The Easy Solution

[Irish Boy]

For all the talk about how to save horse racing here, the most obvious solution (besides maybe lowering takeout) is never really fully explored. Quite frankly, there are too many tracks. Lots of tracks mean that horse stock is spread over a broader area, meaning lower fields. Lower fields mean less handle, and of course if there are more tracks, the handle gets spread over a broader area. If you eliminate several tracks, the remaining locations would be that much stronger. Yes, it's not a long-term solution for the sport. But it's a start for the remainders.

Now, if we were starting from scratch, we would ask: which tracks should remain in order to encourage the long-term growth of the sport. Ignore surface for the time being (it could always be changed), as I don't want this to turn into a dirt vs. polytrack thread. We would want tracks near major metropolitan areas, as most people that are drawn to horse racing get that way after going to the track live. Remaining near major cities would encourage live attendance and long term growth of the sport. History and tradition counts for something too.

So, let's say we could only save 15-20 tracks nationwide. That would mean that only 5-8 or so could run at any given time. Which ones should be saved? Which should be discarded? I'll offer my list:

NY: Saratoga, Belmont, Aqueduct (I could be talked into losing Aqueduct, but NY is the biggest market in the US, so a year-round presence might be worthwhile)

NJ: Monmouth

CA: Del Mar, Santa Anita, Hollywood

Kentucky: Churchill, Keeneland

Florida: Gulfstream, Tampa Bay Downs

Texas: Lone Star (Texas is a major population center, so having a track there is important)

AK: Oaklawn

IL: Arlington

Maryland: Pimlico

Canada: Woodbine

Also, maybe:

Washington: Emerald Downs (only location in Pacific Northwest)

New Mexico: Sunland (Only location in Southwest)

Wouldn't a sport with only those locations be much stronger? Yes, there would be disadvantages, and a lot of people would lose tracks that they enjoy. But a little bit of natural selection wouldn't be a bad thing.

The only problem with this is that slot money is likely to prop up a lot of tracks that we wouldn't bother to save otherwise. We'd rather save Pimlico (probably) than Presque Isle or Charles Town.

[Robert Goren]

Way too many top level tracks, not enough bottom level tracks. Beside some of those tracks are worst run in the country. I have said before, but I will say it again if they don't address the takeout issue none of them will be operating in 20 years. Nothing else matters if it is not addressed.

[rastajenk]

For all the talk about how to save horse racing here, the most obvious solution (besides maybe lowering takeout) is never really fully explored. Quite frankly, there are too many tracks. This comes up with great regularity. I personally have asked for contraction proponents to tell me how exactly it's supposed to make things better, and I'm still waiting for a good answer.

For example, if you eliminate Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana, how are people in those states going to bet? At the VFW? Eagles? Not everyone gets a kick out out staring at a computer screen to get their racing fix. Or do you just say, eh, we don't need their money anyway; now, how is that going to grow the game?

Think it through, then tell me how it's going to work. I'm listening.

[senortout]

You may lose the breeder over this one. Sooner or later, some well bred horse is going to need a minor league track to finish out his(her) career. So, with only the top conformed and pedigreed ones going thru the ring.....it only causes a real attrition, at the tracks, and at the farms. Very counterproductive in the long run. Australia has so many bush tracks it'd make your head spin. England many small venues. Dunno about how they handle stuff like this in Japan and Hong Kong....maybe they breed on a much smaller scale?

senortout

ps we send a number of our best overseas to race as well, its a big business. The sheiks, etc, etc.

[Irish Boy]

This comes up with great regularity. I personally have asked for contraction proponents to tell me how exactly it's supposed to make things better, and I'm still waiting for a good answer.

For example, if you eliminate Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana, how are people in those states going to bet? At the VFW? Eagles? Not everyone gets a kick out out staring at a computer screen to get their racing fix. Or do you just say, eh, we don't need their money anyway; now, how is that going to grow the game?

Think it through, then tell me how it's going to work. I'm listening.
Some locations will have to be cut if locations are cut. That's just fact. Large expanses of the country don't have easy access to a track right now as it is; look at the deep south.

