Field Sizes at Bay Meadows

[levinmpa]

Here we go again with the start of the regular Bay Meadows meeting and only 1 race on the card with more than 7 betting interests. Two 5 horse, and two 6 horse fields on an 8 race card. The just completed Northern California Fair Circuit, with the exception of Bay Meadows Fair, had pretty good field sizes. They weren't plagued by what we see at Bay Meadows on a daily basis.

Here is what I don't understand. If Bay Meadows draws from the same pool of horses that the Fairs draw from, why are the field sizes so short? Is the Racing Secretary writing the wrong kinds of races or do the horseman not want to run there? I realize Bay Meadows probably thinks of themselves as a "major" track, but the fact is, they no longer are. I grew up in the Bay Area, and the quality of racing is a shadow of what it was 20 years ago. If they need to write more "4000 claiming non winners of a race in 6 months" to get a full field, I don't understand why they don't. The only races that seem to get decent field sizes are the cheap Maiden Claimers. If Pleasanton, Solano and Santa Rosa can have full fields, I don't understand why Bay Meadows can't. Please explain.

There was a time that I liked to play Bay Meadows and Golden Gate, but when I see the size of the fields now, I don't even bother downloading the PPs.

[ponyplayerdotca]

...the horsemen don't want to run their creaky old horses and not get paid...ever. The bills need to be paid regardless, and if the horse isn't bringing in any money each time it races, then....

Since only the top 5 places pay off purse winnings to connections, you'll only see 5-6 horses on the minor circuit in California. It has plagued Bay Meadows and Golden Gate Fields in recent years.

Owners/trainers want to get paid every time they enter a horse. If they only need to beat one other opponent to achieve 5th purse money, then that's how they'll do it. Owners of the lesser horses that fit these low end conditions make their money hitting the board or purse spots if their horse is perpetually going to lose. Doesn't matter if their horse loses by 20 or more lengths. It only matters if their horse finishes 5th or better, and gets paid SOMETHING.

The reason maiden claimers always get filled is that every owner, big or small, has a handful of horses that have never won, and won't ever. So, there's no shortage of aging rejects or family farm pets to fill these races.

Until the rules change about minimum 8-horse entries to fill a race, or pay purse money in descending values to the entire field, you'll never get more than 5 or 6 horse fields at many minor tracks.

The horseman want to get paid everytime they race.

[levinmpa]

So the rules at Bay Meadows are different than the rules on the Fair Circuit or in So. Cal? When did this all change? Who sets these rules, the individual track or the CHRB?

Thanks

[rrbauer]

...the horsemen don't want to run their creaky old horses and not get paid...ever. The bills need to be paid regardless, and if the horse isn't bringing in any money each time it races, then....

Since only the top 5 places pay off purse winnings to connections, you'll only see 5-6 horses on the minor circuit in California. It has plagued Bay Meadows and Golden Gate Fields in recent years.

Owners/trainers want to get paid every time they enter a horse. If they only need to beat one other opponent to achieve 5th purse money, then that's how they'll do it. Owners of the lesser horses that fit these low end conditions make their money hitting the board or purse spots if their horse is perpetually going to lose. Doesn't matter if their horse loses by 20 or more lengths. It only matters if their horse finishes 5th or better, and gets paid SOMETHING.

The reason maiden claimers always get filled is that every owner, big or small, has a handful of horses that have never won, and won't ever. So, there's no shortage of aging rejects or family farm pets to fill these races.

Until the rules change about minimum 8-horse entries to fill a race, or pay purse money in descending values to the entire field, you'll never get more than 5 or 6 horse fields at many minor tracks.

The horseman want to get paid everytime they race.

Well, in California, they get paid everytime they race. It's called an "appearance fee" and it's paid to all horses who finish below the threshhold of purse money payments. The "appearance fee" is funded from the workers comp relief that was instituted a couple years ago by raising the takeout on exotic bets by 1/2 percent. So basically your post is full of swamp gas.

