Racing rules discussion, YOU be the Czar.

[Stillriledup]

Since most higher ups in horse racing come to PA for their news and drama, its fairly likely they're going to read this post and implement these suggestions. Here's your chance to add to the discussion and be racing czar for a day (or, hopefully longer).

Let me know what you would change if you had ultimate authority over all racetracks.

I know this is going to annoy some (yes, that's my job, to get under your skin :lol: ) but i would go back to no pick 3 consolations. I would go back to giving you the post time favorite if you get late scratched and here's why.

I don't think that someone who picked a horse who was destined to lose, should be taking money out of the winners pockets. If you bet a horse in your pick 3 that gets late scratched, you probably made a bad pick. You bet on a lame horse or a horse who wasn't ready to race. Sometimes those horses look horrible and ragged on video (See Sunny Peace today in the 5th at Hollywood) and you don't deserve to get a refund at the expense of the people who knew the horse was lame when the bets were made. I know, you'll say that the horse could have been perfectly sound and stepped on a rock and those bettors had bad luck and should be rewarded, but i believe most times, the horse was 'no good' heading into the race and just unraveled in the warmup.

Back to the Sunny Peace situation at Hollywood, whoever SPECIFICALLY bet pick 3's because they knew Sunny Peace would lose today and were trying to take advantage of her being overbet and in the race, those people had the bad bettors money taken out of the pools and given back to them, AFTER The bets were in and locked.


Another rule i would change is to have 2 seperate payoffs in case of a dead heat in the Pick 4. If a 3-5 shot and a 16-1 shot dead heat in a pick 4, the money gets all lumped together. The person who picked the 16-1 shot should get rewarded. There's 2 seperate payoffs in the pick 3, no reason the same isnt true for the pick 4.

Last thing i have on my head is not a betting rule, but a punishment rule. If a trainer gets suspended for 30 days or more, he must transfer any horse who runs in that time period to another already established trainer. This would force the owner to either not run, or to run in the name of another 'real' trainer, not some stable employee who has his trainers license. That's bogus. That permits the suspended (cheating) trainer to hang out at the beach and train from the cellphone. What kind of 'punishment' is that?

[Horseplayersbet.com]

You can't demand that any owner has to change barns. It is up to the owner to do that. If the owner wishes to stick it out with the banned trainer's assistant, there isn't anything you can do about it.

[FenceBored]

You can't demand that any owner has to change barns. It is up to the owner to do that. If the owner wishes to stick it out with the banned trainer's assistant, there isn't anything you can do about it.

The Kentucky rules for a long term ban (6 months or longer) require the horses to switch barns to a trainer with no financial ties to the banned trainer.

[FenceBored]

I'm trying to wrap my head around how I'm supposed to know (before betting the pick 3 which starts in the 3rd race) that a horse in the 5th is going to be a gate scratch based on how it looks warming up an hour after I place my bet.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

The Kentucky rules for a long term ban (6 months or longer) require the horses to switch barns to a trainer with no financial ties to the banned trainer.
You can probably count trainers who have had a 6 month plus ban in Kentucky or any jurisdiction on one hand.

[FenceBored]

You can probably count trainers who have had a 6 month plus ban in Kentucky or any jurisdiction on one hand.

Yep, Biancone is the only one that Ky's rule has applied to so far.

[DJofSD]

Since most higher ups in horse racing come to PA for their news and drama, its fairly likely they're going to read this post and implement these suggestions.


After reading that opening, I go no further.

[lamboguy]

my opinion is that any trainer that is granted stalls at a racetrack should be held accountable to their standards in order to stay on the grounds or allowed to race there. unfortunately the standards that race track implement are very low standards at the present time. also i would not pay purses past the 3rd position.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

my opinion is that any trainer that is granted stalls at a racetrack should be held accountable to their standards in order to stay on the grounds or allowed to race there. unfortunately the standards that race track implement are very low standards at the present time. also i would not pay purses past the 3rd position.
I have a problem with that. Jockeys can stop trying earlier and there is no incentive to land in the 4th spot of a super.

[lamboguy]

I have a problem with that. Jockeys can stop trying earlier and there is no incentive to land in the 4th spot of a super.jockey's don't get paid past 3rd place to begin with, but if a jock doesn't feel like trying you kick him or her out of the place and find someone that will try.

this is all about accountability, something the game lacks

[andymays]

If I'm the CZAR then everyone that disagrees with me gets waterboarded.

Then we lower the takeout with 20% being the limit on any wager.

National standards and penalties for drug testing.

National standards for Stewards.

If they give me any more crap then I waterboard them again till they knock it off. ;)

[Robert Goren]

I would hire some bright young executive from the casino industry as my replacement and then cash in my golden parachute. ;)

[Horseplayersbet.com]

jockey's don't get paid past 3rd place to begin with, but if a jock doesn't feel like trying you kick him or her out of the place and find someone that will try.

this is all about accountability, something the game lacks
By paying for 4th the jockey still knows that the owner makes some money, and if the jock doesn't try for that placing, they know they are replaceable.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The Kentucky rules for a long term ban (6 months or longer) require the horses to switch barns to a trainer with no financial ties to the banned trainer.