As for "how are those people going to bet," the answer is, the way most people seem to be betting now: off-track and via internet. I could see putting a track in Ohio given the population. I agree that not having a live track is a hindrance to growth in popularity, but the current state of the sport is worse, with all tracks unable to sustain themselves. Some need to fail for others to succeed. Is Indiana Downs worth saving at the expense of Keeneland?

Way too many top level tracks, not enough bottom level tracks. Beside some of those tracks are worst run in the country.

If you reduced the number, some would be high level and some would be low level. I don't see that being a problem. As for some of those tracks being poorly run, think of it less as saving a particular track and more as saving tracks located in particular locations. I'm not concerned about the current particulars of the tracks necessarily, just the locations.

[Irish Boy]

You may lose the breeder over this one. Sooner or later, some well bred horse is going to need a minor league track to finish out his(her) career. So, with only the top conformed and pedigreed ones going thru the ring.....it only causes a real attrition, at the tracks, and at the farms. Very counterproductive in the long run. Australia has so many bush tracks it'd make your head spin. England many small venues. Dunno about how they handle stuff like this in Japan and Hong Kong....maybe they breed on a much smaller scale?

senortout

ps we send a number of our best overseas to race as well, its a big business. The sheiks, etc, etc.
Maybe. But this might be a good thing too. If the value of breeding is less because there's fewer tracks for horses to semi-retire to, some horses may be kept in racing longer because there will be more value in purses (purses will be higher too, since handle at each track is higher). But, I get your point, and it is well taken.

[thespaah]

This comes up with great regularity. I personally have asked for contraction proponents to tell me how exactly it's supposed to make things better, and I'm still waiting for a good answer.

For example, if you eliminate Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana, how are people in those states going to bet? At the VFW? Eagles? Not everyone gets a kick out out staring at a computer screen to get their racing fix. Or do you just say, eh, we don't need their money anyway; now, how is that going to grow the game?

Think it through, then tell me how it's going to work. I'm listening.
I am guessing that no matter what answer is put you, it's going to get picked apart.
Anyway.......If elimiating tracks is not the answer( which is not necessarily THE answer) then this may be....Find ways to have tracks in close geographical proximity to NOT operate simultaneously. This effect I believe is THE number one reason why we see short fields and declining attendance.
If say three tracks one roughly the same level are open at the same time are competing for the same stock, that is when things go down hill.
This is a major problem in the eastern third of the country.
California is as large as most western European countries and that state's three major tracks do not compete vs each other. It's a circuit. The problem there is the expense of just being in California and the artificial surfaces.
In any event, there is no possible way the current business model is going to allow anything but a continuing downward spiral in on-track attendance and handle.

[kenwoodall2]

Lose Sam Houston and the NoCa fairs and you lose Quarterhorses, now more sucessful than TBreds. Lose Finger Lakes and you lose one of the best for retiring horses.
I advocate more other breeds racing to fill cards. Do you want 8 short fields or 10 with 2 being QTRS + 4 1/2f TBreds + Arabians with ads inviting newbies! Qtrs need no PPs-just programs? Maybe that is 1 reason they are doing better than TBreds!
With no races under 20K good luck with the PR and unwanteds!!
We need more turf races for cheap horses.
West and Central Time Zone would lose the most.
"A business that is afraid of public customers do not deserve customers or to be in business!"- Ken Woodall!!

[cato]

If you want to improve the quality of horse racing you have to increase the number of quality horses. That makes the sport more interesting and provides better betting opportunities, more fans, more interesting.

The only way that will ever happen is to give better tax breaks and/or tax incentives to breeders and horse owners.

Considering current politics I can't imagine that happening any time soon.

Cheers, Frank

[rastajenk]

I am guessing that no matter what answer is put you, it's going to get picked apart. No, I'm just being a proponent for growing the sport, not speeding up its demise with short-sighted self-interested proposals that benefit a few at the expense of many.
Find ways to have tracks in close geographical proximity to NOT operate simultaneously. This effect I believe is THE number one reason why we see short fields and declining attendance. If say three tracks one roughly the same level are open at the same time are competing for the same stock, that is when things go down hill. Surprise! We agree! It would take some interstate, and intertrack, cooperation. But it could, and should, happen. That would be better than eliminating some tracks altogether.

