A little help

[machine]

I know: you should never ask a question as your first post on a bulletin board.
But you guys have proven that you are a group not to be fooled with so I've come here looking for your help.
The AGSC Should Do Something...Anything (http://agscdosomething.blogspot.com/) (http://agscdosomething.blogspot.com/)

My cause is that the AGSC is not helping our sport with the current way the Graded Stakes are set up. I have my ideas of what the AGSC could do (I write the Handride Blog part of the Thoroughbred Bloggers Alliance), and I'm sure you do too, but again that's not what the letter is about. It's just about being fed up with Gr I horses ducking, dodging, and going on the shelf to protect their reputation. Please give the letter a look and leave a positive comment.

Thanks
Patrick

[machine]

I'm sending the email out to the members of the AGSC today. Would you rather have the talking heads at the NTRA tell you what the best stakes are w/ their win and you're in program that allows 1 win horses to take a shot at the biggest awards. Or would you rather have a congress of industries (breeders, tracks, and owners) tell you what the best stakes are? The current situation w/ the AGSC is baffling at best, but let's encourage them to do something right. Please click the link and leave a positive message.

http://agscdosomething.blogspot.com/ (http://agscdosomething.blogspot.com/)

[Greyfox]

I don't see how you can make connections run their steeds if they don't want to. But your idea has definite merit to be explored further.
As I read what you're saying is, a horse gets a G1 win. That puts it in pretty good stead down the road for the breeding shed. So owners aren't putting their charges out until Breeders Cup time.
What I see you as proposing is getting away from the standard evaluation of a runner by it's G1 wins, and putting more emphasis on the accumulated point standing over it's career. That would mean that instead of saying a runner won 2 G1 races and 1 G2, and 1 G3 it might have a value of 55 Merit Earned Points.
eg. G1 Race = 20 G2 Race 10 G3 Race = 5.
Whereas another runner might have 35 points. Is that where you are going?
If so it's an idea worth exploring although it might take years to get buy in.

[jotb]

I know: you should never ask a question as your first post on a bulletin board.
But you guys have proven that you are a group not to be fooled with so I've come here looking for your help.
The AGSC Should Do Something...Anything (http://agscdosomething.blogspot.com/) (http://agscdosomething.blogspot.com/)

My cause is that the AGSC is not helping our sport with the current way the Graded Stakes are set up. I have my ideas of what the AGSC could do (I write the Handride Blog part of the Thoroughbred Bloggers Alliance), and I'm sure you do too, but again that's not what the letter is about. It's just about being fed up with Gr I horses ducking, dodging, and going on the shelf to protect their reputation. Please give the letter a look and leave a positive comment.

Thanks
Patrick

I just read what you wrote here and didn't go any further to read about your cause but I have to take it, that you are not a racehorse owner. Ducking and dodging in Graded races has been going on for long time. To my recollection War Admiral's owner dodged Seabiscuit for some time.

[kenwoodallpromos]

The 1 wiin and you're in is not to help horses have shorter careers; it is to boost interest in racing after the Belmont and the Del Mar and Saratoga meets. Last year the only horse on the public's mind was a TC horse whose career ended in the Preakness. With the win and you're in it gives recognition to other horses besides Smarty Jones and Afleet Alex.
Secretariat was a great horse, but he has not run since the 1970's. And with the Belmont winner this year not showing up in a race shortly thereafter and DC not showing up last out, I see no problem with the fickle racing fan and general public getting on board with the last race winner. and it makes every last race very important, which is how many bettors think anyway!
Besides, I thought carreer earnings meant something to breeders and buyers?

[machine]

Ken Wood, W&YI does what you are saying and it also allows horses to win one race and sit on the shelf and cherry pick where they run. Was War Admiral dodging Seabiscuit good for the sport?

I'm not an owner, but this really would help them long term. What I'm for is changing what this sport deems as prestige (2 or 3 dominating races over any kind of field suspect or not)

I want it to be more difficult to retire a Gr I winner who's done nothing else. I'm thinking Bandini, Friends Lake, High Fly, and all the other horses who have the ability to go to the shed and put on their catelogue page Gr I winner.

