PDA

View Full Version : Can Someone Post This?


toetoe
07-28-2007, 04:31 PM
Great letter to the editor in Sunday's DRF, from Mr. James Mosher of Newport, R.I. Of course, I believe everything I read, but this guy's argument sounds pretty good. :ThmbUp:

bigmack
07-28-2007, 04:40 PM
There ya go 2Toes:

With all due respect to the late Michael Shagan (whose career in horse racing and involvement with the Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 were remembered in Stan Bergstein's July 26 column, "Shagan was a man ahead of his time"), I beg to differ about the legislation he was instrumental in creating. Is it a coincidence that the decline of horse racing's fan base started about the time that the Interstate Horse Racing Act went into effect? No, the two are very much related.

That legislation gave local horsemen's unions (often packed with protectionists) de-facto veto power over simulcasting, racing's biggest growth area. They got this power even though these unions, in most cases, do not own the tracks and pay a minority of the expenses to put on live races.

Racetrack owners have lost control of their product. The knee-jerk protectionism of these unions has caused horse racing mostly to disappear from mainstream television, beginning a long erosion of the sport's fan base. Horse racing, kind of like comic books, has gone from a mainstream sport to a cult following, little written or talked about in the mainstream media, except for the Triple Crown.

This needs to change. The power of these unions must be curbed in order for horse racing to return to its status as a major sport. Track executives must have authority to send the product to wherever it is likely to generate an audience for horse racing (like in sports bars such as Hooters) without horsemen threatening the track's business because of protests about where "their" (as horsemen's false claim of ownership would have it) television broadcast is going.

Horsemen should not feel threatened. Every race seen is a free ad for racing.

The National Thoroughbred Racing Association has foolishly endorsed the standing law. This must change. To leave the situation as is would be akin to giving the United Auto Workers power to tell General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler where they can sell cars. Until horsemen's unions begin paying a majority of the expenses to put on live races, they shouldn't have control of the product.

James Mosher - Newport, R.I.

toetoe
07-28-2007, 05:11 PM
Many thanks, sir. (:Bowing emoticon.)

trying2win
07-28-2007, 05:28 PM
Thank you for posting that letter. I think it answers some of my questions in another thread in this forum. The person who sent that letter to the DRF is 'RIGHT ON THE MONEY!' in my opinion. :ThmbUp:

The letter appears to reveal some of the horsemens true colors. I can see their concerns about tracks sending their signals to offshore non-parimutuel outfits, but not legitmate onshore ADWS. I think the horsemen should get modern and rethink their 'poverty consciousness' attitudes and allow more legal ADWS to do business with the tracks. Or, like the letter suggests, put the power and decision about simulcasting back into the hands of the track owners.

How many times do the horsemen need to be reminded....'IT'S THE CUSTOMERS THAT PAY THE BILLS...NOT THE HORSEMEN OR THE TRACK OWNERS!."


T2W

Horsefan
07-28-2007, 07:46 PM
And here I have been wondering why I can see people playing cards on two channels, women's softball, hobby fishing, bowling but little or no horseracing. Now that I am getting interested it seems like it's all going away:(

kenwoodallpromos
07-28-2007, 09:42 PM
Maybe I am reading the wrong "Interstate Horse Racing Act of 1978 ", but I saw no mention of a "union", just "horseman's group".
Do some "horseman's group(s)" consist of paid employees? I thought they consisted of independent owners and independent trainers, none of which are paid employees of the tracks? And I thought that regardless of who owns the tracks (corporations, non-profits, individuals, or in Ca Fairs cases, the state), the owners' groups usually ran the meets.
Upon reading this Act, I actually thought 1 purpose of it would have been to PREVENT the owners from feeling like they have to unionize, and to make sure track owners have to give consent in the agreements.

kenwoodallpromos
07-28-2007, 09:52 PM
"said agreement by the horsemen’s group may not be withdrawn or varied except in the regular contractual process;"
That means that the so-called "horseman's union" is banned from pulling out of a simulcasting deal and going on strike against the track (defined in the act as a racing association who runs the meet).