[ponyplayerdotca]

I know they get a few peanuts for just racing at all, but how much of a living can you make getting paid $300 a race when the feed bills alone between races are over twice that alone?

Ease off with the "swamp gas" comments too. I said in my opinion at the start.

That is my belief as to why there are perpetually small fields (most noticeably at minor tracks).

Note that even in a $1 million stakes race like the Travers this weekend, there is a mere 7-horse field. Horsemen games continue....I can't run against Street Sense, so I'll just run somewhere else. So the fan is left with one star runner, and a mediocre supporting crew who don't look like they have a chance against him.

You'd think $1 million in purse money would be sufficient to attract a larger field, no? Not with the way things are in horse racing these days.

Find a spot, maximize the money you can win, bettors be damned.

[kenwoodallpromos]

As far as I know, the 5 regular TBred Ca tracks do not run anything but Tbreds, unlike the fairs. Often the fairs have only 5 or so races for TBreds and can fill them better.
As far as I am concerned, BM or wherever can run some mule or Arabian races!

[levinmpa]

As far as I know, the 5 regular TBred Ca tracks do not run anything but Tbreds, unlike the fairs. Often the fairs have only 5 or so races for TBreds and can fill them better.
As far as I am concerned, BM or wherever can run some mule or Arabian races!

True, the 5 major tracks do not run anything but Tbred.

True, the fairs do run some other breeds. Quarterhorses, Arabians, and Mules, but they always card at least 8 Tbred races. On a typical 10 race weekday fair card, they card 8 Tbred, and 2 races of other breeds. Not every Tbred race had the maximum 10 entrants, but they did not have many 5 and 6 horse fields like Bay Meadows. That's what I don't get. Bay Meadows is carding as many Tbred races as the fair tracks, but it's like the horse population disappears when they open.

[rrbauer]

I know they get a few peanuts for just racing at all, but how much of a living can you make getting paid $300 a race when the feed bills alone between races are over twice that alone?

Ease off with the "swamp gas" comments too. I said in my opinion at the start.

That is my belief as to why there are perpetually small fields (most noticeably at minor tracks).

Note that even in a $1 million stakes race like the Travers this weekend, there is a mere 7-horse field. Horsemen games continue....I can't run against Street Sense, so I'll just run somewhere else. So the fan is left with one star runner, and a mediocre supporting crew who don't look like they have a chance against him.

You'd think $1 million in purse money would be sufficient to attract a larger field, no? Not with the way things are in horse racing these days.

Find a spot, maximize the money you can win, bettors be damned.

80% of the horses running do not pay their way. 5-horse fields or otherwise. So, going in, any owner with half-a-brain has to realize that the deck is stacked against him and that the game will probably require out-of-pocket money to keep going. Bay Meadows runs 5-horse fields because there are enough bettors who will support that product via the pari-mutuel takeout process. Stop supporting inferior products and high takeout and the inefficient operators will either reduce their racing days to get more horses entered per day; or, get subsidy relief from the state either directly or via the slot-machine monster; or, go out of business.

Owners are not ducking races like the Travers with Million-dollar pots because they are concerned with their feed bills or worried about the bettors. Why is it a "game" to find another high-purse event to run in if you don't like your chances in a race? That sounds like good business to me.

As to the appearence fees in Calif ($300 in NoCal, $400 in SoCal) sometimes the purse money for 5th-place finishes in cheap races isn't much different from that. There may be collusion among owners/trainers to keep field sizes low at Bay Meadows, but if that's the case, from a business perspective as an owner, then I wouldn't see keeping my horse in the barn as a way to make me any money. And, I know I'm getting a training bill whether I run or not.

[ponyplayerdotca]

rrbauer,

Thank you for that reply. Very detailed and insightful. I appreciate your time and effort to explain it more fully.