[lamboguy]

Way too many top level tracks, not enough bottom level tracks. Beside some of those tracks are worst run in the country. I have said before, but I will say it again if they don't address the takeout issue none of them will be operating in 20 years. Nothing else matters if it is not addressed.
you got it right, more bottom level tracks and less top level. more to be done though. even opening up 100 new bottom level tracks with 5% takeout won't save this game without a complete revamp.

step #1 would be to get rid of each and every person associated with running these tracks. you must clean hourse top to bottom with useless welfare funded employees with overpaid wages.

on another note this delahoussey deal in penn national turned out to be a complete utter joke. they nailed a complete out and out dope, and left the state vets walk away clean after they let broken down horses run on the track without protecting the public. give me a break. if i was paulick i wouldn't have even allowed this trashy bs story on my website, it cheapens a good site.

[comet52]

The idea seems predicated on there being some sort of super racing authority that, like Lenin, simply waves its hand and decrees a bunch of racetracks to be out of business. Sorry, but they can stay in business if they want. There are a bunch of tracks not on Vladimir's list above that are in business and likely to survive for as long as they have slot parlors alongside them.

[5k-claim]

I have to admit that there is a certain charm to a plan that not only eliminates all of the tracks that I visit (Turfway Park, Ellis Park, Indiana Downs, Mountaineer Park, River Downs, Presque Isle) but entire states along with them (IN, OH, PA, WV). If nothing else, this would free up my early mornings for more sleep and do wonders for my monthly budget.

I could be off-base in my interpretations, but a common theme to all of these major contraction ideas appears to be the concept of the existence of a fixed number of newly bred horses (and horsemen) that will just shuffle around and ship to all of the "chosen" tracks, creating full fields of nice horses and wonderful betting opportunities. Carefully re-consider the idea that this major contraction can be executed so precise as to take out just the parts of the game you want removed (excess tracks and states) while leaving intact what you want saved (horse populations necessary for producing the desired number of nice horses and horsemen available for filling cards at the "chosen" tracks.)

Contraction can come, and we will all deal with it as best we can, and up to a point. Life goes on, for some. But please consider that while a major contraction would certainly take us all to someplace different than where we are today, it is not necessarily going to be a destination that you have dreamed of. Especially considering that this plan does not even address the sport's biggest problems as cited most often by handicappers, fans, the public and horsemen. (I am looking straight at you, "safety and integrity of the competition", and even out of the corner of my eye at you, "takeout"- - wow, I have really been reading posts on this board for too long.... I didn't even have any idea what the takeout level was before.)

....
So, let's say we could only save 15-20 tracks nationwide. That would mean that only 5-8 or so could run at any given time. Which ones should be saved? Which should be discarded? I'll offer my list:

NY: Saratoga, Belmont, Aqueduct (I could be talked into losing Aqueduct, but NY is the biggest market in the US, so a year-round presence might be worthwhile)

NJ: Monmouth

CA: Del Mar, Santa Anita, Hollywood

Kentucky: Churchill, Keeneland

Florida: Gulfstream, Tampa Bay Downs

Texas: Lone Star (Texas is a major population center, so having a track there is important)

AK: Oaklawn

IL: Arlington

Maryland: Pimlico

Canada: Woodbine

Also, maybe:

Washington: Emerald Downs (only location in Pacific Northwest)

New Mexico: Sunland (Only location in Southwest)

Wouldn't a sport with only those locations be much stronger? ...

.

[wisconsin]

Instead of closing tracks down, how about running some of them early in the week? Right now, since tracks have gone to 3 and 4 day weeks, they are simply stumbling over one another for the wagering dollar. I am willing to bet that they'll get the same handle on other days. There should be plenty of racing Monday through Wednesday, even if it is the lesser tracks.