Doesn't Indiana have a similar rule - but it covers any suspension?

[FenceBored]

Doesn't Indiana have a similar rule - but it covers any suspension?

Hmm, you're right. 15 days+ according to this article from the Bloodhorse:

The new rule, pushed by the commission’s executive director, Joe Gorajec, prevents a trainer banned for more than 15 days from transferring horses in his stable to a family member or employee. ... This new rule will force owners to transfer their horses from the suspended trainer to another barn if they wish to race them during the term of the suspension.
-- https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/38072/hoosier-daddy

[Linny]

You cannot force an owner to change trainers but you can say that no horse trained by the trainer may race during the suspension.If owners have to pay a price for cheating trainers that they hire, the cheaters would stop getting so many horses.

As far as getting the posttime fave in a P3, in most cases I have the favorite already and now have an extra bet with him, like it or not. A gate scratch doesn't mean I picked a bad or lame horse. Some say Barbaro should have been a gate scratch in the Preakness. Was he was "bad pick?" Was QR a bad pick in the BCC last year? (I know he was this year! :D )

[comet52]

I don't want the job.

[andymays]

I don't want the job.
Now what are we supposed to do? ;)

[FenceBored]

Now what are we supposed to do? ;)

Get a fire hose, create a mud pit in the Santa Anita infield, have a battle royal mud wrestling contest with the heads of the 5 families (the CDIs, the Magnas, the NYRAs, the NTRAs and the BCs). Winner take all.

[Beachbabe]

A 2 minute egg timer in the Steward's booth. Once they post an Inquiry or an objection gets called into them, they start the timer. How long does it take to look at the slo-mos and head-ons ? There either was an infraction or there wasn't. 2 minutes is ample time to view the "film" and make a decision. Since there's 3 stewards, 2 votes carry the decision. End of story.

:sleeping:

[Stillriledup]

You can't demand that any owner has to change barns. It is up to the owner to do that. If the owner wishes to stick it out with the banned trainer's assistant, there isn't anything you can do about it.

I'm not demanding they change barns, i'm just saying that if they want to race within that 30 day period, they have to give the horse they want to race to another established trainer. There's no demands, its a choice they've been given, they can choose to change or to sit on the sidelines until their main trainer gets back. Its their choice.

[Relwob Owner]

[QUOTE=Linny]If owners have to pay a price for cheating trainers that they hire, the cheaters would stop getting so many horses.

You hit the nail on the head....I have heard other owners almost brag about having a "dont ask, dont tell" policy with regards to what their trainers do and it is disturbing.

[Stillriledup]

A 2 minute egg timer in the Steward's booth. Once they post an Inquiry or an objection gets called into them, they start the timer. How long does it take to look at the slo-mos and head-ons ? There either was an infraction or there wasn't. 2 minutes is ample time to view the "film" and make a decision. Since there's 3 stewards, 2 votes carry the decision. End of story.

:sleeping:

I agree with this. I think that when stewards take forever, the time they're spending almost puts them in a position to make a change....its almost like they're obligated to 'do something'.

I don't mind the long delay, only because i'd prefer them to take longer to 'get it right', but you make a good point in that if they have to look at the thing for 10 mins, there probably should be no change......but what we get is the opposite because of obligation. (don't want to waste everyone's time if you're going to leave the results as is)

[Tom]

The owner should face the same suspension as the trainer. In other words, if one of his horses gets a positive, all of his horses are out of action.

[johnhannibalsmith]

A 2 minute egg timer in the Steward's booth. Once they post an Inquiry or an objection gets called into them, they start the timer...

Whoa, whoa, can we at least give them until the outrider clears the race, the complete order of finish is recorded, and the race is all but ready to go official?

I once shared this sentiment, but I really don't anymore. Some places seem to take forever as a rule of thumb, but after being exposed to the deliberation that goes into some of the decisions - particularly those that call for did/did not affect the order and those which involve multiple horses "potentially" losing a chance at a better placing - I've come to prefer that those with strong opinions really fight it out and try to get it right.

[Stillriledup]

I'm trying to wrap my head around how I'm supposed to know (before betting the pick 3 which starts in the 3rd race) that a horse in the 5th is going to be a gate scratch based on how it looks warming up an hour after I place my bet.

You're not supposed to know. However, i just dont like the idea of giving money to people who bet on a horse who wasnt going to win. I like that money to stay in the pool. In other words, you shouldnt hurt the players who already bet and bet on better horses, taking the money out of the pool and paying off a person who didnt even WIN isnt right.

Lets say there's a late scratch in leg 3. The people who picked 2 winners and a lame horse get paid and the people who picked 2 winners and a loser, lose. I think you shouldnt get paid unless you actually pick THREE winners. People who bet on a lame horse dont deserve to get rewarded.

[Relwob Owner]

Whoa, whoa, can we at least give them until the outrider clears the race, the complete order of finish is recorded, and the race is all but ready to go official?