As a cynic, the two most disheartening aspects of your reply, although completely correct, are:

1) "...subsidy relief from the state directly or via the slot-machine monster"

That has kept many tracks in business when business results would have otherwised put them out of business. I firmly believe that for progress to take place, some businesses have to go "out of business" if they can't attract an audience (like a broadway play staying open or closing). Slot machines have nothing to do with horse racing, but the industry has grabbed that as a savior. It's nothing more than a money grab that offers nothing to the sport. Where are all those takeout reductions that were promised in exchange for a slots licence? Very few have materialized.

2) "Why is it a "game" to find another high-purse event to run in if you don't like your chances in a race? That sounds like good business to me."

You're right. It's excellent business. The connections should be commended for their practice of optimizing profits by exploiting weaknesses in their competition.

To them, it's just a business. To the CRW players, it's just a business. To those who make their living from horseplaying, it's just a business.

The problem is that it's also supposed to be a sport.

In the NFL, NASCAR, etc. they all know it's a business. I know it's a business. It's all about the money. But at some point, the best of the best have to earn the right to be called a champion.

If STREET SENSE wins the Travers this weekend, the sport will promote him as "TRAVERS CHAMPION". History won't show that he faced none of the top 5-10 opponents he could have faced because they all decided to, as you say it, "find another high-purse event to run in".

In the NFL, NASCAR, eventually you have to defeat the quality talent that surrounds you because the setup is in place to do so (NFL strength of scheudule policy tries to ensure that anyway).

In the NFL, a lot of coaches may not "like their chances" in a given game. But they still have to play it.

In horse racing, you NEVER "HAVE" to do anything. You never have to run against quality talent if you don't want to. There's no system in place to schedule the best of the best throughout the season, giving the audience any kind of attachment to the sport.

The Breeders' Cup and the Dubai World Cup only attract the attention and competition they do because of the large amounts of purse money offered. It still doesn't guarantee the best of the sport WILL attend.

The origin of this entire sport was that two men who owned a horse wanted to see which had the better and bet on it. That's gone from the sport today. That's all.

Once again, thank you for your insight. It is appreciated. I just wish their was a horse racing "schedule" like other sports to ensure competition, not avoid it.:ThmbUp:

[horses721]

Now you know why Russel Baze is the all time win leader. He is the best rider in an area with small fields. Pincay would blow his numbers away if he ran at the same cheap level for as long as Baze has. THen again, I guess that is for another discussion

[levinmpa]

Now you know why Russel Baze is the all time win leader. He is the best rider in an area with small fields. Pincay would blow his numbers away if he ran at the same cheap level for as long as Baze has. THen again, I guess that is for another discussion

It wasn't always this way in Northern Cal. Baze has been around since the early 80's. The game was different then. The northern tracks didn't have quite the caliber of horse that the tracks down South had, but there wasn't the huge gap that exists now. From a handle standpoint, only NYRA, So. Cal, and the Winter tracks in So. Florida had bigger handles than BM & GG had. I don't know where they stand now handlewise.

I appreciate all the feedback in this thread, although I still don't have a clearcut answer for the field size problem. It's all the same owners, trainers, and jockeys that compete on the Fair Circuit, so why the discrepancy in field size? If you own or train a horse and ran him on the Fair Circuit, why not run the horse at BM?

[rrbauer]

It wasn't always this way in Northern Cal. Baze has been around since the early 80's. The game was different then.

Comment:
Right. Back then it was Baze and Hansen.
Now it's just Baze.

I think that twenty-five catostrophic breakdowns at the last Bay Meadows' meet might have something to do with the continued decline in entries there. Out of curiousity how do the races (claiming price levels, state-bred restrictions etc.) that are written for the fair circuit differ from the races that are being written for the current BM meet?


As ponyplayerdotca points out there is a time when the remedy for poor-product presentation is to go out of business. With Dixon Downs out of the picture and Bay Meadows unlikely to get another reprieve from the CHRB it looks like what's left in NoCal is Golden Gate. And, the way Stronach is talking (selling off assets) that property's use as a race track might have numbered days as well.