Also, you have tracks like Hoosier, who I like to play sometimes, deciding to run head to head with nationwide tracks on weekend afternnons, as opposed to evenings. Who's bright idea was that? On Saturday, we have 37 tracks running in North America. Last Tuesday, we had only 11. On Wednesday, the number was the same. Are early week dollars worth less?

Also, the East coast would have a tremendous racing circuit, if they wanted to. Same with Pennsylvania. It is stupid to have 3 tracks running at once. The purses would be huge, if they cut the dates and ran a year round circuit.

Then, we have the issue of stakes races that compete with one another so nobody gets to face anybody special beacuse they all race on the same day against lesser horses at different tracks. Huh?

[jballscalls]

well i just lost my job with this guys plan! thanks alot pal!:mad:

[andymays]

well i just lost my job with this guys plan! thanks alot pal!:mad:
Just wait till you get your new surface. ;) :D

[jballscalls]

Just wait till you get your new surface. ;) :D

oh god, i thought you were leaving me alone!!!

you mean our all natural non synthetic surface?

[andymays]

oh god, i thought you were leaving me alone!!!

you mean our all natural non synthetic surface?

The Frankie Special.

You know the one they use for jumpers over in Europe. You know the one they water from below the surface. How do they do that anyway? ;)

[jballscalls]

The Frankie Special.

You know the one they use for jumpers over in Europe. You know the one they water from below the surface. How do they do that anyway? ;)

actually they haven't made any decisions yet. their is already a license in place for the season, so the horseman and ORC would have to approve it,

as ive told you 3 times already, as soon as there is news, you'll know

[andymays]

actually they haven't made any decisions yet. their is already a license in place for the season, so the horseman and ORC would have to approve it,

as ive told you 3 times already, as soon as there is news, you'll know

The only one that has to approve anything is Fab Frank himself.

Good luck with it though.

[jballscalls]

The only one that has to approve anything is Fab Frank himself.

Good luck with it though.

thats actually not true. you can believe what you want, i know you hate him and thats fine, but thats just not the case

[rwwupl]

The Frankie Special.

You know the one they use for jumpers over in Europe. You know the one they water from below the surface. How do they do that anyway? ;)


Is that the one that waters itself with distilled reverse osmosis water from below? huhhh...

[andymays]

Is that the one that waters itself with distilled reverse osmosis water from below? :faint:

It's something like that although I hear they can dig tunnels under the surface and have people under there spraying water on it from below. It's real high tech stuff. ;) :) :D :lol:

[andymays]

thats actually not true. you can believe what you want, i know you hate him and thats fine, but thats just not the case

I don't hate him I think he's nuts.

[Irish Boy]

Look, I'm not wedded to the 15 tracks I threw out. I think they offer a good balance of location/history, but I can be persuaded that others belong in the mix.

The idea seems predicated on there being some sort of super racing authority that, like Lenin, simply waves its hand and decrees a bunch of racetracks to be out of business. Sorry, but they can stay in business if they want. There are a bunch of tracks not on Vladimir's list above that are in business and likely to survive for as long as they have slot parlors alongside them.

Yes, I understand that. This is just a thought experiment. I fear that slots are likely to save a lot of tracks in poor locations for growing a fanbase, while better located tracks will fall away. If Prairie Meadows survives but Hawthorne or Arlington falls, it's worse for the sport than if it works the other way around, if only because few people will ever attend a race at Prairie Meadows because of the location.

There is a relatively fixed amount of handle that will exist in the horse racing world. You can grow that handle, but it takes time. In the meantime, what is being bet is insufficient to sustain any tracks, it seems. Some will fail, and some will be in better shape from others failing since more money will be bet on those tracks. My only question is, which tracks would you like to see remain if the amount of handle could only sustain 15 of them? I'm not saying my selections are all correct. My rationale is mostly just geographic, with some history as well.

Look at it like this. I wish every track was profitable. I wish that racing could grow by 10% each year until all current tracks could be sustained. That's just not going to happen, and a few tracks are going to go out of business. Maybe more than a few. Which ones should stay? And why should they stay? That's my only question.