I once shared this sentiment, but I really don't anymore. Some places seem to take forever as a rule of thumb, but after being exposed to the deliberation that goes into some of the decisions - particularly those that call for did/did not affect the order and those which involve multiple horses "potentially" losing a chance at a better placing - I've come to prefer that those with strong opinions really fight it out and try to get it right.


I still dont understand why they bother talking to the jocks and that is a huge waste of time IMO....each jock is going to sell their case as best they can and I cant think of another sport where the officials let the participants weigh in, either....maybe I am missing one or two but for the majority, they dont.

[Stillriledup]

I still dont understand why they bother talking to the jocks and that is a huge waste of time IMO....each jock is going to sell their case as best they can and I cant think of another sport where the officials let the participants weigh in, either....maybe I am missing one or two but for the majority, they dont.


I totally agree with this. The videotape is sufficient. Its all there on tape, they dont need to talk to an english speaking rider (like Bailey or McCarron) and then get on the phone with a guy who can bearly speak english, its totally an unfair situation. If the judges can't make a DQ off tape, than leave the results as is. I'd be willing to bet that McCarron, Bailey and politician types have sold the judges on many a DQ (or non DQ) over the years just by being pursuasive and having great speaking skills.

[Relwob Owner]

The owner should face the same suspension as the trainer. In other words, if one of his horses gets a positive, all of his horses are out of action.


Tom-I have always thought the same thing. A sharp friend of mine make sthe case that if an owner has a big outfit and gets totally shut down because of one violation, it isnt fair that his/her total operation is toast...a toughie no doubt but I like your opinion that it should be on the strcit side an involve the owner as well.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I still dont understand why they bother talking to the jocks and that is a huge waste of time IMO....each jock is going to sell their case as best they can and I cant think of another sport where the officials let the participants weigh in, either....maybe I am missing one or two but for the majority, they dont.

I think that for the most part you are probably correct, but some of the conversations can be downright hysterical which can be worth it, but there are times when I think the riders can be helpful in describing where the pressure was coming from and who was doing what when the tapes are a little ambiguous.

The real answer, in my opinion - even if it was just a charade 100% of the time - it is basically an effort to afford some level of due process to the accused. I know it seems ridiculous, but you can't make a move as an official without extending every conceivable offer of due process to anyone you may be sanctioning or some lawyer on one circuit of appeals or another will get the world turned upside down... even if it really defies logic...

I don't mind the chitchat really - if pressured a bit, most riders that know where they are out there paint a pretty honest picture. It certainly wouldn't be on the short list of makeovers during my tenure as czar.

[Stillriledup]

I think that for the most part you are probably correct, but some of the conversations can be downright hysterical which can be worth it, but there are times when I think the riders can be helpful in describing where the pressure was coming from and who was doing what when the tapes are a little ambiguous.

The real answer, in my opinion - even if it was just a charade 100% of the time - it is basically an effort to afford some level of due process to the accused. I know it seems ridiculous, but you can't make a move as an official without extending every conceivable offer of due process to anyone you may be sanctioning or some lawyer on one circuit of appeals or another will get the world turned upside down... even if it really defies logic...

I don't mind the chitchat really - if pressured a bit, most riders that know where they are out there paint a pretty honest picture. It certainly wouldn't be on the short list of makeovers during my tenure as czar.


You're hired as Czar, when can you start?

[johnhannibalsmith]

You're hired as Czar, when can you start?

Oooohh... So sorry... I've got to be to the time machine to start a new job as captain of the Titanic.

[Relwob Owner]

I think that for the most part you are probably correct, but some of the conversations can be downright hysterical which can be worth it, but there are times when I think the riders can be helpful in describing where the pressure was coming from and who was doing what when the tapes are a little ambiguous.

The real answer, in my opinion - even if it was just a charade 100% of the time - it is basically an effort to afford some level of due process to the accused. I know it seems ridiculous, but you can't make a move as an official without extending every conceivable offer of due process to anyone you may be sanctioning or some lawyer on one circuit of appeals or another will get the world turned upside down... even if it really defies logic...

I don't mind the chitchat really - if pressured a bit, most riders that know where they are out there paint a pretty honest picture. It certainly wouldn't be on the short list of makeovers during my tenure as czar.



Seems to me simply having the stewards judge it is the due process, just as happens with the officials in every other sport. I think that it is more suspect the way it is because the jocks can influence the stewards when they are talking and sway them one way or the other....The result means a lot of money to the jocks and I think it is really unrealistic to think that they will give a fair, unbiased account of things.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

A 2 minute egg timer in the Steward's booth. Once they post an Inquiry or an objection gets called into them, they start the timer. How long does it take to look at the slo-mos and head-ons ? There either was an infraction or there wasn't. 2 minutes is ample time to view the "film" and make a decision. Since there's 3 stewards, 2 votes carry the decision. End of story.

