over the years.

But I'll stop here... hopefully having made my point.


-jp

.

You are describing a variation on the same problem I am describing.

In your first case for example, the horse player lobby wasn't as powerful as horseman's lobby so something very sensible was not done. IMO, some track should just be free to say "you must report first time geldings and these are the rules, the end".

If a powerful group has the power to lobby corrupt or incompetent politicians/bureaucrats and then they have the power to implement idiotic rules or ideas (or they do it on their own), that's exactly what you don't want. It doesn't matter if the corrupt/incompetent politician imposes bad ideas on the industry or if special interests lobby corrupt/incompetent politicians to impose rules that benefit themselves at the expense of others, it's still a bad model.

What you want is for the market to sort this all out.

If the market does it, you'd still definitely get some bad ideas that would be spectacular failures. But that would be OK. The difference is that the market would weed out the bad ideas with failure and reward the good ones with higher profits instead of lobbying and politicians making those determinations. The problem is that we aren't unleashing the very best ideas because the economics are not there to reward anyone for their investment of time, money, energy etc..

Too much is done by foolish politicians or by the borderline corrupt lobbying of politicians by entities/special interests looking to benefit themselves.

[AndyC]

.........What you want is for the market to sort this all out.

If the market does it, you'd still definitely get some bad ideas that would be spectacular failures. But that would be OK. The difference is that the market would weed out the bad ideas with failure and reward the good ones with higher profits instead of lobbying and politicians making those determinations. The problem is that we aren't unleashing the very best ideas because the economics are not there to reward anyone for their investment of time, money, energy etc..

Too much is done by foolish politicians or by the borderline corrupt lobbying of politicians by entities/special interests looking to benefit themselves.

Exactly.

The sad part is that people think we need more regulation to sort out the problems caused by regulation.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I sure hope they would try to put more money in the owner's pockets. That would mean they are making their customers happy with the product and services that they are providing. Why would a track owner invest vast sums of money to own a track and then not put money into the facility to maintain it?

The Retama example has been given. I've been at a track where the roof leaked and instead of fixing it they put a bucket underneath. Three years later, they are still praying it doesn't rain on race days. Of course the roof leak wasn't over a bank of betting machines where it would have inconvenienced people. Your question makes as much sense as asking why a slum lord would spend all that money on an apartment building and then not keep it up. You really don't have to be a genius real estate person to figure out the answer to that one.

[AndyC]

The Retama example has been given. I've been at a track where the roof leaked and instead of fixing it they put a bucket underneath. Three years later, they are still praying it doesn't rain on race days. Of course the roof leak wasn't over a bank of betting machines where it would have inconvenienced people. Your question makes as much sense as asking why a slum lord would spend all that money on an apartment building and then not keep it up. You really don't have to be a genius real estate person to figure out the answer to that one.

Great comparison. A slum-lord apartment building where there are all section 8 tenants with rents paid by the government. Retama is another great example, a losing proposition from the get-go owned by Retama Development Corp., a municipal subdivision of Selma. If you want real estate to be kept up don't involve the government.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Great comparison. A slum-lord apartment building where there are all section 8 tenants with rents paid by the government. Retama is another great example, a losing proposition from the get-go owned by Retama Development Corp., a municipal subdivision of Selma. If you want real estate to be kept up don't involve the government.

Look, there are plenty of tracks in various states of disrepair, and many of those tracks don't perceive it is having an impact on handle, primarily because nobody shows up and the revenue comes from people sitting in front of their computer betting hither, tither and yon. I'm not sure how many track backsides you've been on, but I've been on more than my share and I can tell you the "out of sight, out of mind" philosophy applies to a lot of them. I'll stick with my original point. Some owners would look to gain more profit at the expense of investing in purses, track improvements and lowering the take. Your belief that owners would make their facilities beautiful because that's how they act sounds like the report from Candyland.

Of course, it's much easier to believe everything is the government's fault.

[AndyC]

Look, there are plenty of tracks in various states of disrepair, and many of those tracks don't perceive it is having an impact on handle, primarily because nobody shows up and the revenue comes from people sitting in front of their computer betting hither, tither and yon. I'm not sure how many track backsides you've been on, but I've been on more than my share and I can tell you the "out of sight, out of mind" philosophy applies to a lot of them. I'll stick with my original point. Some owners would look to gain more profit at the expense of investing in purses, track improvements and lowering the take. Your belief that owners would make their facilities beautiful because that's how they act sounds like the report from Candyland.

Of course, it's much easier to believe everything is the government's fault.

No my belief is that track owners, given free reign, would try to maximize profits. 99% of businesses maximize profits by providing their customers products they desire at a fair price. Cutting back on purses and track improvements/maintenance could decrease the value of their product and ultimately their bottom line. Your idea that profits are only increased by a reduction in expenditures by owners is out of touch with reality.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

No my belief is that track owners, given free reign, would try to maximize profits. 99% of businesses maximize profits by providing their customers products they desire at a fair price. Cutting back on purses and track improvements/maintenance could decrease the value of their product and ultimately their bottom line. Your idea that profits are only increased by a reduction in expenditures by owners is out of touch with reality.

Yes, of course you're right. Operating costs have nothing to do with the bottom line. Neither do purses. And cheaper goods never sell. Better not tell Walmart that. As I said, get out of the bubble and check out some tracks that didn't have casinos, a Kentucky Derby, or a Breeders Cup to pump all kinds of money into making capital improvements or raising purses. If you're trying to sell the idea that higher purses make a big difference to bettors, you haven't read the studies. When was the last time you checked the purse value of a race and then decided to bet? How much difference would you think it would make to drop a $90K maiden race purse to $85K? How much faded paint will it take to keep you away from the track, especially considering 90% of the tracks you bet you won't set foot into before making the bet? The product is not the paint, it is the racing.