[thespaah]

Tracks in or near major population centers MUST be part of the equation.
I believe there will be a contraction and that contraction will ironically begin in some those big cities with multiple tracks. In fact it has started already.
The San Francisco market lost Bay Meadows. Los Angeles looks to be losing Hollywood. How much longer can NYRA hang onto Aqueduct with the stupid NY politicians kicking VLT casino issue down the road?
The Texas tracks are all struggling. There is talk Sam Houston is struggling mightily.
Maryland racing ( Balto/ DC market ) is in the crapper.

Now, there is time to make changes.
First, reduce the number of dates. Why not? SHort fields mean too many races for too few horses. Reduce the dates and horsemen will have to fill cards or starve.
Curtail winter racing in cold weather regions. WHo needs it anyway? Cheap claimers that should be running around on retirement farms, retrained as show horses and jumpers or kept as pets.
Stop this nonsense of tracks cutting each other's throats for horses.

[Kevroc]

Now, there is time to make changes.
First, reduce the number of dates. Why not? SHort fields mean too many races for too few horses. Reduce the dates and horsemen will have to fill cards or starve.
Curtail winter racing in cold weather regions. WHo needs it anyway? Cheap claimers that should be running around on retirement farms, retrained as show horses and jumpers or kept as pets.
Stop this nonsense of tracks cutting each other's throats for horses.

I agree with everything in this post except killing winter racing in cold climes. Some of my fondest racetrack memories were at Aqueduct during the inner track months. Many a long dreary winters day has been saved by a few cups o' joe at the Big A.

[newtothegame]

I am dissappointed,....lol louisiana didnt make a mention in this thread lol.

Well from recollection (as this is off season), I would think the fair grounds keep pretty full fields. Not too mention, here they do a relatively good job of running the four tracks at different times.

Here are some numbers from the last few nights...
Evangeline (evening ..night track)...an average of 9.5 horses per race with 11 races ran. Thats AFTER scratches.

LA Downs...day time or early afternoon.... nine races with an average of 11 per race before scratches. There were a few races with what I thought to be a large number of scratches (not sure why) on the day I looked at.

FG..as best I recall..again its off season and this is a day track currently, full fields as well as nice preps for derby. Even if some of the horses didnt do so well down the stretch. I like getting to see some derby hopefulls.

Delta...ive seen someQH and thorobreds there and again, they seem to have nice fields. Maybe its a south Louisiana thing. I am not sure.

I also couldnt elaborate much on the ON TRACK handle.

With the age of the internet, on track handle will continue down. I don't think even contracting will solve that. It may help the field sizes and even some breeding issues. But ON track handle will continue downward in my estimation.

"Why should I go fight traffic..parking...greasy burgers, waiting in line to place bets, etc etc when I can do it all from home with a click and get rebates"???

Until the above question is answered in full....ON track will always be a problem. But, with that being said....I do make several trips to FG during season. Nothing like the atmosphere!!! :lol:

[rastajenk]

Cheap claimers that should be running around on retirement farms, retrained as show horses and jumpers or kept as pets A thread about contraction wouldn't be complete with a cheap shot at cheap claimers.

As if these cheap claimers didn't have owners, owners' friends and families, and other associates that come to the track to participate in this game. Yeah, who needs 'em, anyway? They just slow down the betting lines for the real gamblers. :rolleyes:

[thespaah]

I agree with everything in this post except killing winter racing in cold climes. Some of my fondest racetrack memories were at Aqueduct during the inner track months. Many a long dreary winters day has been saved by a few cups o' joe at the Big A.
Back when I was a real track rat, After the Meadowlands ended their racing season in Early Dec, I went over to AQU. There were days where it was just miserable outside. If the wind came form the south off Jamaica Bay, it went right thru my 14 layers of clothing.
Imagine how unbearable it is for the riders, grooms and other horse people. Putting on a show for a what was then a few thousand( now a few hundred) teeth chattering souls is not what I would call a smart thing to do.
Back in the day, the onset of Winter meant horses were taken south to Florida and west to California or Arizona..

[therussmeister]

Curtail winter racing in cold weather regions. WHo needs it anyway?
Jockeys need it. Trainers need it.