Kentucky Horsemen File Response

[Cangamble]

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080524/BUSINESS/805240445

They are asking for a halt in the purse cuts as well.

[NoCal Boy]

Go to PACER system and the filings are very interesting. There is a specific provision in Section 4E of the 2006 KY HBPA contract with CDI that states in effect all wagers made through a CDI majority owned electronic wagering system (e.g. Twinspires) be deemed to have been made at Churchill Downs and/or Trackside thus the horsemen get their cut as if it was made there.

I suspect a settlement is not in the too distant future as this will get messy for CDI and is hardly a slam dunk in any manner for CDI. In fact the opposite might very well be true if this section 4E is what it appears to be on its face.

[DeanT]

One quote from the track is key on this:

Churchill argues that the horsemen's formula makes advance-deposit wagering systems -- the sport's major growth area -- unprofitable.

Look at what private ADW's have given us since they started:

** rewards programs, including free PP's, or free info like Thorograph, or Ian with Woodside.

** Cash rebates to lower effective takeout

** New betting plaforms that make the other guy work harder for us

** Able to bet via mobile phone et al

Think before, when the tracks and horseman distributed the signal. What did players get? Nothing.

That is what we will get if they are allowed to charge track prices for a new delivery mechanism over the internet. Nothing.

I was not quick to congratulate Ian on getting the Lousiana deal done. Why? Because it was inflationary to players. It will only get worse, imo.

[sjk]

The current economics are currently also getting us a lot of 5 and 6 horse fields presumably because many horsemen are throwing in the towel.

[DJofSD]

DeanT - all good points.

What galls me is the horsemen want more money but offer the bettors nothing new. It seems to me it's the same-old, same-old. Same lies, same lack of willingness to clean up the game, fear of technology.

[DeanT]

That's the problem we all should have with it. DJ. The thing that is apalling to me is that if they succeed they will cause lower handles. And that is the last thing we need. Who wants smaller pools, whether you are a bettor, or a track, or a horseman? It means less revenue in the long run. Don't we want more people playing, attracted to racing and growing the pie?

I think the horsemen have not thought this through, and I see no one trying to set them straight, other than the Conley article on Bloodhorse.

[rrbauer]

From the article:
"Under the horsemen's interpretation, a bet placed anywhere -- including out of state -- on Churchill Downs' races through TwinSpires.com must have the same percentage of money deposited in an account for purses as if the bettor were physically at the track, McSwain said.

In addition, the purse account should get the same amount from a bet made anywhere through TwinSpires.com on any racetrack for which Churchill is accepting simulcast wagering during its live meet, he argues."

Basically, it's the "source market fee" argument in a different package. Only now, it's the destination market.

[happy1]

Bob Reeves from the Ohio horsemans group and THG has always wanted OTBs from any state or ATW distributions just like they are on-track.

Obviously he is in here for the big one time pay out if the THG wins, then I believe we will never here from him again. On the street they call this a weasel, in business they call this a consultant.

It's a sad day, this will set back ADWs at least 5 years maybe 10. Or if every one plays off shore it may be gone forever. Time to move on to something new...

[NoCal Boy]

Section 4E of the 2006 KYHBPA contract with Churchill Downs states it very clearly.

[lamboguy]

i think that the fine people that manage racetracks should take lessons in being "customer first" benefits. the man has a lot of patience and knows what he is doing. his hard efforts are in his own small way keeping this messed up game alive.

last night he had a problem with his website and he was dead tired, instead of waiting until morning, he stayed up all night and fixed the problem while answering phone calls from people that couldn't use his platform.

this guy is on your side 110%, and even if you don't like his limited menue, you should give his company your business whenever you can. in my opinion if he gets enough business he will have leverage with the venues that provide the entertainment. also he is on the brink of bringing an almost complete lineup of racetracks. his platform is the best in the business to bet on.

if you have dealt with him and like him, you should tell 3 people how good his company is!

[Kelso]

The current economics are currently also getting us a lot of 5 and 6 horse fields presumably because many horsemen are throwing in the towel.Baloney! Smaller fields vastly increase owners' chances of taking home a piece of the purse. Onwers' have no incentive, whatsoever, to support larger fields.

[beenacoach]

Larger fields come from the purses being large enough for horsmen to make money running their horses. If the purse structure is such that an owner feels he can make money (or in many cases even break even) he will run his horses and even breed/buy more in order to race them. More purse money means more owners chasing after it and that would mean bigger fields.

There is no collusion. Horse owners are not sitting around talking about creating smaller fields to have a better chance of running in the money.

Like it or not the average horse owner would be happy as heck to have his horses just pay their own way.

[trigger]

Go to PACER system and the filings are very interesting. There is a specific provision in Section 4E of the 2006 KY HBPA contract with CDI that states in effect all wagers made through a CDI majority owned electronic wagering system (e.g. Twinspires) be deemed to have been made at Churchill Downs and/or Trackside thus the horsemen get their cut as if it was made there.

I suspect a settlement is not in the too distant future as this will get messy for CDI and is hardly a slam dunk in any manner for CDI. In fact the opposite might very well be true if this section 4E is what it appears to be on its face.

Couple of questions:
I read somewhere that the track and the horsemen "settle up" the purse account at the end of each meet ..... the "settling up" process compares what the actual purse account per the contract should have been compared to the estimates made by the track during the meet. If this is so, why didn't the horsemen bring up Section E relative to 2007 Twinspires activities during this settling up process after Churchill's meets in 2007?

Also, the Bloodhorse article cited a year over year reduction in Churchill handle of 20% (assumed to be due to the KY HPBA horsemen's freeze on ADWs) and the Churchill purse reduction is 20% so far.......what am I missing?

[DeanT]

Trig,

Why do I get the sense that you know the answer to many of the questions you pose here?

Am I off base on that? I am not overly bright, so apologies if I am.

[Premier Turf Club]

i think that the fine people that manage racetracks should take lessons in being "customer first" benefits. the man has a lot of patience and knows what he is doing. his hard efforts are in his own small way keeping this messed up game alive.

last night he had a problem with his website and he was dead tired, instead of waiting until morning, he stayed up all night and fixed the problem while answering phone calls from people that couldn't use his platform.

this guy is on your side 110%, and even if you don't like his limited menue, you should give his company your business whenever you can. in my opinion if he gets enough business he will have leverage with the venues that provide the entertainment. also he is on the brink of bringing an almost complete lineup of racetracks. his platform is the best in the business to bet on.

if you have dealt with him and like him, you should tell 3 people how good his company is!

Thank you Lamboguy. As our clients know, we work very hard to provide the best wagering experience possible each and every day. When there are problems, and fortunately there have not been many, we try to fix them immediately. The system glitch fu**** up my Saturday evening plans, but what can you do. This is a service / technology business so I've got stay on top of these things.

I've said it before, I'll say it again. This is our last stand as players. Has any other party demonstrated that they truly care about the customer? I hope people will take that to heart and support what we are trying to do.

Ian

[rrbauer]

Baloney! Smaller fields vastly increase owners' chances of taking home a piece of the purse. Onwers' have no incentive, whatsoever, to support larger fields.

I agree. If you owned a horse and were running for a $20K pot would you rather have to beat 11 horses for the money or 4 horses for the money?

So long as less-than-astute horseplayers continue to support small-field venues, that ain't going to change either.