If you are a restaurant and you serve crappy food in a marvelous atmosphere, you won't stay in business. But if you serve great food but the decor is nothing special, the plates are not expensive bone china, and the waiters aren't in fancy uniforms, you'll still do a great business. How do we know this? We've seen it with our own eyes.

And for chrissakes learn how to read and comprehend. I said some owners - not all, but some - would look to increase profits by reducing some cost centers and not reducing the revenue percentage. Where did I say profits ONLY come from reducing costs? I understand a balance sheet. And speaking of reality, plenty of tracks have done exactly that, which is where my version of reality came from.

At this point you're arguing just to argue. Show some class, get the point, realize it is legitimate for some track owners, and drop it.

[AndyC]

....... If you're trying to sell the idea that higher purses make a big difference to bettors, you haven't read the studies. When was the last time you checked the purse value of a race and then decided to bet? How much difference would you think it would make to drop a $90K maiden race purse to $85K? How much faded paint will it take to keep you away from the track, especially considering 90% of the tracks you bet you won't set foot into before making the bet? The product is not the paint, it is the racing........

You have confused me with somebody else. I have not tried to sell any such idea.


And for chrissakes learn how to read and comprehend. I said some owners - not all, but some - would look to increase profits by reducing some cost centers and not reducing the revenue percentage. Where did I say profits ONLY come from reducing costs? I understand a balance sheet. And speaking of reality, plenty of tracks have done exactly that, which is where my version of reality came from.

At this point you're arguing just to argue. Show some class, get the point, realize it is legitimate for some track owners, and drop it.

I see that you now conveniently add the not reduce the revenue percentage. Any smart business looks to reduce costs while maintaining or increasing revenue. That was my point.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I see that you now conveniently add the not reduce the revenue percentage. Any smart business looks to reduce costs while maintaining or increasing revenue. That was my point.

The very first thing I said was: I think it's just as likely they'd try to put more money in the track owner's pocket by leaving the take high and cheaping out on track expenses and purses, rather than operating closer to non-profit, dropping the take and putting money into the facility.

In case it hadn't struck you, the revenue percentage is THE TAKE. Then you started arguing that nobody would do what I said, despite the fact that there are tracks doing that now. Apparently you disagreed with what you thought your read instead of what I said.

[whodoyoulike]

What we need are more track owners like Marge Everett at Hollywood Park back in the 70's & 80's and as Stronach has done in certain recent instances.

Marge I think instituted the Pick-6 in Cali and was an advocate of the Breeder's Cup races bringing it to Hol. She used to show up and be seen at the track. I know the original Pick-6 was the 5/10 started at Caliente back in the 50's but that was technically Baja Cali.

http://www.dailynews.com/sports/20131219/marje-everett-era-was-golden-at-hollywood-park

Stronach's recent good ideas was the championship claiming races and the SA and GP competition races on a Saturday's races. I don't know what happened to the championship claiming races because I haven't noticed another one. But, the one from a few years ago drew full fields and a huge handle. The SA/GP competition just faded away but, I thought it was good when it lasted. The Pegasus was a good idea but IMO was a bust because of the way it was handled.

In other words, we need creative owners to increase handle and keep the bettors happy.

[thaskalos]

As far as I am concerned...the biggest problem plaguing horseracing today is the proliferation of the 5 and the 6-horse field. The weekday cards are loaded with these types of races...which have turned this game into strictly a WEEKEND affair for me...and for most of the other serious players out there. Do we blame the GOVERNMENT for this?

[Tom]

Only to the extend that they force then number of race days.
Small fields are an owners dream, so don't expect much to be done about them.

[thaskalos]

Only to the extend that they force then number of race days.
Small fields are an owners dream, so don't expect much to be done about them.

If nothing is done to increase the size of the weekday fields...then all the other "efforts" to improve the game are in vain, IMO. The owners and the trainers are interested in competing for worthwhile purses...and the bettors are interested in finding worthwhile bets. You either appeases ALL the entities involved in the game...or the game's future is in grave doubt.

You can't hand the connections of the horses these mega-purses...while the bettors are left holding the bag.

[cj]

As far as I am concerned...the biggest problem plaguing horseracing today is the proliferation of the 5 and the 6-horse field. The weekday cards are loaded with these types of races...which have turned this game into strictly a WEEKEND affair for me...and for most of the other serious players out there. Do we blame the GOVERNMENT for this?

Agree, and I'd also add the races are poorly written. I've seen many claimers with 3-5, 2-5, and less favorites. There is no way in hell those races are written with betting in mind. Racing secretaries are failing the bettors. They only care about horsemen, it is obvious.

[Tom]

Racing has no clue who the customers are.
They believe it is the horsemen.

Until the they understand that horsemen are nothing more than the hired help, racing will continue to suck.

High purses are the root of all the evil - too much purse money for too little return. time to slash purses - MAKE them have to run to make a living.

[AndyC]

The very first thing I said was: I think it's just as likely they'd try to put more money in the track owner's pocket by leaving the take high and cheaping out on track expenses and purses, rather than operating closer to non-profit, dropping the take and putting money into the facility.

In case it hadn't struck you, the revenue percentage is THE TAKE. Then you started arguing that nobody would do what I said, despite the fact that there are tracks doing that now. Apparently you disagreed with what you thought your read instead of what I said.


You can't leave the revenue percentage the same and expect the same revenue while offering an degraded product.

Nobody would do what you said until such time that adding capital to a business produces no increase in revenues or increases in value to the assets. Only an idiot would keep funding a losing proposition.

[classhandicapper]

The very first thing I said was: I think it's just as likely they'd try to put more money in the track owner's pocket by leaving the take high and cheaping out on track expenses and purses, rather than operating closer to non-profit, dropping the take and putting money into the facility.