:sleeping:
I'm for something like that. No jockey interviews. I'd give them 3 minutes to make a decision. Either there was a violation or there wasn't. The longer they look the more I feel they are flipping a coin.
I'd also rather lean towards leaving the results stand versus a close call to take a number down.
Sure, there is an appeal, but the worse thing for a bettor is betting the horses that finished on top, having the judges disqualify one of them, and then reinstating it a later date.
I could live with the DQ happening 3 months later a lot more.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

30% takeout rate on all off track bets (10% for the track, 10% for horsemen and 10% for the bet taker)

20% takeout rate on all on track bets (10% for track and 10% for horsemen)

That will make people go back to the track for the reduced rate and big players will bet off track and still get a 6-7% rebate that discounts the 30% takeout.

Handle will double....maybe triple within a year.

[Beachbabe]

I think that for the most part you are probably correct, but some of the conversations can be downright hysterical which can be worth it, but there are times when I think the riders can be helpful in describing where the pressure was coming from and who was doing what when the tapes are a little ambiguous.

The real answer, in my opinion - even if it was just a charade 100% of the time - it is basically an effort to afford some level of due process to the accused. I know it seems ridiculous, but you can't make a move as an official without extending every conceivable offer of due process to anyone you may be sanctioning or some lawyer on one circuit of appeals or another will get the world turned upside down... even if it really defies logic...

I don't mind the chitchat really - if pressured a bit, most riders that know where they are out there paint a pretty honest picture. It certainly wouldn't be on the short list of makeovers during my tenure as czar.


This stuff about "talking to the riders" is fine......after the fact. That's necessary if the stewards want to impose sanctions or suspensions to a rider. The degreee of culpability; was it the rider's carelessness; intent; was it unavoidable, etc.
I'm talking about the FACT...was there an infraction that caused a horse to fail to sustain a drive; or that caused the horse to check enough that it resulted in lost lengths, etc. That shouldn't take longer than a couple of minutes. How many times can you look at the slo-mo head-on in 2 minutes ? I'd say, at least 4 times. If 4 times isn't enough to decide whether an infraction occured, is 8 times going to do it ? These people are trained professionals who have watched countless races.
It takes a football ref about a minute to review a play with different camera angles, and decide whether the tip of a football touched the ground.

[johnhannibalsmith]

This stuff about "talking to the riders" is fine......after the fact. That's necessary if the stewards want to impose sanctions or suspensions to a rider. The degreee of culpability; was it the rider's carelessness; intent; was it unavoidable, etc.
I'm talking about the FACT...was there an infraction that caused a horse to fail to sustain a drive; or that caused the horse to check enough that it resulted in lost lengths, etc. That shouldn't take longer than a couple of minutes. How many times can you look at the slo-mo head-on in 2 minutes ? I'd say, at least 4 times. If 4 times isn't enough to decide whether an infraction occured, is 8 times going to do it ? These people are trained professionals who have watched countless races.
It takes a football ref about a minute to review a play with different camera angles, and decide whether the tip of a football touched the ground.

You may be so right it is painful - there may be an ideal formula for deadlines with a margin for error within acceptable parameters or however strictly this raging issue needs to be dealt with.

I don't mind disagreeing, especially on this subject because I'm pretty much a convert on the matter. Not only do I not really find it near the top of the list of things that need fixing, but experiences have led to me conclude that it is a "harder" (not the ideal word, chaotic?) job to preside over the races than people want to believe. There is more going on than simply that which is captivating the audience at the moment.

I've watched a decision made by all three stewards within 45 seconds of watching the films a time or two. I've seen them watch every available angle six or seven times each and fight and debate and get mad and make up and plead the case again -- and you know what -- I love it when it is a tough call and they're trying to make a decision promptly, but they are taking it so seriously that it becomes almost personal.

It doesn't mean that they are indecisive or incompetent or inefficient, necessarily. It has been my experience that it generally means that, like any such instance that is posted here at PA and we all play steward, they are doing everything in their power to a)be heard and b)get it right.

If you think there's a threshold beyond which it is mere wasted time, I certainly can't tell you that you are wrong. I can only tell you that I think that I was wrong when I felt similarly before spending a little more time in that realm.

[thaskalos]

The drug issue would be my top priority if I were the horse racing Czar.

It is clearly the biggest problem that our sport is currently facing. It undermines the integrity of the game...and makes it impossible to recruit the same sort of young, sophisticated players that poker is currently stacked with.

We praise handicapping authors like Tom Ainslie and Andy Beyer for bringing a certain level of "sophistication" to our game; how long do these "sophisticated" fans figure to "stick around", in today's drug-crazy horse racing landscape?

I have often heard horseplayers say that we don't need any more smart players, because the game would get even harder to beat...we need more "fish" to feast on, they say.

That's a very short-sighted view IMO.

When I was in a Las Vegas sportsbook a few years ago, I ran into renowned poker pro and author David Sklansky. After getting acquainted with him, I asked him if he was worried that all this poker knowledge being dispersed - by the avalanche of intelligent poker books such as his hitting the marketplace - would have an adverse effect on the professional player's future chances of earning a good living.

He replied to me that the main concern of the professional player should be the PRESERVATION of the game...and that, unless the poker playing public reaches a certain level of sophistication, the game would soon die out.

This is what has happened with horse racing IMO. The unsophisticated players have left the game "licking their wounds", and our game is dying out.

