New York Times on Gill/Shuman

[karlskorner]

It's 3 pages, but worth the read

www.geocities.com/nywagering

5th article under Pari Mutual news

"Success has bitter taste for horse owner"

[andicap]

Article says the real reason the tracks are banning them is not because of the suspected drug use (although I'm sure that's part of the equation), but that the Gill/Shuman stable has the financial resources to totally dominate the track. That is, they can claim dozens of horses and virtually wipe out their competitors.
Yes, they are losing money for now, but that happens in real life too when a huge company wants to crush its rivals. They undersell them (read sell their product at a loss) and when their underfunded rivals can't compete they go out of business. Then, the huge company has a monopoly and can set its own price.

In the business world, it would be called anti-trust or restraint of trade. They don't let IBM do it and they shouldn't let Gill/Shuman do it.

Once Gill owns many of the best horses at the track, he can run them for higher purses because there isn't as much competition. It is UNAMERICAN.

[karlskorner]

Bernie Dickman last week in Track Record magazine called it

THE AMERICAN WAY

[andicap]

What is Track Record magazine -- I never heard of it.

Yeah, John D. Rockefeller, the railroad robber barons of the 19th century, and Bill Gates called it the American Way too. That's way there is a Sherman Anti-Trust Act on the books.

It's called unfettered capitalism and it is ruinous to the economy and the population.

[Pace Cap'n]

Originally posted by andicap

Once Gill owns many of the best horses at the track, he can run them for higher purses because there isn't as much competition. It is UNAMERICAN. [/B]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps the solution could be to place a quota on either the number of horses that could be claimed in a certain time period (week, month, or meet), or the dollar amount that could be spent in a certain period of time for claimed horses.

In a era of perpetually short fields, it seems shortsighted to preclude someone with lots of horses wanting to run.

As far as the chemical allegations, I don't distrust him any more or less than the rest of them.

Steve

[Dave Schwartz]

Pace Cap,

Allowing one person to own an exceptionally large percentage of the horses would do nothing to improve the field size. In fact, it might make the fields a little smaller.

This is a good article. Points up the problem with any "sports" endeavor where money is allowed to dominate.

The major team sports all have drafts, which have SOME impact (maybe not enough) on preventing that. Although ultimately, the teams that have less money (which typically translates into being located in a smaller market) cannot afford as many great players. And, when they build their own, they lose them pretty quickly to someone with more bucks.

I like your idea... somehow regulate the number of claims or even the maximum number of horses they are permitted to stable/own.


Regards,
Dave Schwartz

[JustRalph]

Originally posted by andicap
What is Track Record magazine -- I never heard of it.

Yeah, John D. Rockefeller, the railroad robber barons of the 19th century, and Bill Gates called it the American Way too. That's way there is a Sherman Anti-Trust Act on the books.

It's called unfettered capitalism and it is ruinous to the economy and the population.

There is one sport that is immune from the Sherman act.........

Congress allows them to get away with it. It used to probably be the greatest game in America. All they do is whine about how bad they have it.............Baseball.............I used to love it.....nowadays I hate what it has turned into.

[Pace Cap'n]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dave Schwartz
[B]Pace Cap,

Allowing one person to own an exceptionally large percentage of the horses would do nothing to improve the field size. In fact, it might make the fields a little smaller.


Dave

I totally agree. I didn't mean to suggest that a large-scale owner's horses all race at the same track. Just not be barred from all tracks.

Your idea of a stable quota has great merit. Maybe it could be expaned to include an entry quota.

With the "old" money slowly leaving the game, the Gill/Shuman act may be a portent of things to come. The guys in Chicago (Catalano & Calabrese) did much the same thing, on smaller scale. If championships are perceived to be for sale, shoppers will
show up. (i.e. Yankees)

[karlskorner]

Track Record is a magazine published in Ocala, Fla. mostly for the breeding industry. His point was, if you put your horse in a claiming race, expect it to be "claimed".

Had a friend in the early 80's who had 70 or more horses, the DRF published a list of owners earnings for previous year, I turned to him and said DRF reports you made over 700K last year, his replay "yeah, it cost me 850K to do it". He had a gigantic ego in all his busienss ventures, one of them cost him 6 years of his life looking for a safe area in the "yard".

I would "guess" that 25-50% of the "owners" really can't afford the luxury of owning horses and are relieved when they are claimed, it's the "trainers" who are losing the "day" money and all the "perks" from the vet, feed, equipment bills that is lost with the claim. His job then is to convince the owner to claim another horse or better yet purchase on sale, so he can collect his "fee"