I don't doubt someone might try that, but whether they continued it or not would be dependent on whether that model outperformed some other track that decided to lower take a couple of percent and increase capital spending on the facility.

The problem is not only do we not know the answers to many of these questions, we don't even know all the great ideas some bright people may come up with if they had the opportunity to benefit from them.

That's why I am an advocate of the market making these decisions over the long haul

Lots of very smart people have all sorts of very strong opinions that turn out to be wrong . Others are weighed down by personal agendas and biases.

Think of like a handicapping concept. We all have different ideas, but we find out which are right or wrong by freely betting our views and checking the bottom line at the end.

[classhandicapper]

Small fields are an owners dream, so don't expect much to be done about them.

No truer words were ever uttered. '

When one of my horses is running the first thing I check is the field size to see if I can get 4th or 5th money even if my horse doesn't run his race. I hate when I'm in a 12 horse field. The morning of the race when I check the scratches I want to see everyone else out. :lol:

But of course, it has to be balanced against handle and betting opportunities for players. The trick is finding the balance between making the game attractive enough for horse players so they want to play and owners having enough of a chance holding their own to not abandon purchases and leave horse shortages.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You can't leave the revenue percentage the same and expect the same revenue while offering an degraded product.

Nobody would do what you said until such time that adding capital to a business produces no increase in revenues or increases in value to the assets. Only an idiot would keep funding a losing proposition.

I don't think you are naive. You just want to argue because you can't imagine tracks are already doing exactly what I said. How do I know? I've been to them. Just let me know which tracks you've been to in the last two years so I can compare it to my experience.

I remember once trying to get a hotel chain in to invest in energy efficiency. We had all the numbers. Invest this much and in five years you get your full investment back and your future operating costs are lower. Sounds like a great deal, eh?

First question they asked: How many more customers will I get? Second question: How much more could I charge them?

I didn't have the definitive answers that would have made the sale, because as long as the room was cool in the summer and warm in the winter, the high efficiency HVAC system was completely unseen, and as long as it was working properly there didn't seem to be a compelling reason to change them now to get a savings in five years. Same with the lights and the drapes and the refrigerator in the kitchen

In the same way, the track only wants to make investments in those things that are either going to increase handle or increase the bottom line. Sure, they'll paint but at a number of places only when it gets really noticeable. Change the carpet - maybe next year. And if it's out of sight - maybe in five years. Hence, the reason why the backside at Santa Anita is not what the horsemen would like. They'll spend a lot of money upgrading it some day, the horsemen will be happy (but there won't be more horses stabled), and in itself it will not draw any new customers or increase handle. People don't worry about the backside.

Tracks can plant flowers in the infield, spend money on watering and someone to take care of them, and call themselves the Track of Lakes and Flowers, but again it is unlikely that will generate new bettors or bigger handle. You'll have owners with your attitude, but I guarantee you'll have owners with mine. I've seen them.

I've been to the OTBs in New York City (when they were open). You want to talk about shitholes. But they were packed. Which kind of goes to show you that aesthetic issues didn't seem to bother that group of horseplayers. You know what makes a difference to people at a betting facility? Betting machines that work all the time and enough of them. Decent food and drink. Fairly clean bathrooms that don't smell bad. Ample parking, preferably free. Of course, that assumes they want to be at the track in the first place. On track revenues are less a percentage of total revenues every year at most tracks, and as I've mentioned, if you are in Ohio betting California, facility expenditures are irrelevant. For every track like Santa Anita (that was really on the hook to make the place look good for the Breeder's Cups) you've got a slew of other tracks that are pinching pennies and looking for ways to save a buck by not investing in things that won't increase handle or profits, and that includes some facility improvements.

I mentioned three things: leaving the take high, cheaping out on track expenses and keeping purses as low as they can, and I mentioned it in relation to tracks becoming independent of the government. The discussion is generally moot since we're never going to find out how the new paradigm might work. But based on experiences at various tracks, I have a lot of reason to speculate in that direction.

[thaskalos]

No truer words were ever uttered. '

When one of my horses is running the first thing I check is the field size to see if I can get 4th or 5th money even if my horse doesn't run his race. I hate when I'm in a 12 horse field. The morning of the race when I check the scratches I want to see everyone else out. :lol:

But of course, it has to be balanced against handle and betting opportunities for players. The trick is finding the balance between making the game attractive enough for horse players so they want to play and owners having enough of a chance holding their own to not abandon purchases and leave horse shortages.

How are things ever to get "balanced", when all the owners are like you...always looking for the shortest fields...and hoping that their horses run "unopposed" in the races?

Face it, Classhandicapper...you have joined the "establishment"...and you are now part of the problem, instead of being part of the "solution". You keep talking about the need for "balance"...even as you seek the shortest fields for your own horses.

[whodoyoulike]

... High purses are the root of all the evil - too much purse money for too little return. time to slash purses - MAKE them have to run to make a living.

This is in line with my thinking. There needs to be a desire to be competitive by the participants especially in pro sports..

High purses aren't necessarily evil but the payout shouldn't be to last place in horse racing. I noticed something like 10 years ago, the takeout was raised across the board with the promise of larger and more competitive fields.

Well, that never occurred but what did occur were pay outs to the last place as standard practice.

I don't play Golf but, in pro Golf do they pay out to last place?

Because, I know they do pay out to quite a number of places maybe horse racing is attempting to mimic them.

[whodoyoulike]

No truer words were ever uttered. '

When one of my horses is running the first thing I check is the field size to see if I can get 4th or 5th money even if my horse doesn't run his race. I hate when I'm in a 12 horse field. The morning of the race when I check the scratches I want to see everyone else out. :lol:

But of course, it has to be balanced against handle and betting opportunities for players. The trick is finding the balance between making the game attractive enough for horse players so they want to play and owners having enough of a chance holding their own to not abandon purchases and leave horse shortages.