I didn't want to put a specific idea in the letter because I'm not connected with the industry as you say. However, how wouldn't this work:

AGSC scraps I, II, III's and just gives a number to each race. BC is worth 1000, KD, 750, Haskell 300, Norfolk 100, Flower Bowl 420, whatever they come up with (they currently do this, but then regroup all the races into the 3 we see). Then they say winner gets 100%, 2nd gets 60%, 3rd gets 40%, also ran gets 15%, whatever. Now horses can still retire off the backs of prestigious wins like the classics, however buyers might start to look for a Gr I winner who scored in the top 10 of his group, or a Gr I winner with points across the different divisions. The Buyers want a horse who compiles wins not just a one trick pony.

On top of that standings draw in the casual viewer (W&YI proves that casual fans just need a story to follow) who may or may start wagering either way their eyes are worth money.

Racing has a terrible image that is untrue (single, loners with low income and no college education ntra 2004? report) that keeps advertisers away, plus no one likes to sponsor gambling (Hell Vegas would rather advertise hookers and loose morals than the slots "what happens in vegas stays in vegas). However, the truth is the exact opposite horse fans are family, uppermiddle class, who have education, if all of sudden the sport focused on the sport (rather than the gambling) advertisers would follow. Then you'd be able to have your $5million grade I's.

As it currently stands I bet most tracks could lower their purses and you'd still ahve the same type field show up. These trainers and owners aren't chasing paychecks, they are chasing prestige, and my site is about redifining the paradigm of prestige in this sport.

Finally, what's the big deal about signing it. Gary West did, and left a great comment (that I disagree with totally), but that's the point, just be heard!

[russowen77]

i understand the need to promote the sport and I agree. However, at a certain level horseman are at odds with the betting public and that means no simple solutions without money to me.

As bettors horsemen sure do feel for you as everyone loves to see full fields in big races. That is not what keeps racing alive however. Without the lower levels one would not have the tracks to watch the big races and there is the rub. Bettors want their horses to wps or however they bet them. However every day at the track a couple of folks per race are normally real happy to see thier charge get barn money. They pay to fifth place most races. It is a big difference in attitude imo.

Few buisness's I am aware of would be forced to use their resources in a way in which they do not believe to be possible. Transporting the top horses is not cheap by any means. I can't see any legislation being fair without some form of pre-race compensation.

I would like to point out that we are talking about bloody throughbreds here. I have never cast eyes on a steady one in my life. Ever. About the only line left is the Darley so they are all inheirently inbreed and the nicest can go ballistic over almost nothing. This is a multi sided issue for sure in my eyes.

[kenwoodallpromos]

It was the year the movie came out! Why do you think the newpapers were all following the rivalry so long before tyhey ever ran? Because of the dodging! Besides, I think in the movie Howard refused to run Seabiscuit on an off-track.
But that was the 1930's before TV sports.
You want to force connections to enter races? The way I see it, you should be upset with the tracks that run hard and the trainers and breeders that drug up the horses. The main reason I hear for short careers is they do not want to risk injuring the horse and screw up the $40,000.00+ stud fees. I'm about lowering racehorse injuries, which will keep many running longer and give the big shots less excuse for early retirement. If I had a big shot horse just the last 2 Preakness programs would give me reasons to retire them early! Now Iguess the excuse will not be the legs or the ankles but the lungs sucking up Polydust!!OL!! I think W&YI should be expanded to include all year and big races in foreign countries.
I have no problem with winners racing in the BC- the biggest KY Derby tirade the last few years was that Giacomo got in based on earnings instead of winning a graded stakes. I was never able to convince some that he ran even quarters through most of his career, so you and I are in the minority giving horses credit for losing. The fans want to see winners in the BC. Heck, they haven't even held the 1st W&YI BC yet!!!
I just read your "petition"- I though racing always got attention one race at a time? If you want public interest IMO racing needs to highlight trainers and jockeys more than then horses.