Plonk: Pointing the finger back at the horsemen

[andymays]

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/columns/story?columnist=plonk_jeremy&id=5884868

Excerpt:

Try telling that to horsemen in any state in America, who seem to think because they simply chose to compete in this sport that they are entitled to framing every business decision made.

Excerpt:

Those losing money and losing races have way too much say in the horse racing industry. And if you're forced to take direction collectively from losing operations, is there any wonder why no one is winning?

[cj]

I've been saying this for years, glad to see it mainstream.

[andymays]

He should have used California as the perfect example.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

In CA, it's actually the opposite.

The big, successful guys with all the power are killing the sport.

Baffert, Pegram, Zetcher, etc. are all for the takeout increase which is the absolute worst thing they could ever do for the sport in CA.

About the only dissention I've heard against it is from the little, non-successful guys.

The drug issue, which is another huge problem in CA, falls along the same line of thought. The big successful guys are "mums the word...lets not say anything about it and make waves because our ship is already sinking".

[Tom]

Frankly, I do not see why horsemen have say in anything.
They show up, run for the purses and then leave. Why are they making decision when they are not taking part of the risk of owning a track?

[rwwupl]

http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/horse/columns/story?columnist=plonk_jeremy&id=5884868

Excerpt:

Try telling that to horsemen in any state in America, who seem to think because they simply chose to compete in this sport that they are entitled to framing every business decision made.

Excerpt:

Those losing money and losing races have way too much say in the horse racing industry. And if you're forced to take direction collectively from losing operations, is there any wonder why no one is winning?



Jeremy Plonk is a great writer who understands the game. The inept management and regulation of this great industry has done more harm than good.

We need new people at the top who are "Sportsmen",who have no financial interest and not "Horsemen" or political appointees who have conflicts of interest.

The best thing about this game is that the people still love it and always will, despite the warts.

Jeremy for Czar? How does that sound?

A new day is near...

rwwupl

[thaskalos]

Jeremy for Czar? How does that sound?


Andy Beyer for Czar sounds better.

[Stillriledup]

This is what i've been saying for centuries. If a top trainer retires, it doesnt hurt the sport at all because his horses just all go to different barns, no harm no foul, no one will miss the retiring trainer. But, if a huge bettor retires, that person gets missed big time. That person 'retiring' cost the racetracks and the industry money that they can't get back. If Bob Baffert retires, the industry doesnt' lose one dollar.

Trainers are the only participant in the sport who has zero risk. They get paid if their horse wins or finishes last. They make their day rates. If trainers were forced to win to get paid (their only source of income being the percentage of the purses they won) things would all be equal. Bettors, jockeys, owners and trainers would all be on a level playing field. The level playing field would be that they actually have to WIN to make a profit. Trainers don't have to actually win to make a profit, they just have to have enough horses in their barn so that day rates can pay their mortgages.

:(

[jelly]

InsideThePylons....

"The big, successful guys with all the power are killing the sport.

Baffert, Pegram, Zetcher, etc. are all for the takeout increase which is the absolute worst thing they could ever do for the sport in CA."



Stillriledup....


"This is what i've been saying for centuries. If a top trainer retires, it doesnt hurt the sport at all because his horses just all go to different barns, no harm no foul, no one will miss the retiring trainer. But, if a huge bettor retires, that person gets missed big time. That person 'retiring' cost the racetracks and the industry money that they can't get back. If Bob Baffert retires, the industry doesnt' lose one dollar."




Well said guys.

[sandpit]

This is what i've been saying for centuries.

Trainers are the only participant in the sport who has zero risk. They get paid if their horse wins or finishes last. They make their day rates. If trainers were forced to win to get paid (their only source of income being the percentage of the purses they won) things would all be equal. Bettors, jockeys, owners and trainers would all be on a level playing field. The level playing field would be that they actually have to WIN to make a profit. Trainers don't have to actually win to make a profit, they just have to have enough horses in their barn so that day rates can pay their mortgages.

:(

Good one, Methuselah ;)

Dale Romans, leading trainer on the KY circuit, once told me the only way he makes money, once all the bills are paid, is winning purse money. His day rate is basically a break even proposition. Now, he's had considerable success since then, so maybe things have changed.

I'm kind of torn on the trainer issue. On one hand, they are the only people I know of who have a place of business, the water, and electricity all paid for. That's a great way to run a business. On the flipside, most of them spend a ton of time with their horses, yet they make the same percentage as the jockey who is involved for about 20 minutes.
Jerry Bailey on Arcangues is a perfect example. He had never laid eyes on the horse until he walked into the paddock, and couldn't even communicate with the foreign connections. And like he said on his career retrospective, he didn't do anything special, every hole opened in front of him and the horse took him through.

[Striker]

Good one, Methuselah ;)

Dale Romans, leading trainer on the KY circuit, once told me the only way he makes money, once all the bills are paid, is winning purse money. His day rate is basically a break even proposition. Now, he's had considerable success since then, so maybe things have changed.

I'm kind of torn on the trainer issue. On one hand, they are the only people I know of who have a place of business, the water, and electricity all paid for. That's a great way to run a business. On the flipside, most of them spend a ton of time with their horses, yet they make the same percentage as the jockey who is involved for about 20 minutes.
Jerry Bailey on Arcangues is a perfect example. He had never laid eyes on the horse until he walked into the paddock, and couldn't even communicate with the foreign connections. And like he said on his career retrospective, he didn't do anything special, every hole opened in front of him and the horse took him through.
Pretty sure things have changed for Romans as over Thanksgiving I saw his son with stacks of 100 dollar bills in his hand having others make bets for him because he isn't old enough to bet yet. I didn't see too many of those bills when I was his age.

[Stillriledup]

Good one, Methuselah ;)

Dale Romans, leading trainer on the KY circuit, once told me the only way he makes money, once all the bills are paid, is winning purse money. His day rate is basically a break even proposition. Now, he's had considerable success since then, so maybe things have changed.

I'm kind of torn on the trainer issue. On one hand, they are the only people I know of who have a place of business, the water, and electricity all paid for. That's a great way to run a business. On the flipside, most of them spend a ton of time with their horses, yet they make the same percentage as the jockey who is involved for about 20 minutes.
Jerry Bailey on Arcangues is a perfect example. He had never laid eyes on the horse until he walked into the paddock, and couldn't even communicate with the foreign connections. And like he said on his career retrospective, he didn't do anything special, every hole opened in front of him and the horse took him through.


Thanks! :jump:

Maybe Romans needs to raise his rates.

[Grits]

Pretty sure things have changed for Romans as over Thanksgiving I saw his son with stacks of 100 dollar bills in his hand having others make bets for him because he isn't old enough to bet yet. I didn't see too many of those bills when I was his age.

Obviously you're not aware of how good a handicapper Roman's son, Jake is.

http://blogs.courier-journal.com/racing/2010/11/08/jake-romans-beats-sons-of-bc-prez-in-handicappig-challenge/

[Stillriledup]

Obviously you're not aware of how good a handicapper Roman's son, Jake is.

http://blogs.courier-journal.com/racing/2010/11/08/jake-romans-beats-sons-of-bc-prez-in-handicappig-challenge/

:lol:

If i had Dale Romans feeding me winners and losers, i'd be good too. Well, i am good without Romans, bad example, but, you know what i mean!

[Horseplayersbet.com]

Personally, I like longer meets where I can familiarize myself with the horses and jockeys. And cheap races are good with me too.

But I agree that horsemen shouldn't involved with the pricing of the product to the consumer. The only thing they should be negotiating is their percentages from the betting profits.