So, the advocates who have suggested varying the stated purse amount for a given race depending on field sizes are making a very good point.

Because, it's very apparent how owners/trainers feel about larger (more competitive and probably larger handle races) versus smaller (less competition and smaller handles) field sizes.

I hope you realize that the smaller field sizes and probably smaller handles won't cover the related takeout to cover the purses and the portion going to the tracks upkeep.

Then it's just a matter of time how long that can last. Remember everything has a cause and effect.

[AndyC]

.......I remember once trying to get a hotel chain in to invest in energy efficiency. We had all the numbers. Invest this much and in five years you get your full investment back and your future operating costs are lower. Sounds like a great deal, eh?

First question they asked: How many more customers will I get? Second question: How much more could I charge them?

You might be the worst salesman ever if it was such a great deal.


.....In the same way, the track only wants to make investments in those things that are either going to increase handle or increase the bottom line......

Seems like a prudent way to do business. I would add a third reason to spend, to maintain the value of the asset and or prevent a larger expenditure in the future.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You might be the worst salesman ever if it was such a great deal.

I wasn't selling. I was consulting. I got paid regardless of what they did. But it was a good lesson. The first thing anyone spends capital on is something that increases business, and a lot of aesthetics and hidden changes don't increase customers or spending.

It was a good deal. But it's like anything else. Rooftop solar, a 95% efficient furnace, or hybrid autos all will pay off eventually. Whether you see the benefit often depends on the initial outlay and the break even point, and maybe to a bigger degree than people admit, your perception of such things.

I'll tell you another story. When I bought a new house, I had my choice of an 80% efficient or a 95% efficient furnace. Without going into great detail, the "premium" on the higher efficiency furnace was $700. I happened to be in a position to know that the actual cost differential was about $300, including hookup. When I asked about it, they basically said, people who want those kinds of furnaces happily pay the premium, so what the heck, we jack it up.

[elhelmete]

Racing has no clue who the customers are.
They believe it is the horsemen.

Until the they understand that horsemen are nothing more than the hired help, racing will continue to suck.

High purses are the root of all the evil - too much purse money for too little return. time to slash purses - MAKE them have to run to make a living.

They are running. To tracks with better purses, and races that fill.

We need to get off the notion that simplistic notions of the economics of racing are useful. They are not; racing is, as others have posted here, a 3- or 4-legged stool of interdependence.

So in this case...while 'horsemen' might not fit the traditional definition of customer, they really are very much like a customer, and the track's condition book is tantamount to the product. There is no surplus of owners out there so the tracks are in an inferior position. This is, for example, the opposite of the Walmart effect where the retailer can grind the shit out of all their suppliers.

If I'm an owner/trainer on the east coast I can take my business to a half-dozen tracks based on the races written and the purses offered. Witness Monmouth's struggles right now, and the silly battle they're having with Suffolk.

[AndyC]

They are running. To tracks with better purses, and races that fill.

We need to get off the notion that simplistic notions of the economics of racing are useful. They are not; racing is, as others have posted here, a 3- or 4-legged stool of interdependence.

So in this case...while 'horsemen' might not fit the traditional definition of customer, they really are very much like a customer, and the track's condition book is tantamount to the product. There is no surplus of owners out there so the tracks are in an inferior position. This is, for example, the opposite of the Walmart effect where the retailer can grind the shit out of all their suppliers.

If I'm an owner/trainer on the east coast I can take my business to a half-dozen tracks based on the races written and the purses offered. Witness Monmouth's struggles right now, and the silly battle they're having with Suffolk.

What the tracks have is the reverse of Walmart. They horse owners are the supplier grinding the shit out of both the track and the bettor. And unlike Walmart suppliers the horse owners have a vote in how the tracks are run. But even with the strong position held by owners, they have not exactly reaped a financial bonanza. Everybody is just trying to survive.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

[QUOTE= Witness Monmouth's struggles right now, and the silly battle they're having with Suffolk.[/QUOTE]

The battle monmouth has with suffolk may seem silly but its not. They are running six days this meet; July 8, 9, August 5, 6, and September 2, 3. A quick glance at their condition book and they are running the same types of races for almost double the purses as Monmouth. Since they are targeting the same horses that are running every 3-4 weeks that essentially takes them away for the remainder of the monmouth meet unless they run back quicker which is doubtful.

Suffolk has no stabling area, so these horses are shipping in from wherever they are stabled. As it relates to monmouth, they pay workmens for the entire backside. NJ law mandates that they do. Tracks that I am familiar with, the trainers have to pay some if not all of it.

Framed in this context and the struggle they have trying to fill a card as it is, you can see why this is a real issue. Paying workmens comp and offering free stabling only to have the horses you expect to support the program ship out given the current state they are in, its a problem.

[Jeff P]

...We need to get off the notion that simplistic notions of the economics of racing are useful. They are not; racing is, as others have posted here, a 3- or 4-legged stool of interdependence.

So in this case...while 'horsemen' might not fit the traditional definition of customer, they really are very much like a customer, and the track's condition book is tantamount to the product. There is no surplus of owners out there so the tracks are in an inferior position. This is, for example, the opposite of the Walmart effect where the retailer can grind the shit out of all their suppliers...

I submit to you the idea that paying attention to the economics (and getting it right) is more important now than at any point in recent history.

Consider the following:

In California purse money comes from handle -- which in turn comes from HORSEPLAYERS betting into your pools -- and not from any other source.

Your own handle data (California since the advent of 22.68% exacta takeout mandated by SB1072) suggests that bettors are shunning California exacta pools so much so that (from a revenue and purse money generating/business unit perspective) California exacta pools are underperforming NYRA exacta pools by a wide margin.