The industry is pre-occupied with the idea of attracting a larger, younger fan base...but is doing nothing to improve the image and reputation of the sport - which is the very thing that is keeping these younger people away in the first place.

My promises...should I be so appointed:

1.) A uniform drug policy program for every state in this country.

2.) 2% of the existing takeout would be allocated to properly equipping the track laboratories in order to better deal with the illegal drugs flooding our sport...and for research on the "new" drugs that seem to continually surface.

3.) Heavy fines and life-time suspensions for trainers and veterinarians who are repeat offenders of the sport's drug policy.

4.) Additional scrutiny in the form of surveillance cameras and surprise drug tests for the "super-trainers"...who are threatening to make the DRF obsolete.

I know...there will always be people, in the industry and out, who claim that "only a small minority of the trainers cheat".

Nonsense! Our game is so heavily taxed, and so chaotic by nature, that it cannot tolerate even a little cheating!

Would we ever consider joining a poker game, if we were assured that only "a few" of the players were cheating?

[Saratoga_Mike]

[QUOTE=thaskalos]The drug issue would be my top priority if I were the horse racing Czar.

It is clearly the biggest problem that our sport is currently facing. It undermines the integrity of the game...and makes it impossible to recruit the same sort of young, sophisticated players that poker is currently stacked with.

QUOTE]

I don't agree with that assertion. If you read Charles Leerhsen's book "Crazy Good" about Dan Patch, the early 1900s harness-racing phenom, you realize drugs have been prevalent in racing for well over 100 yrs. Back then, accusations and counter-accusations were constantly volleyed back and forth about doping horses with cocaine. Yet the accusations did nothing to diminish the stature of harness racing. In fact, it was the most popular sport in the country at the time. When Dan Patch arrived (via train) one bitter-cold day in Minn, MN, his adopted hometown (for awhile), for some rest, he was greeted by thousands of adoring fans. Many of his races attracted tens of thousands.

Horse racing is in secular decline for two main reasons, imo: the dumbing down of America and alternative forms of gambling. I would certainly embrace stronger enforcement of drug violations, but I don't think that would save the sport.

[illinoisbred]

All great points Thaskalos. I too believe drugs pose the greatest threat to the public perception of the sport. The pervading use of illegal drugs,which most newcomers and the disinterested sense exists is a stake through the heart of the very nature of the game-it's integrity.

If I could,I'd add just one item to your list-a total ban on the use of hyperbaric chambers on horses currently training and racing. If that couldn't be accomplished,I'd insist such devices must be located "on-track" and all information as far as who uses it and when be divulged to the wagering public. Usage could be allowed at lay-up facilities as long as the horse enters a nonracing detention barn for 2 weeks upon it's return to the track. This has become a hot topic here and elsewhere. The recent edition of Midwest Thoroughbred has an article on the Catalano operation and states that the Chamber is so well sought and booked that it has become the full-time occupation of Wayne's wife,Renee.

[thaskalos]

The integrity of the game is a bigger consideration NOW Mike...because there are other legal and MORE HONEST forms of gambling out there.

The poker "explosion" has made today's younger players more sophisticated than ever before about gambling.

If our game does not address its drug problem FIRST...then it will always be perceived as nothing more than a poker game with a "crooked" dealer.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

The integrity of the game is a bigger consideration NOW Mike...because there are other legal and MORE HONEST forms of gambling out there.

The poker "explosion" has made today's younger players more sophisticated than ever before about gambling.

If our game does not address its drug problem FIRST...than it will always be perceived as nothing more than a poker game with a "crooked" dealer.
I think that online poker is perceived as crooked, not because of the dealers but because of the participants who in theory can work in teams (yes, I know online sites do their best to prevent it), but do you really think they prevent it 100% of the time?
I do think pricing matters more than drugs, and fix the pricing issue and the drug problem will get fixed due to demand from an increasing customer base.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The integrity of the game is a bigger consideration NOW Mike...because there are other legal and MORE HONEST forms of gambling out there.

The poker "explosion" has made today's younger players more sophisticated than ever before about gambling.

If our game does not address its drug problem FIRST...than it will always be perceived as nothing more than a poker game with a "crooked" dealer.

I appreciate and respect your opinion, but I just don't agree. Let's say overnight all drugs magically disappear from racing, and all Americans are made aware of it. Where's horse racing's handle three yrs out? IMO, it would still be down.

[thaskalos]

I appreciate and respect your opinion, but I just don't agree. Let's say overnight all drugs magically disappear from racing, and all Americans are made aware of it. Where's horse racing's handle three yrs out? IMO, it would still be down.
I respect and appreciate your opinion as well...there is nothing wrong with disagreements - that's what stimulates interesting conversations...or online debates.

I never meant to emply that addressing the drug issue ALONE would rescue the sport...I only called it a top priority.

There are many other things that also need addressing...

[thaskalos]

I do think pricing matters more than drugs, and fix the pricing issue and the drug problem will get fixed due to demand from an increasing customer base.
I respect your opinion, but I would like to ask a question:

When people decide on whether or not to participate in ANY form of gambling...what is their number 1 consideration.

