The most negative article ever!

[Kentucky Bred]

If there is a more negative article ever written AND published in a major newspaper about the sport of horse racing, I'm not aware of it.

Warning, if you love this sport-- read at your own risk:

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/209/sports/No_fixing_this_broken_down_sport+.shtml

I don't know who Norman Chad is but I assume if he writes for the Boston Globe he shouldn't be taken lightly.

Here we are with the Seabiscuit movie and big crowds at Del Mar and I assume Saratoga and this guy says we are the dinosaur of sports...kind of like bowling, I guess.

Problem is for me is that he makes some scarily good points if I am being objective.

Are we just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic or does this sport have a long term chance if the power brokers can learn to compete with an ever shrinking entertainment pie?

Kentucky Bred

[Kentucky Bred]

I just noticed that karlskorner started the same thread in the racing section. PA, OK by me to delete if you this one. I should have been in racing all along I think.

My comments still stand. This is a sobering article.

KB

[Show Me the Wire]

Kentucky Bred:

First, I believe he is wrongabout people not going to the track after seeing the movie. AP has a promotion called Breakfast at AP and last Saturday one day after Seabiscuit opened there was an unusually large cowd for the event. Additionally, the afternoon seemed a little more crowded than usual.

Secondly, the demographics he described are not the demographics I see at AP, CD, Keeneland, Oaklawn, etc.

Thirdly the influx of corporate sponsorship money. Dying sports do not attract corporate sponsorship money.

Fourth more exposure on TV, including more references are made about racing in mainstream shows and even commercials.

The opnly thing he is corect about is there are other gambling options for people that only want the action of gambling and do not care about the beauty and grace of a race-horse, the strategy of a ride and the ability to wager on a game that the outcome is determined by fix percentages. What he fails to take into account is how bright people enjoy an intellectual challenge and horse racing provides that challenge.

I believe his prediction of the sport's demise is erroneous.

Regards,
Show Me the Wire

Perception is reality

[GameTheory]

The "horse industry" is the *2nd biggest* industry in this country (1st is textiles). Racing represents the largest section of the pie of the horse industry. It has an impact of $1 billion or more in most of the states in which it operates (that's $1 billion or so for EACH state) or has substanstial breeding operations.

Do more people care about football, baseball, basketball, etc? Yes. The racing industry dwarfs them all combined in terms of money & economic impact (we're talking wagering, breeding, feed, etc.).

It's not going anywhere.

[Tom]

What a dip. Slow news day?
Reminds me of something something the cook wehre I worked years ago used to tell me all the time...
"Kid, you got lead in your pencil but no one to write to. Get lost."

[GameTheory]

Here's something I noticed that may not mean anything, but any time I'm in a bookstore (which is a lot) I always check the horse racing books. I'm not sure why -- I know I'm not going to see anything new, but I look anyway. Since the Seabiscuit craze started, there are lots of new books on other horses or racing in general (or reprints of old books, like one on Secretariat). No surprise there.

But the other thing I've noticed is that the usual handicapping books are all out of stock everywhere I look. Evidence of increased interest in betting?

[PaceAdvantage]

It's ok...we'll keep both threads up.

[Shacopate]

Our sport is not going anywhere.

Horse race betting is the ultimate gambling challenge with all of it's variables and dynamics.

With the advent of slot tracks and syndicated ownerships, I think we actually may make some headway in the next couple of years.

[Lefty]

This myopic writer fails to recognize three key things:
1. Delmar had its biggest opening day in its history.
2. Racing has shifted from ontrack attendance to people being spread out amongst various simulcast centers. That's why, at most tracks, the handle is still up.
3. There has become a merging of casino and racetrack that is in its infancy.
My guess, racing will survive this guy's writing career.
To paraphrase Seinfeld's "soup nazi" "Mr. Norman Chad, No Pulitzer for you."

[Seabiscuit@AR]

I think the article makes some good points. I think racing is dying out. As the writer says, look at the average age of the participants. Not many under 30s there. Racing does have much more competition from other forms of gambling. The cost of wagering is too high for the races.

The only sign of hope I have seen are betting exchanges. But these might not take off due to the conflicting interests of bettors, and racehorse owner/breeders and governments.

Something drastic needs to happen soon if racing is to have a long future.

[dav4463]

These types say the same thing about the NBA. Just because ratings were lower and a "glamour" team wasn't in the finals doesn't mean the league is dying. There are just more options for people today and no one sport is going to be as important or popular as it once was. I went to see Seabiscuit with two people who don't even follow horseracing. They both said they can't wait to go to the track with me after seeing the movie.

[alysheba88]

I would not waste any time or concern about anything Norman Chad writes or says. Guy has always been a curmoggeon. Whats worse is he tries to be funny most of the time and instead is painfully unfunny.

[GameTheory]

Originally posted by dav4463
These types say the same thing about the NBA. Just because ratings were lower and a "glamour" team wasn't in the finals doesn't mean the league is dying.

I see you're from Texas! I bet *you* watched the Finals.

If Detroit had gotten there, David Stern was going to shoot himself. He'll have to wait til next year...

[takeout]

It's the first time I ever read the guy but I do think he got off a good one with:
"Heck, I gamble so much, I owe Pete Rose money."

[andicap]

Originally posted by Seabiscuit@AR
I think the article makes some good points. I think racing is dying out. As the writer says, look at the average age of the participants. Not many under 30s there. Racing does have much more competition from other forms of gambling. The cost of wagering is too high for the races.

The only sign of hope I have seen are betting exchanges. But these might not take off due to the conflicting interests of bettors, and racehorse owner/breeders and governments.