By burying their heads in the sand and refusing to address this (and other) self inflicted problems -- horsemen are costing themselves significant purse money.


-jp

.

[elhelmete]

I submit to you the idea that paying attention to the economics (and getting it right) is more important now than at any point in recent history.

Consider the following:

In California purse money comes from handle -- which in turn comes from HORSEPLAYERS betting into your pools -- and not from any other source.

Your own handle data (California since the advent of 22.68% exacta takeout mandated by SB1072) suggests that bettors are shunning California exacta pools so much so that (from a revenue and purse money generating/business unit perspective) California exacta pools are underperforming NYRA exacta pools by a wide margin.

By burying their heads in the sand and refusing to address this (and other) self inflicted problems -- horsemen are costing themselves significant purse money.


-jp

.

100% agreed...but when the horsemen aren't forced to run...but get free stabling and the non-stop day-rates from the owners...that obfuscates the definitions of customer and suppliers.

[dilanesp]

I submit to you the idea that paying attention to the economics (and getting it right) is more important now than at any point in recent history.

Consider the following:

In California purse money comes from handle -- which in turn comes from HORSEPLAYERS betting into your pools -- and not from any other source.

Your own handle data (California since the advent of 22.68% exacta takeout mandated by SB1072) suggests that bettors are shunning California exacta pools so much so that (from a revenue and purse money generating/business unit perspective) California exacta pools are underperforming NYRA exacta pools by a wide margin.

By burying their heads in the sand and refusing to address this (and other) self inflicted problems -- horsemen are costing themselves significant purse money.


-jp

.

NYRA exacta pools might be larger because they offer more bettable exactas.

I am not a rocket scientist but exacta bettors might find an 11 horse race at Belmont more attractive than a 6 horse race at Santa Anita.

[Jeff P]

Actually, in the last data sample that I submitted to the CHRB:

Avg field size at Del Mar was 8.78 runners vs. 7.97 at Saratoga.

Link to a previous paceadvantage.com post - here:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1849170&postcount=10

The analysis shows a side by side handle comparison by wager type along with takeout rate for each wager.

Overall, Del Mar handled about 78% as much as Saratoga did.

On WPS wagers, where both tracks have approximate level takeout rates, Del Mar handled 82.76% as much as Saratoga did.

But on Exacta wagers, where Del Mar has a takeout rate of 22.86% and Saratoga has a takeout rate of 18.50%, Del Mar handled just 54.79% as much as Saratoga did.

I found that number stunning and upon learning that an open to the public CHRB Parimutuel Wagering Committee meeting was scheduled to be held at Los Al where the topic of discussion was whether or not the CHRB should consider undertaking a formal economic study of takeout rates and their effect on handle and revenue, made the drive up to Los Al and presented my analysis.

HANDLE PER RACE ANALYSIS DMR 2014 vs. SAR 2014

COL-A COL-B COL-C COL-D COL- E
-----------------------------------------------------------
% RATIO TAKEOUT PCT
WAGER DMR 2014 SAR 2014 DMR/SAR DMR SAR
------ ------------ ------------ ------- ----- -----
WPS 357,191.42 431,591.93 0.8276 15.43 16.00
------ ------------ ------------ ------- ----- -----
EXA 191,623.58 349,769.78 0.5479 22.68 18.50
------ ------------ ------------ ------- ----- -----
QUIN 9,616.63 17,509.86 0.5492 22.68 18.50
------ ------------ ------------ ------- ----- -----
DD 51,382.56 109,866.97 0.4677 20.00 18.50
------ ------------ ------------ ------- ----- -----
TRI 128,401.10 200,302.83 0.6410 23.68 24.00
------ ------------ ------------ ------- ----- -----
P3 90,587.11 96,380.09 0.9399 23.68 24.00
------ ------------ ------------ ------- ----- -----
SUPER 90,214.33 104,983.19 0.8593 23.68 24.00
------ ------------ ------------ ------- ----- -----
P4 309,936.53 428,709.63 0.7230 23.68 24.00
------ ------------ ------------ ------- ----- -----
High5 54,307.78 -NA- -NA- 23.68 24.00
------ ------------ ------------ ------- ----- -----
P5 542,446.00 334,177.73 1.6232 14.00 15.00
------ ------------ ------------ ------- ----- -----
P6 363,049.75 165,065.08 2.1994 23.68 24.00
------ ------------ ------------ ------- ----- -----
OTHER 24,337.28 35,594.83 0.6837 23.68 24.00
------ ------------ ------------ ------- ----- -----
FLDSIZE 8.78 7.97 1.1020
-----------------------------------------------------------


Notes:

1. The above handle summary compares DMR 2014 against SAR 2014 and handle numbers are expressed as handle per race.

2. Column B lists average handle and field size per race for DMR 2014.

3. Column C lists average handle and field size per race for SAR 2014.

4. Column D lists DMR numbers expressed as a percentage of SAR numbers.

5. Column E lists a side by side comparison of takeout rates for DMR and SAR.

6. For WPS, Del Mar and Saratoga have approximate level takeout rates, Del Mar at 15.43% with Saratoga at 16.00 % with Saratoga using Nickel Breakage, DMR handled approx 83% as much as SAR did. (Use this as your baseline.)

7. For EXA, Del Mar handled just 55% as much as Saratoga did. This number is stunning when you consider the differential in takeout rates.

8. For DD, Del Mar handled just 47% as much as Saratoga did. This number is stunning when you consider the "logic" used to justify abandoning Santa Anita's 18% rolling double experiment where DD handle per race was up 24%.

9. I submitted the argument that had EXA takeout at DMR been 18.50% like SAR, EXA handle at DMR would have likely been in line with the WPS baseline of 82.76%.