How honest the game is...or what the takeout (or rake) is?

I submit that the vast majority of people would NEVER participate in a game that they deem dishonest - no mater how low the takeout.

And unfortunately...that's how our game is perceived by the other gamblers out there.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I respect your opinion, but I would like to ask a question:

When people decide on whether or not to participate in ANY form of gambling...what is their number 1 consideration.

How honest the game is...or what the takeout (or rake) is?

I submit that the vast majority of people would NEVER participate in a game that they deem dishonest - no mater how low the takeout.

And unfortunately...that's how our game is perceived by the other gamblers out there.
I think the first question they ask is how do I play and win (not trying to be sarcastic)?

The next thing that keeps them in the game, is can I win long term, where are the long term winners?

[johnhannibalsmith]

I appreciate and respect your opinion, but I just don't agree. Let's say overnight all drugs magically disappear from racing, and all Americans are made aware of it. Where's horse racing's handle three yrs out? IMO, it would still be down.

Mike, you may disagree as I sense at this point that we are quite a ways apart geographically within racing - but even though I agree completely with what you are saying here and have in the past posted right here in fact, that one of our biggest problems is how we address the problems - as though they are mutually exclusive and actually fixing racing requires enacting solutions in a magical sequence as a opposed to in conjunction with other logical solutions to major problems.

When I think of the drug issue, even though I concur that handle wouldn't go through the roof in a half-decade, I think there are a lot of tangible "sub-plots" beyond merely the perception/bettor angle.

I've watched owners just burn out trying to exist in the current environment. Trainers too. Drugs have been around literally forever in horse racing, as you suggest, and to hear some of the old stories, they may have been a whole lot more liberal when it came to "hopping" one.

But what they didn't have was a collage of therapeutic drugs for every sub-malady of a malady, healing technologies that expedite nature by a factorial of 10, and best of all, almost unfettered, instantaneous and unlimited access to all of it at the track, the farm, or at worst, a short trip away.

There is so much available and even though it is wonderful to have them at your disposal (trust me, it's a tough position for me to take), our medication rules are far, far too liberal. The short term repercussion to a reform is probably smaller field sizes. But the long term gain of reforming this policy, I believe, would be much larger fields and populations to draw from.

There is just a never ending supply of guys that will spend as much, or more, in vet bills a month than he can earn in purses at certain levels in racing. It has become more and more pervasive and now what you have is a bunch of copycats that have to play ball to remain competitive.

The owners try to keep up, but even when they give in and sign off on that vet bill that takes two pages to detail 72 hours lead in - and then they win - the novelty wears off when you win races and still can't break even. They just give up trying and walk away out of frustration.

If there were some meaningful resolutions to the pervasiveness of overmedication in racing, I would probably get off my ass and think about going back to the track. I can think of a fw people that I trained for that have since walked away for the same reason that would rush back into the sport with such assurances. I don't think this is an entirely uncommon sentiment among former and current owners and frankly, the sooner the better because the hemorraging now may make it tough for any meaningful broad solutions to have the needed broad impact on all aspects of the industry.

[Saratoga_Mike]

JSmith,

We probably agree on more than you think. It was stated that drugs in racing were the number one malady facing the sport. I just didn't agree with that statement. That said, I think you made a number of very good points.

The first thing I'd reform (on the legal drug front): ban clenbuterol within 30 days of racing. If you did that, most people would stop using it. It's a waste of $200/month, probably isn't good for horses in the long term and is clearly over used. The second thing I'd do is enhanced testing for "super-trainers." We'd need to work on a definition for super-trainers, but I don't think it would be a huge issue (e.g., maybe anyone with 50 or more starts that is winning at a 25% or better clip). Clearly these are the individuals most likely to be abusing the system. If they're clean, the enhanced testing will prove their training prowess once and for all.

[Stillriledup]

I'd like to make some rule to protect the betting public from betting on horses who have NO lasix. Do you want to be the guinea pig who's betting on the No L horse, only to see him run up the track and show up next time as FTL? Of course you don't.

I'm just not sure what rule i could make, i don't know if you can force a trainer to use lasix if he or she doesn't want to.

[FenceBored]

I'd like to make some rule to protect the betting public from betting on horses who have NO lasix. Do you want to be the guinea pig who's betting on the No L horse, only to see him run up the track and show up next time as FTL? Of course you don't.

I'm just not sure what rule i could make, i don't know if you can force a trainer to use lasix if he or she doesn't want to.

Doesn't that argument work just as well with other performance enhancing drugs?

"Hey, I know XXX milkshakes, but he didn't do it the 4 horse in the 6th race yesterday, causing me to lose my bet. We should make him give milkshakes to every horse he sends over."

I'm not thinking that's the answer.

[Linny]

You're not supposed to know. However, i just dont like the idea of giving money to people who bet on a horse who wasnt going to win. I like that money to stay in the pool. In other words, you shouldnt hurt the players who already bet and bet on better horses, taking the money out of the pool and paying off a person who didnt even WIN isnt right.