Something drastic needs to happen soon if racing is to have a long future.

People were saying the same thing 40 years ago -- the average age of the racing fan is always high because retirees, etc. have more time to go. People with families won't go to the track much -- except for vacation destinations like Sar., DelMar and Monmouth.

What's saving racing is a large influx of immigrants who love to gamble. The jingoistic of you on this board always complaining about "foreigners" ruining this country (of course where did YOUR ancestors come from?), they are saving the sport.

[keenang]

i can tell you this, if you go to oaklawn during the live meet on a sat. you will see more young people than any track in the country.i do believe that the age group for live racing is getting younger. i cannot say the same for otb.i do agree with the part about the indian casinos.
gene

[Handle]

Well, I heard on NPR that racing was in a lot of trouble and that there would only be a handful of tracks left in this country in 10 - 20 years. And we know that everything on NPR is true and accurate...

Here's an article by Jay Cronley at ESPN, basically saying Slots are good, horse racing isn't in danger:

http://espn.go.com/horse/triplecrown03/s/2003/0607/1564789.html

I like his point about treating the fans that you have now well....

Here's what Frankel purportedly says in this piece:

http://www.webcom.com/~alauck/golden/gold95/golden2.html

No date is given for the article.
-------------------------------
"I'm not very optimistic," Frankel said. "It's a shame. I hate to be like this, but just seeing things being done, like at Santa Anita, they way they put in the turf course and management messin' up left and right all the time, I just don't see there's a real great future in racing right now, until the people that run these race tracks get people that know what they're doing to run these race tracks properly."


Can you be more specific?

"I think the racing offices' ideas are going backwards. I don't like the idea of shortening their 2-year-old races to a quarter-mile. I think you need some innovative people in there to make good decisions, you know?

"I think the future of racing in this country, like most people is in turf racing. That's what excites most everybody. I'm just talking about California now. I can't talk for the rest of the country.

Like Churchill Downs in Kentucky, they're doing well. The purses are up and everything's good. I think the only thing that will save them (California) will be some phone betting, or something like that."

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

[Niko]

I believe horse racing is at a crucial point in time and if they handle things right (there are some glimmers of hope across the country) they will see handle go up in the following years. All through the years everyone says they need younger crowds. While it's important to get younger people involved it's not as important for them to be "everyday" customers. The reason I say this is most of them can't. Between financial constraints starting careers and time constraints in raising a family it's just not there. The key is to get them interested during these years and playing regularily on an occasional basis. Then when they have the time and money they can become the regular over 50 crowd that everyone sees at the track. I see a lot of younger people at the track, having a good time. In takling with them one of the keys is the entertainment between races and having a good time. I realize racing purists don't enjoy this but Friday night racing and entertainment brings in a younger crowd and keeps them coming back. Now if we could only lower the track take so they win once in a while like at the casino we'll be building a new fan base. People don't expect to win money in the long-term at the casine but they do like to win once in a while. It's harder at the track then it is at the casino but the pay-outs can be bigger. There's a term in psychology and I can't think of it right now but it basically states the random re-inforcement (cashing a winning ticket) will keep more people involved longer than predicatable re-inforcement but only if that random re-inforcement is done enough. Any psychology people please correct and clarify.
Why is this time so important for horse racing. A rich baby boomer generation will be nearing retirement age and looking for something to do.
That's part of my take on it anyways.
P.S. I always look at bookstores also to see what they carry on handicapping to gauge interest. They have carried less and less books over time which has had me worried. There used to be 10-20 copies at a time of different books on the shelves, now I might see 4-5 (this is before Seabiscuit)

[dav4463]

I definitely watched the NBA finals ! Big Spurs fan.....I guess the Spurs aren't popular because the players aren't flashy and don't make headlines getting in trouble all the time. Heck, there weren't even any riots or cars turned over to celebrate the championship. Everybody just had a good time.......By the way, I was rooting for the Pistons to get to the finals in the East....I agree Stern would have went nuts !

Back to racing.......At Lone Star Park anyway, I notice a large number of younger fans. Believe it or not, quite a few of them actually know how to read a racing form! I even met a couple of strippers who bet their tip money at the track and they weren't betting stupid either....they actually had handicapped the night before they came to the track....

[MikeDee]

Racing is not dead or dying and here is why:

The following was copied from a recent news article

"TVG’s handle was $60,986,753 for the second quarter, a 142% increase from the previous quarter and a 27% increase from the second quarter of 2002. Mark Wilson, president and CEO of the company, credited widespread television distribution for the record numbers."

Business at other internet racing sites (like Youbet) is booming as well . Not to mention the untold millions being bet off shore. (If the feds ever turn this off, there will be a big increase in legal internet betting).

From another article:

"Two weeks ago, the state House of Representatives approved legislation that would permit as many as 11 locations throughout the state where slot machine casinos could be established. Nine of those sites would be at existing or yet-to-be-created racetracks, both thoroughbred racing and harness racing tracks"

New race tracks in Penn? Doesn't sound like a dying industry to me. Slots and Race/casinos are inevitable, there is to much money to be made and the states really need the revenue.

We might see a shakeout in the industry as tracks without slots close up, because horseman won't race there.

one last copy from a news article:

"Van de Kamp said new sources of revenue are critical for California racing and that he expects a jump in purses at the New York Racing Association’s three racetracks following the installation of video lottery terminals at eight racetracks in the state, including NYRA’s Aqueduct."

He's not talking about adding rock concerts but adding slots at CA tracks

[Valuist]

Like I said on the other thread, this guy (Norman Chad) would give ATS picks on the NFL and would always be below .500; shows you how much (little) he knows about gambling.