I also submitted the argument that if this were true EXA handle for the DMR 2014 meet could be estimated as follows:

(EST DMR EXA HANDLE PER RACE) = (SAR EXA HANDLE) x (Baseline)

or (EST DMR EXA HANDLE PER RACE) = (349,769.78) x (0.8276)

or (EST DMR EXA HANDLE PER RACE) = 289,469.47


10. Based on handle projections assuming an 18.5% takeout rate, I submitted the further argument that revenue on Exacta wagers for the DMR 2014 meet could be estimated as follows:

(Revenue Per Race on EST DMR EXA HANDLE PER RACE) = (289,469.47) x (0.185)

or (Revenue Per Race on EST DMR EXA HANDLE PER RACE) = 53,551.85


11. (Revenue Per Race on ACTUAL DMR EXA HANDLE PER RACE) = (191,623.58) x (0.2268)

or (Revenue Per Race on ACTUAL DMR EXA HANDLE PER RACE) = 43,460.23


12. I also submitted the argument that as a result of their 22.68% exacta takeout rate, Del Mar experienced a REVENUE SHORTFALL for Exactas of just over $10k per race calculated as follows:

EXACTA REVENUE SHORTFALL PER RACE = 10,091.62

(or 53,551.62 - 43,460.23)


13. I also submitted the argument that as a result of their 22.68% exacta takeout rate, Del Mar experienced an Exacta REVENUE SHORTFALL for their 2014 MEET of approximately $3.279 MILLION calculated as follows:

Exacta REVENUE SHORTFALL for DMR 2014 MEET= $3.279 MILLION

(or 10,091.62 x 325 exacta races)


14. The numbers suggest 22.68% takeout on 2 horse bets is costing California Racing millions of dollars per year in lost purse money and track revenue.


15. The numbers suggest 22.68% takeout on 2 horse bets has negatively impacted funding for alpha-bet groups such as the CHRB, TOC, CTT, CARMA, Disabled Jockeys Fund, etc.




Link to a write up on the HANA Blog - here:
http://blog.horseplayersassociation.org/2016/08/mid-summer-2016-handle-update-del-mar.html

Two years ago in 2014:

In Win-Place-Show pools where both tracks have approximate level takeout rates:

Del Mar handled 82.76 percent as much as Saratoga did.

In the Exacta pool where Del Mar has a significantly higher takeout rate:

Del Mar handled just 54.79 percent as much as Saratoga did.

The opportunity cost or lost revenue number was about $10,090.00 per exacta pool.

So far this summer in 2016:

In Win-Place-Show pools where both tracks have approximate level takeout rates:

Del Mar is now handling 75.82 percent as much as Saratoga.

In the Exacta pool where Del Mar has a significantly higher takeout rate:

Del Mar is now handling just 47.41 percent as much as Saratoga!

The opportunity cost or lost revenue number is now running about $12,400.00 per exacta pool.

Earth to CHRB...

On second thought, never mind.

Under-performing exacta pools and millions in lost purse money are nothing to be concerned about.



-jp

.

[AndyC]

[QUOTE=Jeff P;2186771]Actually, in the last data sample that I submitted to the CHRB:

Avg field size at Del Mar was 8.78 runners vs. 7.97 at Saratoga.

Link to a previous paceadvantage.com post - here:
http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1849170&postcount=10

How would you explain the difference in trifecta betting? To draw the conclusion that the takeout rate is the primary driver there should not have been such a big difference in the tri.

[Jeff P]

I don't have a good explanation for that Andy.

I would have expected DMR's trifecta numbers to be more in line with their WPS and overall percentage of SAR numbers.

And then there's the pick3 and superfecta pools - where DMR overperformed vs. their WPS and overall percentage of SAR numbers.

How would I explain that?

I don't have a good explanation for that either.

But here's what I do know:

When I look at the overall big picture trend - and if I break DMR vs. SAR numbers out into two distinct categories:

Category #1. Pools where DMR and SAR have approximate level takeout rates (everything other than 2 horse bets)

Category #2. Pools where DMR has a significantly higher takeout than SAR (exacta quinella double)

Over the past two years, expressed as a percentage of DMR vs. Saratoga:

Category #1 comes in at about 76%.

-and-

Category #2 comes in at about 50%.

I think that's more than enough to suggest California's exacta pools are underperforming as a business unit.


-jp

.

[Jeff P]

Ran out of edit time...

Category #1 comes in at about 76%.

-and-

Category #2 comes in at about 50%.

The above should read as follows:

Category #1 comes in at over 80%.

-and-

Category #2 comes in at about 50%.



-jp

.

[AndyC]

I don't have a good explanation for that Andy.

I would have expected DMR's trifecta numbers to be more in line with their WPS and overall percentage of SAR numbers.

And then there's the pick3 and superfecta pools - where DMR overperformed vs. their WPS and overall percentage of SAR numbers.

How would I explain that?

I don't have a good explanation for that either.

But here's what I do know:

When I look at the overall big picture trend - and if I break DMR vs. SAR numbers out into two distinct categories:

Category #1. Pools where DMR and SAR have approximate level takeout rates (everything other than 2 horse bets)

Category #2. Pools where DMR has a significantly higher takeout than SAR (exacta quinella double)

Over the past two years, expressed as a percentage of DMR vs. Saratoga:

Category #1 comes in at about 76%.

-and-

Category #2 comes in at about 50%.

I think that's more than enough to suggest California's exacta pools are underperforming as a business unit.


-jp

.

Do you have any numbers before the rate change? That way it would be easier to determine if the differences were due to betting preferences of the players or if it was attributable to the takeout percentages.

[dilanesp]

I think that taking Del Mar and Saratoga is cherry-picking. Average field size at Santa Anita is well below Del Mar. And Los Al is even worse. Which means the California circuit, overall, has low average field size, and big handle bettors prefer NYRA and bet all their vertical exotics, regardless of takeout advantages.