Lets say there's a late scratch in leg 3. The people who picked 2 winners and a lame horse get paid and the people who picked 2 winners and a loser, lose. I think you shouldnt get paid unless you actually pick THREE winners. People who bet on a lame horse dont deserve to get rewarded.

I don't accept the premise that a gate scratch means "a lame horse." Horses are gate scratched because they reared at hit their head in the gate or because they were kicked by another horse etc. many gate scratches are low priced horses, not "no-hopers." I saw 3 favorites scratched at the gate this past summer at Saratoga. Also, in a multi race bet, I have no chance to see the horses for any but the first leg. I have no idea if my selections in later legs are "lame." In theory they have all passed the morning vet check or they would have been scratched at 11am. If my selection worked in 48 4 days ago and is a gate scratch today, was he lame or did some other mishap make running today a bad idea?

[Linny]

I'd like to make some rule to protect the betting public from betting on horses who have NO lasix. Do you want to be the guinea pig who's betting on the No L horse, only to see him run up the track and show up next time as FTL? Of course you don't.

I'm just not sure what rule i could make, i don't know if you can force a trainer to use lasix if he or she doesn't want to.


At least with Lasix you know that the horse is either on or off it because it's published. You have no idea if the horse trains on clenbuterol or anything else. You also have no idea what kind of cocktails were administered to the horse this time and if there was a difference between last time and this time.
Personally I'd prefer to see a ban on Lasix.

[Kelso]

Oooohh... So sorry... I've got to be to the time machine to start a new job as captain of the Titanic.

Clearly, then, you are the supremely qualified to run the horse racing industry. What must we get Chantal Sutherland to do for you that will encourage you to accept the position?

[Kelso]

1) All wagering is closed, and FINAL odds are disseminated, BEFORE the first horse is loaded into the gate. Late scratches and backing horses out of the gate shall be accommodated in whatever way(s) that prove most practical, but the overriding rule is absolute ... No wagering, or odds changes, while any horse is in the gate.

2) Published purses shall be for eight-horse fields. Purses for races run with fewer horses shall be reduced proportionately ... the unawarded money being turned over to my office for distribution to any of a list of organizations (racehorse retirement, laminitis research, drug-detection development, czar retirement, etc.) as shall be established by my office.

3) Horsemen have absolutely no say ... other than choosing whether to compete ... in the operation of race tracks or ADWs. Track owners card races, set purses and sell signals. Horsemen decide if it's in their best interests, as INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS/COMPETITORS, to compete for the purses by entering the races. End of discussion.

.... 3a) Horsemen may own their own tracks and/or ADWs. However, no horseman without an ownership interest in the track/ADW may have any say in the operation of such entities. Ownership of Horseman-Owned sites (henceforward known as HOs) must be 100% by horsemen (definitions/requirements to follow). It will be great entertainment to see how the HOs deal with the whining of the wanna-be HOs.

4) Thaskalos is herewith annointed Drug sub-Czar, charged with implementing an absolute ZERO RACE DAY PRESENCE policy (Japan model?) on drugs in runners. Immediate and severe punishment of all offenders ... trainers and owners ... will be established and enforced by his lackeys.

5) No thoroughbred will be allowed to compete if it is excessively inbred ... standards, following a generation-based point system, to follow. The breed must be strengthened. NO MORE EIGHT BELLES!

6) No thoroughbreds will be allowed to compete whose sire was less than 5 years old at the time of breeding with said thoroughbred's dam.

7) No thoroughbred will be allowed to compete before attaining the age of three years.

8) Chantal Sutherland shall report to my throne immediately. (I'll show ya some silks, baby.)

[johnhannibalsmith]

...
3) Horsemen have absolutely no say ... other than choosing whether to compete ... in the operation of race tracks or ADWs...

I hope you like playing slots as much as the horses... :D

[Kelso]

I hope you like playing slots as much as the horses... :D


Well ... at least the guys setting slot takeout rates understand the concept of maximizing profits by reducing prices. I don't hear them whining for public welfare.

[Stillriledup]

I don't accept the premise that a gate scratch means "a lame horse." Horses are gate scratched because they reared at hit their head in the gate or because they were kicked by another horse etc. many gate scratches are low priced horses, not "no-hopers." I saw 3 favorites scratched at the gate this past summer at Saratoga. Also, in a multi race bet, I have no chance to see the horses for any but the first leg. I have no idea if my selections in later legs are "lame." In theory they have all passed the morning vet check or they would have been scratched at 11am. If my selection worked in 48 4 days ago and is a gate scratch today, was he lame or did some other mishap make running today a bad idea?

But the bottom line remains that you found a way to bet on a horse who wasn't 'ready' to run, whatever the reason may be. I just think you dont deserve to be 'rewarded' and with a conso, you are rewarded at the expense of the public who did NOT wager on the 'bad gate horse'.

[Stillriledup]

1) All wagering is closed, and FINAL odds are disseminated, BEFORE the first horse is loaded into the gate. Late scratches and backing horses out of the gate shall be accommodated in whatever way(s) that prove most practical, but the overriding rule is absolute ... No wagering, or odds changes, while any horse is in the gate.