Run Jeff's analysis using data from all three SoCal tracks and you are going to see this pretty clearly.

California does well in horizontal exotics because we pack our larger field races at the end of race programs, making the pick 6 playable. And then we discount our takeout on one wager, the pick 5, which is on the early races with the smaller fields.

[Jeff P]

Do you have any numbers before the rate change? That way it would be easier to determine if the differences were due to betting preferences of the players or if it was attributable to the takeout percentages.

I have the raw data (in various forms) dating back to 2009.

I'm currently migrating chunks of that data to a sql database as free time allows - and hope to have the project completed later on this year.

Once the project has been completed I should be able to run reports on just about any segment (pool type, track codes, date ranges, race types, field size, purse size, day of week, weather, fast/firm, sloppy/yielding, etc.) imaginable.

That said, I have run a handful of spot checks post SB1072.

For example the early part of the Santa Anita meet (Jan and Feb one year) vs. the corresponding Aqueduct Inner meet for the same dates... and then Santa Anita October vs. Belmont October... and the same meets vs. each other again the following year. Also Los Al Thoroughbred vs. Belmont for the same dates the first summer they ran thoroughbreds at Los Al...

And while I don't have anything close to a complete history:

I have seen enough data to be able to report the following:

The Santa Anita vs. Aqueduct, Santa Anita vs. Belmont, and Los Al Thoroughbred vs. Belmont numbers that I have looked at are similar to the Del Mar vs. Saratoga comparisons that I posted above above.

And it's clear enough (to me) from the numbers I've run that I can state unequivocally that the Del Mar vs. Saratoga numbers that I reported above are no fluke.

Exacta pools at ALL (repeat all) California tracks do appear to be underperforming NYRA exacta pools - and the trend appears to be getting worse over time.

All of that said -- later on this year -- once I have all of the data dating back to 2009 migrated to a sql database --

At that point -- I plan on running California vs. NYRA numbers for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 -- and then presenting those numbers to the CHRB.


-jp

.

[dilanesp]

And it's clear enough (to me) from the numbers I've run that I can state unequivocally that the Del Mar vs. Saratoga numbers that I reported above are no fluke.

I don't doubt one bit that they are no fluke.

But the cherry-picking is in picking the one meet where the California track has a larger field size and using that to then conclude that the handle differences can't relate to field sizes. If you look year round, our field sizes are much smaller, so any rational exacta player would train their fire on NYRA rather than us. And once they do that, they might as well play Saratoga rather than Del Mar because that's the circuit they know.

[AndyC]

I don't doubt one bit that they are no fluke.

But the cherry-picking is in picking the one meet where the California track has a larger field size and using that to then conclude that the handle differences can't relate to field sizes. If you look year round, our field sizes are much smaller, so any rational exacta player would train their fire on NYRA rather than us. And once they do that, they might as well play Saratoga rather than Del Mar because that's the circuit they know.


You could make your argument about any of the bets so why aren't the other bets affected like the exacta? It is far more likely that Jeff's take on the betting is correct than one where exacta bettors find more comfort in betting NYRA tracks even with lower field sizes.

[Tom]

How about his schedule:

First Saturday in May.
Memorial Day
4th of July

At least 4 weeks between each race, still over in relatively the same time frame.

July 4th can be the closing day for Belmont and start Sartoga the next Friday.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

How about his schedule:

First Saturday in May.
Memorial Day
4th of July

At least 4 weeks between each race, still over in relatively the same time frame.

July 4th can be the closing day for Belmont and start Sartoga the next Friday.

And we come full circle. See post #14 in this thread. Although I have to say, now that you've said it, it must be the way to go.

[Jeff P]

I just now started looking at numbers for 2017.

The first meet of the year for California was Santa Anita.

The first meet of the year for NYRA was the Aqueduct Inner.

During 2017 they ran on the AQU Inner from Jan 01 2017 through Mar 26 2017.

Below is what I have (so far) comparing Santa Anita vs. the Aqueduct Inner for those same dates Jan 01 2017 through Mar 26 2017:

-----------------------------------------------------------
HANDLE PER RACE ANALYSIS SAX 2017 vs. AQU Inner 2017

Jan 01 2017 through Mar 26 2017

-----------------------------------------------------------
COL-A COL-B COL-C COL-D COL- E
-----------------------------------------------------------
% RATIO TAKEOUT PCT
WAGER SAX 2017 AQU 2017 SAX/AQU SAX AQU
---------- ---------- ---------- ------- ----- -----
WPS 273,680.62 228,019.17 1.2002 15.43 16.00
---------- ---------- ---------- ------- ----- -----
EXA 143,239.33 167,717.20 0.8541 22.68 18.50
---------- ---------- ---------- ------- ----- -----
Tot Handle 840,901.23 720,107.17 1.1678 ?? ??
---------- ---------- ---------- ------- ----- -----
Races 403 381 1.0578
---------- ---------- ---------- ------- ----- -----
Field size 7.42 7.34 1.0109
-----------------------------------------------------------

Notes:

1. The above handle summary compares Santa Anita 2017 vs. the Aqueduct Inner 2017 and handle numbers are expressed as handle per race.

2. Column B lists average handle and field size per race for Santa Anita.

3. Column C lists average handle and field size per race for Aqueduct.

4. Column D lists Santa Anita numbers expressed as a percentage of Aqueduct numbers.

5. Column E lists a side by side comparison of takeout rates for Santa Anita and Aqueduct.

6. For WPS, Santa Anita and Aqueduct have approximate level takeout rates, SAX at 15.43% with AQU at 16.00 % with AQU using Nickel Breakage, SAX handled approx 120% as much as AQU did. (Use this as your baseline.)

7. For EXA, Santa Anita handled just 85% as much as AQU did. This number is stunning when you consider the differential in takeout rates and the fact that SAX handled approx 1.20 times as much as AQU did for WPS where both tracks had approximate level takeout rates and approximate level avg field size.

8. Field size: Santa Anita actually had slightly bigger field size than Aqueduct: 7.42 vs. 7.34

9. Other wagers, tri, super, p3, p4, p5, p6, dd, high5, etc. not (yet) shown. This isn't intentional on my part. It's because the routine I wrote that generates the report hasn't yet been programmed to pull numbers for those other pools from the database. This is something I'll get to. And once I do, I'll be happy to post a more complete picture.


Recap:

Santa Anita and Aqueduct both had approximate level takeout rates for WPS and the approximate level avg field size.

Santa Anita handled 1.20 times as much as Aqueduct in WPS pools.

Santa Anita's Exacta Takeout (22.68%) is 1.2259 times higher than Aqueduct's Exacta Takeout (18.50%)

Santa Anita only handled 0.8541 times as much as Aqueduct in the Exacta pools.


In my opinion:

If Santa Anita and Aqueduct had approximate level takeout for Exactas like they did for WPS:

Given that both tracks had approximate level avg field size:

And given what I know about horseplayer behavior - how much most of us like the exacta:

I'm thinking Santa Anita's Exacta handle would have been 1.20 times as much as Aqueduct's exacta handle -- or at least very close to that -- like it was for WPS.

I'm also thinking the above numbers (along with all of the other numbers I've seen) really do suggest Santa Anita's exacta takeout is out of line -- and that 22.68% exacta takeout is largely (but not wholly) responsible for getting bettors to shun California exacta pools...

Which in turn has the effect of taking what is arguably the most popular bet in all of thoroughbred horse racing -- and for California -- turning the Exacta into an underperforming business unit.



-jp

.

[Tom]

And we come full circle. See post #14 in this thread. Although I have to say, now that you've said it, it must be the way to go.
That was long time ago!

I was listening to Privman on ATR talk about it this morning and kind of changed my mind on the whole thing a bit.

Hey, great minds think alike....three days a year anyway!

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Hey, great minds think alike....three days a year anyway!

I almost said that!

[Track Phantom]

1. Raise the purse of the Derby, Preakness, Belmont

2. Offer an X% bonus to anyone finishing 1st through 5th in the Preakness that ran in the Derby.

3. Offer an X% bonus to anyone finishing 1st through 5th in the Belmont that ran in either the Derby or Preakness (debatable if this one is necessary).

4. Offer an XXX% bonus to anyone finishing 1st through 5th in the Belmont that ran in both the Derby and Preakness.

[Cholly]

How about his schedule:

First Saturday in May.
Memorial Day
4th of July

At least 4 weeks between each race, still over in relatively the same time frame.

July 4th can be the closing day for Belmont and start Sartoga the next Friday.

seems to be more momentum building for changes such as this. 2019 might be the year it all gets scrambled. The current TV contract with NBC expires after 2018, and Belmont likely closes after the 2018 running for renovations that could require 18-24 months.

Are there legal issues that would keep Stronach from preemptively moving The Preakness to Laurel on 4th of July in 2019?

[MonmouthParkJoe]

seems to be more momentum building for changes such as this. 2019 might be the year it all gets scrambled. The current TV contract with NBC expires after 2018, and Belmont likely closes after the 2018 running for renovations that could require 18-24 months.

Are there legal issues that would keep Stronach from preemptively moving The Preakness to Laurel on 4th of July in 2019?


I recall reading somewhere that there was a law passed in 1987 that would prohibit the movement of the preakness out of baltimore with the only exception being some sort of emergency.

[classhandicapper]

How are things ever to get "balanced", when all the owners are like you...always looking for the shortest fields...and hoping that their horses run "unopposed" in the races?

Face it, Classhandicapper...you have joined the "establishment"...and you are now part of the problem, instead of being part of the "solution". You keep talking about the need for "balance"...even as you seek the shortest fields for your own horses.


As far as I know, owners aren't controlling or even influencing field sizes. It's a matter of what you are rooting for depending on where your participation is.

If one of my horses is running I want a 4 horse field.

If I am gambling I want a 10-12 horse field.

I root for different things, but I have zero power over anything. At this stage I am a nobody as an owner. I am also not aware of major owners having that power either.

Those in charge of the game have to understand those competing interests and try to keep the field sizes in an area that compromises between horse players looking for value and owners trying to pay trainer and vet bills. I'm going to guess they are already fully aware of that.

I'm not saying this is the right idea. I may be missing something. But several have suggested this.

Maybe purse sizes need to be adjusted by field size. If the field is very small then maybe the purse should be smaller and maybe you only pay down to 3rd or 4th. If the field is larger maybe the purse should be larger and maybe pay down a decent percent to 6th or 7th instead of 5th.

At least that would align owner rooting interests with gambling interests better.

[Robert Fischer]

Are there legal issues that would keep Stronach from preemptively moving The Preakness to Laurel on 4th of July in 2019?

at that rate, just rename the Haskell to 'Preakness'

and then run the 'Belmont Stakes' 1 1⁄4 miles last Saturday in August at Saratoga. :lol:

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
If one of my horses is running I want a 4 horse field.

...

Not me. Unless I have the fastest horse and the smartest rider.

[dilanesp]

I recall reading somewhere that there was a law passed in 1987 that would prohibit the movement of the preakness out of baltimore with the only exception being some sort of emergency.

That law is totally invalid and unenforceable. The Preakness is a trademark. States and cities have zero power to restrict an owner's use of a federal trademark. Stronach can run a race anywhere he wants and call it the Preakness. The politicians aren't just grandstanding, they are clubhousing and turfclubbing too.