2) Published purses shall be for eight-horse fields. Purses for races run with fewer horses shall be reduced proportionately ... the unawarded money being turned over to my office for distribution to any of a list of organizations (racehorse retirement, laminitis research, drug-detection development, czar retirement, etc.) as shall be established by my office.

3) Horsemen have absolutely no say ... other than choosing whether to compete ... in the operation of race tracks or ADWs. Track owners card races, set purses and sell signals. Horsemen decide if it's in their best interests, as INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS/COMPETITORS, to compete for the purses by entering the races. End of discussion.

.... 3a) Horsemen may own their own tracks and/or ADWs. However, no horseman without an ownership interest in the track/ADW may have any say in the operation of such entities. Ownership of Horseman-Owned sites (henceforward known as HOs) must be 100% by horsemen (definitions/requirements to follow). It will be great entertainment to see how the HOs deal with the whining of the wanna-be HOs.

4) Thaskalos is herewith annointed Drug sub-Czar, charged with implementing an absolute ZERO RACE DAY PRESENCE policy (Japan model?) on drugs in runners. Immediate and severe punishment of all offenders ... trainers and owners ... will be established and enforced by his lackeys.

5) No thoroughbred will be allowed to compete if it is excessively inbred ... standards, following a generation-based point system, to follow. The breed must be strengthened. NO MORE EIGHT BELLES!

6) No thoroughbreds will be allowed to compete whose sire was less than 5 years old at the time of breeding with said thoroughbred's dam.

7) No thoroughbred will be allowed to compete before attaining the age of three years.

8) Chantal Sutherland shall report to my throne immediately. (I'll show ya some silks, baby.)


You're HIRED, great post K!

Here's my comments on your comments

1) i don't like this. I'm not sure why, but i don't. I know it evens the playing field, but i think that if you have the capability to wager at the last second, you should be rewarded for that (somehow).

2) Good rule, i approve.

3) See #2

3a) see #3

4) See #3

5) I'm all for strengthening the breed. I think you need to add that no 'incorrect' horses be able to go to stud. We don't need to be breeding commercial crooked horses just because they happened to win one big race in their careers.

6) Love it, can't wait for racing secretaries to start writing fueled purses with this as the condition.

7) I dont know about this one, i think 2 year old racing should be allowed, but, only after july....none of this march 2 furlong crap at Santa Anita.

8) You deserve her, i approve.

[Linny]

Eight Belles was not especially inbred, but I get the point. Actually the elimination of meds will strengthen the breed. Today a horse that cannot compete w/o Lasix gets his meds and goes out and wins 10 races and gets a huge book of mares. The reason for his inability of race clean is clearly respiratory and now he has the chance to pass along hs respiratory shortcomings to 125+ foals each year.
Without the meds you see the fitter and sounder and healthier horses earning a place in the gene pool.

If I were czar, I'd eliminate 2yo breeze up sales. Having spoken to many horsemen about why today's 2yo's seem so much less likely to train on than they once did, this has been one of the universal complaints. The pressures to make every sales colt and filly ready to go 10 seconds so early takes a long term toll. A few years ago when they got popular alot of buyers figured "Great we'll get a race ready baby and not have to pay to break and train and maintain him for 10-12 mos before we run." The fact is that 2yo in training sales graduates are less likely than the breed on the whole to be ready to run in May or June or July.
The people I have spoken to on this issue are a wide array, including many very big name trainers.

[Stillriledup]

Eight Belles was not especially inbred, but I get the point. Actually the elimination of meds will strengthen the breed. Today a horse that cannot compete w/o Lasix gets his meds and goes out and wins 10 races and gets a huge book of mares. The reason for his inability of race clean is clearly respiratory and now he has the chance to pass along hs respiratory shortcomings to 125+ foals each year.
Without the meds you see the fitter and sounder and healthier horses earning a place in the gene pool.

If I were czar, I'd eliminate 2yo breeze up sales. Having spoken to many horsemen about why today's 2yo's seem so much less likely to train on than they once did, this has been one of the universal complaints. The pressures to make every sales colt and filly ready to go 10 seconds so early takes a long term toll. A few years ago when they got popular alot of buyers figured "Great we'll get a race ready baby and not have to pay to break and train and maintain him for 10-12 mos before we run." The fact is that 2yo in training sales graduates are less likely than the breed on the whole to be ready to run in May or June or July.
The people I have spoken to on this issue are a wide array, including many very big name trainers.


Excellent post. :ThmbUp:

[anotherCAfan]

4) Thaskalos is herewith annointed Drug sub-Czar, charged with implementing an absolute ZERO RACE DAY PRESENCE policy (Japan model?) on drugs in runners. Immediate and severe punishment of all offenders ... trainers and owners ... will be established and enforced by his lackeys.

5) No thoroughbred will be allowed to compete if it is excessively inbred ... standards, following a generation-based point system, to follow. The breed must be strengthened. NO MORE EIGHT BELLES!
I like these two rules.

I have always though that a national horse racing board might solve some problems, but if it is anything like the one in California, then uh-oh. :eek: