What's Really Wrong with Racing

[Pell Mell]

I am seriously thinking of quitting altogether and I'll tell you why. First of all, I may be wrong in what I think is wrong but it's my opinion.
The problem I have is twofold; trainers and short fields. I started handicapping back around 1949 and I don't remember any trainers that, except for short periods, could maintain a win % of 30-50%. Of course at that time there was no such thing as simulcasting and the northern tracks didn't run in the winter and I didn't really keep track of trainers all over the country.
It really irks me when I find a horse to bet and I have to contend with a trainer that wins an outlandish amount of races. Even if my horse wins I'm usually on the short end because I had to beat a 4/5 shot trained by one of these world beaters. Anyway, you get the idea.

As to short fields: I haven't read anywhere what I think is the cause of short fields. The fault lies with the racing secretaries and the conditions they write. The answer to why they do what they do is probably because of pressure from the horsemen themselves. Let's face it, trainers love short fields, and why not? The purse is the same regardless of how many horses in the field and the less horses the better the chances of a win.

From the bettors standpoint this is a terrible situation. I remember when there were virtually no restricted races. If a horse broke it's maiden in a 5,000 mdn claimer it went right into open claimers. There were no races for non-winners of 2,3,4 lifetime. What has happened is that the horses are now in so many small groupings that there are not enough in most groupings to fill a race. I say do away with all these sub-divisions and the fields would be full and all those horses that can't even beat non-winners of 2 can be put out to pasture.

And regarding SC racing, it seems to me that it wasn't too long ago when they started running these restricted races. I remember plenty of races with winners of only one race going against open company.

I say these Secs' could have full fields in a minute if they really wanted to. And that's my take on this situation!:bang:

[misscashalot]

I am seriously thinking of quitting a... And that's my take on this situation!:bang:

Changes occur in every facet of life. We have to alter our approach when what used to work, doesn't anymore.

[The Hawk]

I am seriously thinking of quitting altogether and I'll tell you why. First of all, I may be wrong in what I think is wrong but it's my opinion.
The problem I have is twofold; trainers and short fields. I started handicapping back around 1949 and I don't remember any trainers that, except for short periods, could maintain a win % of 30-50%. Of course at that time there was no such thing as simulcasting and the northern tracks didn't run in the winter and I didn't really keep track of trainers all over the country.
It really irks me when I find a horse to bet and I have to contend with a trainer that wins an outlandish amount of races. Even if my horse wins I'm usually on the short end because I had to beat a 4/5 shot trained by one of these world beaters. Anyway, you get the idea.

As to short fields: I haven't read anywhere what I think is the cause of short fields. The fault lies with the racing secretaries and the conditions they write. The answer to why they do what they do is probably because of pressure from the horsemen themselves. Let's face it, trainers love short fields, and why not? The purse is the same regardless of how many horses in the field and the less horses the better the chances of a win.

From the bettors standpoint this is a terrible situation. I remember when there were virtually no restricted races. If a horse broke it's maiden in a 5,000 mdn claimer it went right into open claimers. There were no races for non-winners of 2,3,4 lifetime. What has happened is that the horses are now in so many small groupings that there are not enough in most groupings to fill a race. I say do away with all these sub-divisions and the fields would be full and all those horses that can't even beat non-winners of 2 can be put out to pasture.

And regarding SC racing, it seems to me that it wasn't too long ago when they started running these restricted races. I remember plenty of races with winners of only one race going against open company.

I say these Secs' could have full fields in a minute if they really wanted to. And that's my take on this situation!:bang:

Excellent post! 100% true.

[cj]

Changes occur in every facet of life. We have to alter our approach when what used to work, doesn't anymore.

This may be true, but it is also true field size is shrinking for a lot of reasons. The shorter fields are, the tougher it is to overcome what has been a growing takeout. I don't care how good a handicapper you are, this is fact.

Fields are shorter for many reasons. The racing secretaries are at most a very tiny part of it, no more. There are too many tracks, too many race days, and not enough horses. Changes to tax laws hurt horse ownership several years ago, but we keep adding race days. As with most things in the sport, it makes little sense.

[lamboguy]

those were the days for sure, and it wasn't that long ago that horses ran in gulfstream that could never win there after their maiden win. you could claim horses for $10k and they would go up north and win allowance races.

there is more that is wrong with the game, i say the game has eliminated the smaller owner. it is impossible for the smaller owner to win. i just won a race today in parx. i spent over $15k reviving the horse after a bow tendon. she won the race and got claimed by juan carlos gurero. he is going to wind up winning $100k with her as long as she stays sound. i hardly see 0/7 4 yo maidens get claimed after a year layoff. i don't have any sour grapes, that is the business. i never claim horses, i just spend my money fixing them up.

[Pell Mell]

This may be true, but it is also true field size is shrinking for a lot of reasons. The shorter fields are, the tougher it is to overcome what has been a growing takeout. I don't care how good a handicapper you are, this is fact.

Fields are shorter for many reasons. The racing secretaries are at most a very tiny part of it, no more. There are too many tracks, too many race days, and not enough horses. Changes to tax laws hurt horse ownership several years ago, but we keep adding race days. As with most things in the sport, it makes little sense.

In the days that I speak of there were only 7-10,000 horses bred each year but today they breed upwards of 30,000. How does that make a shortage?

On any given day at most tracks you can find races that would all have AEs if the races wern't broken down into all these little divisions. How is it that DeD and EVG can find 14 horses for most races? Is it because half of these horses don't even belong on a race track?

[cj]

In the days that I speak of there were only 7-10,000 horses bred each year but today they breed upwards of 30,000. How does that make a shortage?

On any given day at most tracks you can find races that would all have AEs if the races wern't broken down into all these little divisions. How is it that DeD and EVG can find 14 horses for most races? Is it because half of these horses don't even belong on a race track?

Sure, that is part of it. The horses stink, but they have somewhere to run. Now, due to slots, they can run for real money too.

In the days you speak of, how many races were run each year? How many were run last year?

[Pell Mell]

Take a look at the conditions of the 9th at GG today. The sec is really getting creative isn't he. One thing I like about the conditions of this race is that more of these would put a damper on the world beater trainers that bring these horses up from SC and drop them out of the sky.:ThmbUp:

[cj]

Take a look at the conditions of the 9th at GG today. The sec is really getting creative isn't he. One thing I like about the conditions of this race is that more of these would put a damper on the world beater trainers that bring these horses up from SC and drop them out of the sky.:ThmbUp:

The RS's write races that will fill for the horses that they have. I'm not saying they are perfect, but they do what they can to put on a show. It isn't very easy these days.

[thaskalos]

The main thing wrong with racing right now, IMO, is that it is being conducted with the horsemen in mind...and NOT the horseplayers.

Look at the short fields for example. Sure we horseplayers hate them, for the reasons that CJ already alluded to...but the horsemen LOVE them. The purses of these small fields are the same as the purses of the full fields...and there are fewer horses to beat to win them!

When the horseplayers show their displeasure with these short fields and the mutuel handles plummet - making it difficult to maintain the purse structures already in place - it's no big deal...they just raise the takeout rates to "balance their books".

Talks about running fewer races, and reducing the number of racetracks currently operating, have been going on for years now...but what we are getting instead are more and more racetracks of exactly the type that we should be eliminating in the first place.

Is the horseplayer stupid enough to think that these "bush league" tracks, with their tiny pools - where a decent bet creates havoc in the mutuels - are being run with the "customer" in mind?

The horseplayer has become an afterthought in today's game, and our sport is slowly finding out what happens to businesses which treat their customers with contempt...

[Jasonm921]

The main thing wrong with racing right now, IMO, is that it is being conducted with the horsemen in mind...and NOT the horseplayers.

Look at the short fields for example. Sure we horseplayers hate them, for the reasons that CJ already alluded to...but the horsemen LOVE them. The purses of these small fields are the same as the purses of the full fields...and there are fewer horses to beat to win them!

When the horseplayers show their displeasure with these short fields and the mutuel handles plummet - making it difficult to maintain the purse structures already in place - it's no big deal...they just raise the takeout rates to "balance their books".

Talks about running fewer races, and reducing the number of racetracks currently operating, have been going on for years now...but what we are getting instead are more and more racetracks of exactly the type that we should be eliminating in the first place.

Is the horseplayer stupid enough to think that these "bush league" tracks, with their tiny pools - where a decent bet creates havoc in the mutuels - are being run with the "customer" in mind?

The horseplayer has become an afterthought in today's game, and our sport is slowly finding out what happens to businesses which treat their customers with contempt...

Bingo.

[Tom]

The game is already dead - it will never be the game we once loved. That ship has sailed - it will never come back.

Racing's best days are long gone, and what we have today is the best it will ever be again. It will get worse and worse..........today is a top that will never be repeated. Get used to it.

Racing has no clue who it's customers are or how to satisfy them. Even if they ever figure it out (:lol::lol::lol:) no one who has left is ever coming back.

[lamboguy]

i think that what is wrong with racing is that it is not being run as a business. a bank is not open for the benefit of the people that are the customers. any business is not in business for any one but the benefit of the people that own the business. racing should not be in business for the horsemen, the bettors or the farms, it should be in business to make money in an ethical fashion. racing is run haphazardly, instead of adhearing to rules the game constantly changes and breaks rules. the people that run racing should have their money at jeopardy, unlike the chrb or nyra or any other track that does not have anything at stake if the game does not succeed. look at how casino's are run and compare it to racing, its way different. do you think that racing should open up their eyes and see whats going on right in front of them.

[Robert Goren]

Pell Mell, you forgot one other thing from the old days. Except for stakes horses, Females ran against the boys. The thing I hate most about race cards are state bred races. They often lead to short priced mismatchs. All most of us want is a fair price on the winners we pick. Obvious mismatchs is not what I want.

[DJofSD]

There are many problems with racing today. Some can be fixed in relatively short order while others will take much longer -- if at all.

At the top of my list is short fields.

And another thing I hate is short fields. Oh, did I say that already? Sorry.

I really dislike short fields followed by short fields and last on the list is slow golf -- but that's going OT.

The only upside to short fields as far as this handicapper is concerned is it makes it really quick and easy to decide what I will do with my free time. Look at the tracks running today, see what the weather is doing at each, then look at the number of betable interests. As of late, I know inside of 2 minutes I'm either playing golf or going to the practice range.

P. S. Short fields suck (SFS).

[thaskalos]

i think that what is wrong with racing is that it is not being run as a business. a bank is not open for the benefit of the people that are the customers. any business is not in business for any one but the benefit of the people that own the business. racing should not be in business for the horsemen, the bettors or the farms, it should be in business to make money in an ethical fashion. racing is run haphazardly, instead of adhearing to rules the game constantly changes and breaks rules. the people that run racing should have their money at jeopardy, unlike the chrb or nyra or any other track that does not have anything at stake if the game does not succeed. look at how casino's are run and compare it to racing, its way different. do you think that racing should open up their eyes and see whats going on right in front of them.There is no business in the world that treats its customers the way horseracing treats theirs, Lambo...and that's a fact.

Case in point:

New Year's day, I was in an Indiana "riverboat" casino...playing craps.

Ay one point in the game, I had a $60 "place" bet on the numbers 6 and 8...and the shooter rolled a six, winning me $70 dollars.

The only problem was, that the dealer - who was paying the winners on my side of the table - skipped paying off on my bet while paying everybody else, and the dice were pushed to the shooter...without me having been paid.

I quickly told the dealer that he forgot to pay me...but he refused to admit that he had made a mistake, and he insisted that he paid me. Nobody else at the table saw anything, so they remained silent.

My argument with the dealer caught the attention of the nearby Pit Boss...who came over to our table and asked what was going on.

"He says I didn't pay him on a bet, but I am sure I did"...the dealer told him.

The Pit Boss looked at me and asked: "Did he pay you?"

"No, he did not"...I quietly told him.

Without a moment's hesitation, he turned to the dealer and said: "Pay the man!"

Would an OTB manager handle a situation like this in a similar way?

Do they even know that THIS is how you handle things when you are in the GAMBLING business...if you expect to be taken seriously?

[Robert Goren]

Horse Racing doesn't realize they can pay off here and they will get it back sooner or later. Keep them playing and we will get all their money. Casino bosses know that. Race tracks are penny wise and pound foolish.

[lamboguy]

There is no business in the world that treats its customers the way horseracing treats theirs, Lambo...and that's a fact.

Case in point:

New Year's day, I was in an Indiana "riverboat" casino...playing craps.

Ay one point in the game, I had a $60 "place" bet on the numbers 6 and 8...and the shooter rolled a six, winning me $70 dollars.

The only problem was, that the dealer - who was paying the winners on my side of the table - skipped paying off on my bet while paying everybody else, and the dice were pushed to the shooter...without me having been paid.

I quickly told the dealer that he forgot to pay me...but he refused to admit that he had made a mistake, and he insisted that he paid me. Nobody else at the table saw anything, so they remained silent.

My argument with the dealer caught the attention of the nearby Pit Boss...who came over to our table and asked what was going on.

"He says I didn't pay him on a bet, but I am sure I did"...the dealer told him.

The Pit Boss looked at me and asked: "Did he pay you?"

"No, he did not"...I quietly told him.

Without a moment's hesitation, he turned to the dealer and said: "Pay the man!"

Would an OTB manager handle a situation like this in a similar way?

Do they even know that THIS is how you handle things when you are in the GAMBLING business...if you expect to be taken seriously?i am not disagreeing with you that it is a good business practice to treat the customer fairly. the point that i am trying real hard to make is the people that are making the decisions as to what is done or not done in racetracks are people that have no financial stake in the business. they are paid employees. the only penalties they might have for failure is they might lose their jobs. not their assets. if a casino choses to reward their customers it is their perogative. racetracks chose not to. if they had their money at risk they just might wakeup and see how important a part of the business is the customer.

you just went for a bandaid solution that won't help without doing alot more things like a complete overhaul of the game. tom has it right, the game has seen its better days and i doubt they will come back.

[Stillriledup]

The game is completely being run for the trainers, owners and jockeys. They run the game for the participants and if you want to bet on the product, you do. If not, you don't. They don't care. If you force owners to run in 14 horse fields with NO slots purses (like Calif) they will leave to slots fueled purses.

I feel Pell's frustration about these supertrainers, but there's still a way to make money betting in this game, every bettor has the same problem.

There's plenty of tracks with large fields, take a look at Turfway Park for example, you don't really have to deal with these trainers with super high percentages, you get wide open races, this is a track you should consider playing, you can make huge score and you seldom have a problem with short fields or cheating trainers.

[thaskalos]

i am not disagreeing with you that it is a good business practice to treat the customer fairly. the point that i am trying real hard to make is the people that are making the decisions as to what is done or not done in racetracks are people that have no financial stake in the business. they are paid employees. the only penalties they might have for failure is they might lose their jobs. not their assets. if a casino choses to reward their customers it is their perogative. racetracks chose not to. if they had their money at risk they just might wakeup and see how important a part of the business is the customer.

you just went for a bandaid solution that won't help without doing alot more things like a complete overhaul of the game. tom has it right, the game has seen its better days and i doubt they will come back.
Businesses all over the world are being run day-to-day by managers and employees who have no financial "stake" whatsoever in the company, except for a paycheck...and the vast majority of the ones that survive have trained their management teams properly, and have instilled in them a certain amount of pride in their work...which prepares them to adequately handle their employees, and fairly treat their customers.

I agree with you (and Tom) that the game has gone beyong the point of return...but the reason for its demise is the neglect they have shown for their customers...from the arrogant "leaders" of the sport, all the way down to the surly tellers and waiters of the OTBs.

Treat your customers with disrespect in today's economy...and you are finished!

[Robert Goren]

i am not disagreeing with you that it is a good business practice to treat the customer fairly. thathe point t i am trying real hard to make is the people that are making the decisions as to what is done or not done in racetracks are people that have no financial stake in the business. they are paid employees. the only penalties they might have for failure is they might lose their jobs. not their assets. if a casino choses to reward their customers it is their perogative. racetracks chose not to. if they had their money at risk they just might wakeup and see how important a part of the business is the customer.

you just went for a bandaid solution that won't help without doing alot more things like a complete overhaul of the game. tom has it right, the game has seen its better days and i doubt they will come back.How is this different from the pit boss at the river boat? Employees do what they think their bosses want them to do.(most of the time).

[lamboguy]

when i look at successful racetracks these days i look at oaklawn and tampa, both family run tracks. both those tracks are owned and operated by family's. stella thayer is part of the steinbrenner family. she hires guys that know what they are doing.

[GatetoWire]

Businesses all over the world are being run day-to-day by managers and employees who have no financial "stake" whatsoever in the company, except for a paycheck...and the vast majority of the ones that survive have trained their management teams properly, and have instilled in them a certain amount of pride in their work...which prepares them to adequately handle their employees, and fairly treat their customers.

I agree with you (and Tom) that the game has gone beyong the point of return...but the reason for its demise is the neglect they have shown for their customers...from the arrogant "leaders" of the sport, all the way down to the surly tellers and waiters of the OTBs.

Treat your customers with disrespect in today's economy...and you are finished!

Well said

Hopefully the morons that run racing will see how important it is to actually look after their customers.

We don't even need that much attention in order to be happy.

Give us quality racing with full fields and reasonable takeouts and we will bet.

If one thing comes out of this boycott it will be that the other track owners might start to be a little more customer friendly with future policies.

[cj]

I'm sure many will disagree, but the #1 problem with racing is bad tracks getting slots any siphoning off a bunch of horses. It is ruining the fields at the better run tracks.

People don't bet the bad slots tracks, even with big fields. I don't know exactly why, but I'm sure not many people want to bet their money where they don't think the racing is honest. Places like Pen, DeD, CT, Mnr, etc. do very little to earn the trust of customers. The purses are big league, but absolutely nothing else about these places is, from cheating trainers to bad riders to bad stewards.

Many of these horses running at slots tracks were the bread and butter of places like New York, Florida, Maryland, and even Southern California.

[GatetoWire]

I'm sure many will disagree, but the #1 problem with racing is bad tracks getting slots any siphoning off a bunch of horses. It is ruining the fields at the better run tracks.

People don't bet the bad slots tracks, even with big fields. I don't know exactly why, but I'm sure not many people want to bet their money where they don't think the racing is honest. Places like Pen, DeD, CT, Mnr, etc. do very little to earn the trust of customers. The purses are big league, but absolutely nothing else about these places is, from cheating trainers to bad riders to bad stewards.

Many of these horses running at slots tracks were the bread and butter of places like New York, Florida, Maryland, and even Southern California.


CJ - 100% correct.

The quality horse population is spread way too thin because of the Slot tracks.

This couldn't be more clearer than on the Harness side. The Meadowlands is only struggling because the best horses that could only race at the Meadowlands in the past to make real money can now race at Yonkers, Monticello, Pocono, Dover and Chester. All of which have high purses because of Slots.

This has just watered down the horse population at all the tracks

[Pell Mell]

CJ - 100% correct.

The quality horse population is spread way too thin because of the Slot tracks.

This couldn't be more clearer than on the Harness side. The Meadowlands is only struggling because the best horses that could only race at the Meadowlands in the past to make real money can now race at Yonkers, Monticello, Pocono, Dover and Chester. All of which have high purses because of Slots.

This has just watered down the horse population at all the tracks

I just read Garret Gomez's blog. He says he thought a lot of the good horses would have headed to MTH this year because of the really big purses but for some reason they had bottom of the barrel nags.

I saw races there for 5G claimers where most of the field hadn't hit the board in a month. Why didn't better horses show up? :bang:

[Relwob Owner]

I'm sure many will disagree, but the #1 problem with racing is bad tracks getting slots any siphoning off a bunch of horses. It is ruining the fields at the better run tracks.

People don't bet the bad slots tracks, even with big fields. I don't know exactly why, but I'm sure not many people want to bet their money where they don't think the racing is honest. Places like Pen, DeD, CT, Mnr, etc. do very little to earn the trust of customers. The purses are big league, but absolutely nothing else about these places is, from cheating trainers to bad riders to bad stewards.

Many of these horses running at slots tracks were the bread and butter of places like New York, Florida, Maryland, and even Southern California.


Refer to the stats on medication violations, compared with starts in the Dutrow thread and I think that complaining about "cheating trainers" at the "bad slots tracks" and singling them out is a bit off of the mark.....seems like the vast majority of the trainers with frequent violations are found at the "better run tracks", no?


Also, handle at CT was up about 10 percent at CT last year, which these days is a pretty rare thing and shows they must be doing something right.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I'm sure many will disagree, but the #1 problem with racing is bad tracks getting slots any siphoning off a bunch of horses. It is ruining the fields at the better run tracks.

People don't bet the bad slots tracks, even with big fields. I don't know exactly why, but I'm sure not many people want to bet their money where they don't think the racing is honest. Places like Pen, DeD, CT, Mnr, etc. do very little to earn the trust of customers. The purses are big league, but absolutely nothing else about these places is, from cheating trainers to bad riders to bad stewards.

Many of these horses running at slots tracks were the bread and butter of places like New York, Florida, Maryland, and even Southern California.

You honestly believe MNR and CT are siphoning off horses from New York and Southern Cali? That's a bit much.

[cj]

I'm sure many will disagree, but the #1 problem with racing is bad tracks getting slots any siphoning off a bunch of horses. It is ruining the fields at the better run tracks.

People don't bet the bad slots tracks, even with big fields. I don't know exactly why, but I'm sure not many people want to bet their money where they don't think the racing is honest. Places like Pen, DeD, CT, Mnr, etc. do very little to earn the trust of customers. The purses are big league, but absolutely nothing else about these places is, from cheating trainers to bad riders to bad stewards.

Many of these horses running at slots tracks were the bread and butter of places like New York, Florida, Maryland, and even Southern California.

You honestly believe MNR and CT are siphoning off horses from New York and Southern Cali? That's a bit much.

Yes, I do. Where are the claimers? So maybe some are at Philly and Delaware, but surely some are at CT and Mnr too. It isn't like every race is for restricted 5k claimers. The horses are spread thin because tracks that did nothing are giving away huge purses...nothing than happen to be in a state that legalized slots.

[Dahoss9698]

I saw races there for 5G claimers where most of the field hadn't hit the board in a month. Why didn't better horses show up? :bang:

Because there just aren't many good horses around...anywhere. It's not like racing secretaries don't want to card full, competitive fields. But if they don't have the horses, they are forced to card races for the horses they have.

Have you looked at the stakes races the last few years? How many 4 or 5 horse stakes have we seen? Way too many. Everyone is afraid to lose.

[cj]

Refer to the stats on medication violations, compared with starts in the Dutrow thread and I think that complaining about "cheating trainers" at the "bad slots tracks" and singling them out is a bit off of the mark.....seems like the vast majority of the trainers with frequent violations are found at the "better run tracks", no?


Also, handle at CT was up about 10 percent at CT last year, which these days is a pretty rare thing and shows they must be doing something right.

You think maybe they test a little more vigorously in New York than they do in West Virginia? There are tons of games played at CharlesTown that I know about personally with trainers and "beard" trainers. I live 1500 miles away. You think Kevin Joy suddenly learned how to train after years of being awful?

Why must everyone pick out one little thing and argue it rather than look at the point of the post? People don't trust these small tracks, and in most cases, rightfully so.

[Saratoga_Mike]

You think maybe they test a little more vigorously in New York than they do in West Virginia? There are tons of games played at CharlesTown that I know about personally with trainers and "beard" trainers. I live 1500 miles away.

Why must everyone pick out one little thing and argue it rather than look at the point of the post? People don't trust these small tracks, and in most cases, rightfully so.

How many trainers does CT have that are 30% or more first off the claim? What about NY? Let's just include trainers with 50 or more starts in 2010.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Yes, I do. Where are the claimers? So maybe some are at Philly and Delaware, but surely some are at CT and Mnr too. It isn't like every race is for restricted 5k claimers. The horses are spread thin because tracks that did nothing are giving away huge purses...nothing than happen to be in a state that legalized slots.

First, the purses at MNR are crappy (again). They were huge back in 2002/3, not anymore. The purses at CT are okay, but again they're no long huge.

On closing night at MNR (12/30), purses totaled $99k, or $11k/race. Three of the purses were $8,100 or less.

[cj]

How many trainers does CT have that are 30% or more first off the claim? What about NY? Let's just include trainers with 50 or more starts in 2010.

Again, it was one point of an overall theme. People aren't betting CT anywhere close to that the purse level would indicate. Why, since I'm obviously clueless? Surely you must know.

Stephanie Beattie changed her ways?

[cj]

First, the purses at MNR are crappy (again). They were huge back in 2002/3, not anymore. The purses at CT are okay, but again they're no long huge.

On closing night at MNR (12/30), purses totaled $99k, or $11k/race. Three of the purses were $8,100 or less.

So substitute Delaware, Monmouth (casino subsidy), Philly Park, Delta, and so on. You can't be pretending the quality of racing hasn't been upgraded since the switch to slots. Again, where are the open claimers that used to be the bread and butter of all tracks?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Again, it was one point of an overall theme. People aren't betting CT anywhere close to that the purse level would indicate. Why, since I'm obviously clueless? Surely you must know.

Stephanie Beattie changed her ways?

Why do you get so defensive?

As for SB, her numbers have tailed off at CT over the past yr. Not to mention, she's based out of Penn and ships fewer to CT now. I didn't argue your purse point - someone actually created a cool handle/purse table on here a few months ago. I argued your "MNR and CT" are siphoning horses from NY and S. Cal point. I don't believe that. Is there an occassional one? Yes, but overall I don't think it's a big issue.

[Dahoss9698]

How many trainers does CT have that are 30% or more first off the claim? What about NY? Let's just include trainers with 50 or more starts in 2010.

I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but I'm confident CT has more trainers 30% or more off the claim. This is just off the top of my head but I think only Rudy Rod and Dutrow were more than 30% off the claim as far as NY trainers go last year.

[Saratoga_Mike]

So substitute Delaware, Monmouth (casino subsidy), Philly Park, Delta, and so on. You can't be pretending the quality of racing hasn't been upgraded since the switch to slots. Again, where are the open claimers that used to be the bread and butter of all tracks?

Well this I agree with totally (except I don't know enough on Delta).

[Saratoga_Mike]

I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but I'm confident CT has more trainers 30% or more off the claim. This is just off the top of my head but I think only Rudy Rod and Dutrow were more than 30% off the claim as far as NY trainers go last year.

Off the top of my head there are two are CT (Beattie and Carlisie...I think Comi was at one pt, but not anymore). Again, trainers with 50 or more starts.

[Relwob Owner]

You think maybe they test a little more vigorously in New York than they do in West Virginia? There are tons of games played at CharlesTown that I know about personally with trainers and "beard" trainers. I live 1500 miles away. You think Kevin Joy suddenly learned how to train after years of being awful?

Why must everyone pick out one little thing and argue it rather than look at the point of the post? People don't trust these small tracks, and in most cases, rightfully so.



No need to get defensive, just questioning your logic and your point in general about not being able to trust racing at the "bad" tracks as opposed to the "better" ones....

As far as the point of your posts go, you have repeatedly complained about "bad" horses running at "bad" slots fueled tracks......however, you now say that these same horses are being taken away from other, "better" tracks that they would be running at........so, in the end, you would just prefer that the "bad" horses be running at the "good" tracks that are in your opinion so well run?

Take a look at a CT card and see how many of the horses would be running at the "better" tracks.....right now, CT cards two WVA Bred races a night and many 5K claimers with some allowance and maiden races sprinkled in....I honestly dont think many of those horses would otherwise be running at the "better" tracks....

As far as the "games" played at CT and things you referenced, I try and steer clear of any accusations....I will say that I think it is way off the mark to single out these tracks as if those "games" dont happen at the other "better" tracks as well.....the testing may be tougher in the other jursidictions(cant confirm or deny that) but I find it amazing that they have the most trainers with violations, yet continue to let them train there after so many of them.....is this the result of a "well run" operation?

[cj]

Why do you get so defensive?

As for SB, her numbers have tailed off at CT over the past yr. Not to mention, she's based out of Penn and ships fewer to CT now. I didn't argue your purse point - someone actually created a cool handle/purse table on here a few months ago. I argued your "MNR and CT" are siphoning horses from NY and S. Cal point. I don't believe that. Is there an occassional one? Yes, but overall I don't think it's a big issue.

I listed a whole group, with an etc., not those two only. But you choose two and want to argue about them when it isn't even the point. So yes, it gets a little tiresome.

In total, all of them take a whole bunch of horses. If you want to break it down by track, be my guest. There are plenty of horses running at Mnr and CT that could compete in New York. There are plenty shipped from SoCal to slots tracks in the east for no reason other than better purses and cheaper rates. I'm not even sure how this is an argument.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I listed a whole group, with an etc., not those two only. But you choose two and want to argue about them when it isn't even the point. So yes, it gets a little tiresome.

In total, all of them take a whole bunch of horses. If you want to break it down by track, be my guest. There are plenty of horses running at Mnr and CT that could compete in New York. There are plenty shipped from SoCal to slots tracks in the east for no reason other than better purses and cheaper rates. I'm not even sure how this is an argument.

You get testy when someone disagree with you. This isn't personal and I have respect for you.

Define plenty - seriously.

[cj]

No need to get defensive, just questioning your logic and your point in general about not being able to trust racing at the "bad" tracks as opposed to the "better" ones....

As far as the point of your posts go, you have repeatedly complained about "bad" horses running at "bad" slots fueled tracks......however, you now say that these same horses are being taken away from other, "better" tracks that they would be running at........so, in the end, you would just prefer that the "bad" horses be running at the "good" tracks that are in your opinion so well run?

Take a look at a CT card and see how many of the horses would be running at the "better" tracks.....right now, CT cards two WVA Bred races a night and many 5K claimers with some allowance and maiden races sprinkled in....I honestly dont think many of those horses would otherwise be running at the "better" tracks....

As far as the "games" played at CT and things you referenced, I try and steer clear of any accusations....I will say that I think it is way off the mark to single out these tracks as if those "games" dont happen at the other "better" tracks as well.....the testing may be tougher in the other jursidictions(cant confirm or deny that) but I find it amazing that they have the most trainers with violations, yet continue to let them train there after so many of them.....is this the result of a "well run" operation?

All I am saying is people don't trust these tracks, so they don't bet them. I won't speculate any longer. If you want to pretend Kevin Joy isn't a beard for a guy that has been ruled off and "trains" for 5% instead of 10, be my guest. That is one of several "games" I know about. Everybody knows, but nothing is done.

You are right, many of the horses are terrible and can't run elsewhere, but plenty can. That was never the case at CT in the past when maybe a handful could run in Maryland, and that is pushing it. A 10k claimer was an allowance horse at CT. Now, those CT allowance horses are the 20k to 30k claimer that is gone.

You could easily find 10 horses a week, probably more, that could compete at better tracks. It all adds up, and it is killing the game. Purses that aren't earned at the mutuel windows are being handed out like candy and it is killing the game, unless of course you are an owner of the horses collecting the purses.

[cj]

You get testy when someone disagree with you. This isn't personal and I have respect for you.

Define plenty - seriously.

If you say so, I'll try to do better.

I said in my last post at least 10 a week at each track on average, and that is just off the top of my head.

[lamboguy]

no one is wrong here. the owners of these tracks no matter who they are have to run racetracks as a LEGITAMATE BUSINESS. and then people will be more than happy to be customers. if the tracks are not smart enough to do things this way they should not be around.

[Saratoga_Mike]

If you say so, I'll try to do better.

I said in my last post at least 10 a week at each track on average, and that is just off the top of my head.

I bet on MNR on 12/28 and 12/29 and there were exactly ZERO horses that fit in at NY.

[cj]

I bet on MNR on 12/28 and 12/29 and there were exactly ZERO horses that fit in at NY.

So you base it on those two days? The very end of the meet with terrible races carded. How about races 6 through 8 on the 27th? How about the 8th and 9th races at CT on the 31st? We can nitpick all day, it doesn't change the fact that horses are being siphoned off overall.

[Relwob Owner]

All I am saying is people don't trust these tracks, so they don't bet them. I won't speculate any longer. If you want to pretend Kevin Joy isn't a beard for a guy that has been ruled off and "trains" for 5% instead of 10, be my guest. That is one of several "games" I know about. Everybody knows, but nothing is done.

You are right, many of the horses are terrible and can't run elsewhere, but plenty can. That was never the case at CT in the past when maybe a handful could run in Maryland, and that is pushing it. A 10k claimer was an allowance horse at CT. Now, those CT allowance horses are the 20k to 30k claimer that is gone.

You could easily find 10 horses a week, probably more, that could compete at better tracks. It all adds up, and it is killing the game. Purses that aren't earned at the mutuel windows are being handed out like candy and it is killing the game, unless of course you are an owner of the horses collecting the purses.


I dont understand why you use Kevin Joy over and over about all that is nefarious at CT.....he was a whopping 7 for 51 from October to December at CT......even if he is a "beard", then how is this different from what happens at the "better" tracks where a trainer blows a test and hands it off to an assistant?

As far as trusting the tracks go, I watched tons of races last year at Charlestown.....none came close to two events that I will never forget in terms of "trusting" racing...First, Twirling Candy not getting DQ'd at Del Mar and second, Life at Ten being allowed to run at Churchill.....how did these two things make you feel about "trusting" things at the "better" tracks?

[cj]

I dont understand why you use Kevin Joy over and over about all that is nefarious at CT.....he was a whopping 7 for 51 from October to December at CT......even if he is a "beard", then how is this different from what happens at the "better" tracks where a trainer blows a test and hands it off to an assistant?

As far as trusting the tracks go, I watched tons of races last year at Charlestown.....none came close to two events that I will never forget in terms of "trusting" racing...First, Twirling Candy not getting DQ'd at Del Mar and second, Life at Ten being allowed to run at Churchill.....how did these two things make you feel about "trusting" things at the "better" tracks?

It really doesn't matter much if I trust those tracks any more than smaller ones. I've never said I did. I just think the public as a whole does, and the betting handle bears this out. How else do you explain it? I love CharlesTown, always have, and still bet it. I have nothing against the place. Since few others do, however, I think racing would be better without places like it. You do need some low level tracks of course, and I'm not trying to single out CT. But for whatever reason, people aren't betting those places. Therefore I'd rather see the horses making up bigger fields where people do bet.

As for Kevin Joy, he is old news because everyone caught on. I'm not going to give new info since I use it.

[thaskalos]

I dont understand why you use Kevin Joy over and over about all that is nefarious at CT.....he was a whopping 7 for 51 from October to December at CT......even if he is a "beard", then how is this different from what happens at the "better" tracks where a trainer blows a test and hands it off to an assistant?

As far as trusting the tracks go, I watched tons of races last year at Charlestown.....none came close to two events that I will never forget in terms of "trusting" racing...First, Twirling Candy not getting DQ'd at Del Mar and second, Life at Ten being allowed to run at Churchill.....how did these two things make you feel about "trusting" things at the "better" tracks?Not to mention that the biggest betting scandal in recent years was orchestrated in NY, by trainer Gregory Martin et al..

[cj]

Not to mention that the biggest betting scandal in recent years was orchestrated in NY, by trainer Gregory Martin et al..

Well, of course, the handle is too small at most places to even be possible to try to rival that one. They were also caught.

[Relwob Owner]

It really doesn't matter much if I trust those tracks any more than smaller ones. I've never said I did. I just think the public as a whole does, and the betting handle bears this out. How else do you explain it? I love CharlesTown, always have, and still bet it. I have nothing against the place. Since few others do, however, I think racing would be better without places like it. You do need some low level tracks of course, and I'm not trying to single out CT. But for whatever reason, people aren't betting those places. Therefore I'd rather see the horses making up bigger fields where people do bet.

As for Kevin Joy, he is old news because everyone caught on. I'm not going to give new info since I use it.



Gotcha....fair points...I think many still bet at the "better" tracks out of force of habit and it will be interesting to see how the handles change in the upcoming years....Santa Anita seems to be a place where people always have bet and have just gotten fed up and tired of it....

I have come over to your point of view overall regarding slots in general and their effect....it would be nice if the slots money was used to bolster the purses and improve the tracks overall....unfortunately, it seems as if it has de-incentivized tracjs to improve since they think the money will always be there, which it wont.

[Dahoss9698]

Well, of course, the handle is too small at most places to even be possible to try to rival that one. They were also caught.

Not to mention it was like 7 years ago.

[cj]

I have come over to your point of view overall regarding slots in general and their effect....it would be nice if the slots money was used to bolster the purses and improve the tracks overall....unfortunately, it seems as if it has de-incentivized tracjs to improve since they think the money will always be there, which it wont.

That is all I'm saying. I have nothing against small tracks and slow horses. I love big fields of competitive horses, regardless of quality. It certainly beats betting fields of five G1 horses. My enthusiasm is a little tempered, though, when I can only bet $50 on a 30 to 1 shot without making it 8 to 1.

[Saratoga_Mike]

So you base it on those two days? The very end of the meet with terrible races carded. How about races 6 through 8 on the 27th? How about the 8th and 9th races at CT on the 31st? We can nitpick all day, it doesn't change the fact that horses are being siphoned off overall.

I just don't think CT and MNR are the issue (regarding NYRA siphoning). I think PHA, DEL and MTH are the tracks that best make your case. That's all.

[cj]

I just don't think CT and MNR are the issue (regarding NYRA siphoning). I think PHA, DEL and MTH are the tracks that best make your case. That's all.

Sure, they are, but I wasn't only talking about NYRA. I was talking Kentucky and Florida, at least mid-major tracks even if they aren't NYRA.

[Saratoga_Mike]

As for Kevin Joy, he is old news because everyone caught on. I'm not going to give new info since I use it.

Everyone at CT talks. Everybody knows somebody there, just as you know MB.

[Relwob Owner]

That is all I'm saying. I have nothing against small tracks and slow horses. I love big fields of competitive horses, regardless of quality. It certainly beats betting fields of five G1 horses. My enthusiasm is a little tempered, though, when I can only bet $50 on a 30 to 1 shot without making it 8 to 1.



Got it...........good point about your own bet affecting the odds.....if a horse is 5 to 1, I know full well that with my bet, he/she could go favorite.....I think it is fair to say that all tracks, big and small could use some tightening up in terms of gaining the trust of the bettor.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Sure, they are, but I wasn't only talking about NYRA. I was talking Kentucky and Florida, at least mid-major tracks even if they aren't NYRA.

I only asked, "do you honestly believe CT and MNR are siphoning horses off from NYRA tracks and So. Cali?" That was first question regarding the "siphoning" matter. I didn't question whether horses end up at CT vs LRL. On that matter, we agree. I think we agree on the first matter, too.

[gm10]

those were the days for sure, and it wasn't that long ago that horses ran in gulfstream that could never win there after their maiden win. you could claim horses for $10k and they would go up north and win allowance races.

there is more that is wrong with the game, i say the game has eliminated the smaller owner. it is impossible for the smaller owner to win. i just won a race today in parx. i spent over $15k reviving the horse after a bow tendon. she won the race and got claimed by juan carlos gurero. he is going to wind up winning $100k with her as long as she stays sound. i hardly see 0/7 4 yo maidens get claimed after a year layoff. i don't have any sour grapes, that is the business. i never claim horses, i just spend my money fixing them up.

If it's Santorini Moon ... it's not a bad deal ... purse 22K. I'd say she found an ideal race today but won't be winning that many races in the future (nothing personal, just my opinion as a handicapper). Nice training job.

[cj]

If it's Santorini Moon ... it's not a bad deal ... purse 22K. I'd say she found an ideal race today but won't be winning that many races in the future (nothing personal, just my opinion as a handicapper). Nice training job.

It has to be her.

[thaskalos]

If it's Santorini Moon ... it's not a bad deal ... purse 22K. I'd say she found an ideal race today but won't be winning that many races in the future (nothing personal, just my opinion as a handicapper). Nice training job.GM10...I am trying to send you a PM about the upcoming handicapping contest...but your PM box is full.

It's gonna be hard for us to win if we can't communicate...:)

[the little guy]

The fact that gm10's PM box is full is a definite sign of the apocalypse.

[lamboguy]

It has to be her.that's not fair, you knew that over a year ago

[gm10]

The fact that gm10's PM box is full is a definite sign of the apocalypse.

Hey look who's back. Still got that exceptional wit I see.

Actually one of the last PM's I received mentioned you. (Not in a good way, though.)

[cj]

that's not fair, you knew that over a year ago

Even so, it wasn't to hard to figure out with the info you gave. ;) I'm looking forward to seeing the figures I give her to see if I think she'll win 100k.

[thaskalos]

If Juan Carlos Guerrero claimed the horse...then the prior figures might not be that much of an indication...:)

[gm10]

GM10...I am trying to send you a PM about the upcoming handicapping contest...but your PM box is full.

It's gonna be hard for us to win if we can't communicate...:)

Should be some free space now ...

[cj]

If Juan Carlos Guerrero claimed the horse...then the prior figures might not be that much of an indication...:)

Very true...might be an interesting horse to follow here on the board.

[lamboguy]

Even so, it wasn't to hard to figure out with the info you gave. ;) I'm looking forward to seeing the figures I give her to see if I think she'll win 100k.i won the 3rd race the day before also, i am more interested in his number to see where i go with that i guy, i still have him.

[Saratoga_Mike]

i won the 3rd race the day before also, i am more interested in his number to see where i go with that i guy, i still have him.

Could you post more info on him, so I can decide whether I want to take him next time out or not?

[PhantomOnTour]

Three words:

No governing body

[cj]

i won the 3rd race the day before also, i am more interested in his number to see where i go with that i guy, i still have him.

I'll let you know...via PM!

[Saratoga_Mike]

I'll let you know...via PM!

I need this info too, to evaluate the potential claim.

[lamboguy]

Three words:

No governing bodysharp one

[Relwob Owner]

Could you post more info on him, so I can decide whether I want to take him next time out or not?


My favorite post this year so far............

[Saratoga_Mike]

My favorite post this year so far............

I don't want other people getting the same idea. I don't want to have to shake for this horse!

[lamboguy]

Could you post more info on him, so I can decide whether I want to take him next time out or not?u don't have to wait for him to run, you can buy him right now

[Saratoga_Mike]

u don't have to wait for him to run, you can buy him right now

I was joking with you Lambo. I wouldn't claim your horse.

[Dahoss9698]

Hey look who's back. Still got that exceptional wit I see.

Actually one of the last PM's I received mentioned you. (Not in a good way, though.)

Ahh, the infamous pm train. Good to see nothing has changed.

[gm10]

i won the 3rd race the day before also, i am more interested in his number to see where i go with that i guy, i still have him.

Petionville'sdream? Very decent number I have for him. Why would you want to sell that? Can make you loads at Penn with that type of style and ability (if that is the horse that you mean).

[lamboguy]

Petionville'sdream? Very decent number I have for him. Why would you want to sell that? Can make you loads at Penn with that type of style and ability (if that is the horse that you mean).i want to make room for daddy

[gm10]

i want to make room for daddy

Pretty sure you can get a nice little claimer at Penn soon. If the horse is sound, he should be very competitive.

[the little guy]

Ahh, the infamous pm train. Good to see nothing has changed.


It's the internet version of " your mother. "

[Charlie D]

The horseplayer has become an afterthought in today's game, and our sport is slowly finding out what happens to businesses which treat their customers with contempt...



Not sure i'd agree, as i believe they give people rebates, they offer free entrance, they offer free pp's, some reduce take if they think it will raise handle

It certainly is an industry that needs an overhaul, but it's not all bad yer know. ;)

[Charlie D]

It's customers being addicts and idiots (mullins) are what is really wrong with racing.

They will carry on playing and investing millions in currency despite everything and those that run the show know it.

[sandpit]

I worked in several racing offices for over a decade, and I can verify the sentiments posted earlier about trainers wanting short fields. I can't tell you how many times I'd call a guy and his response would be "6 only"...in other words, if you get a seventh horse to enter, I'm not running. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just the way it is.

Meanwhile, the racetrack frontside management is constantly calling the racing secretary and badgering him or her about carding the largest field possible.

I swear I'm not making this up: I once heard the president of a racetrack ask the racing secretary, on a day when entries were very slow, "Can't you just take all the entries and put them together to make bigger fields?" The concepts of age, sex, class, distance had zero impact on the guy.

[Fager Fan]

I worked in several racing offices for over a decade, and I can verify the sentiments posted earlier about trainers wanting short fields. I can't tell you how many times I'd call a guy and his response would be "6 only"...in other words, if you get a seventh horse to enter, I'm not running. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just the way it is.

Meanwhile, the racetrack frontside management is constantly calling the racing secretary and badgering him or her about carding the largest field possible.

I swear I'm not making this up: I once heard the president of a racetrack ask the racing secretary, on a day when entries were very slow, "Can't you just take all the entries and put them together to make bigger fields?" The concepts of age, sex, class, distance had zero impact on the guy.

If you're calling a guy, that means you're drumming up a horse that the trainer doesn't want to run. "Six only" could well mean that he won't run the horse that he would prefer not running if they get enough without him.

[owlet]

[QUOTE=sandpit]I worked in several racing offices for over a decade, and I can verify the sentiments posted earlier about trainers wanting short fields. I can't tell you how many times I'd call a guy and his response would be "6 only"...in other words, if you get a seventh horse to enter, I'm not running. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just the way it is.


This is my point: you guys betting these races are just putting money into the pocket of Carava, Mitchell, Sadler, Baffert, Mullins, et al. You feel good about that?

Ever notice how THEY don't claim poverty?

[Fager Fan]

[QUOTE=sandpit]I worked in several racing offices for over a decade, and I can verify the sentiments posted earlier about trainers wanting short fields. I can't tell you how many times I'd call a guy and his response would be "6 only"...in other words, if you get a seventh horse to enter, I'm not running. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just the way it is.


This is my point: you guys betting these races are just putting money into the pocket of Carava, Mitchell, Sadler, Baffert, Mullins, et al. You feel good about that?

Ever notice how THEY don't claim poverty?

Because they're not. Two entities in racing make very healthy incomes with zero risk - trainers and vets.

[gm10]

I worked in several racing offices for over a decade, and I can verify the sentiments posted earlier about trainers wanting short fields. I can't tell you how many times I'd call a guy and his response would be "6 only"...in other words, if you get a seventh horse to enter, I'm not running. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just the way it is.

Meanwhile, the racetrack frontside management is constantly calling the racing secretary and badgering him or her about carding the largest field possible.

I swear I'm not making this up: I once heard the president of a racetrack ask the racing secretary, on a day when entries were very slow, "Can't you just take all the entries and put them together to make bigger fields?" The concepts of age, sex, class, distance had zero impact on the guy.

Maybe there should be less races, or more prize money for the horses who finish out of the top 5?

[The Hawk]

Maybe there should be less races, or more prize money for the horses who finish out of the top 5?

Worked at Monmouth!

[Stillriledup]

I worked in several racing offices for over a decade, and I can verify the sentiments posted earlier about trainers wanting short fields. I can't tell you how many times I'd call a guy and his response would be "6 only"...in other words, if you get a seventh horse to enter, I'm not running. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just the way it is.

Meanwhile, the racetrack frontside management is constantly calling the racing secretary and badgering him or her about carding the largest field possible.

I swear I'm not making this up: I once heard the president of a racetrack ask the racing secretary, on a day when entries were very slow, "Can't you just take all the entries and put them together to make bigger fields?" The concepts of age, sex, class, distance had zero impact on the guy.


The good people at Santa Anita made Powerofvoodoo 28-1 vs Harmonius, which means they'll bet anything, even if the horse is 19 classes outclassed.

[sandpit]

If you're calling a guy, that means you're drumming up a horse that the trainer doesn't want to run. "Six only" could well mean that he won't run the horse that he would prefer not running if they get enough without him.

You're right, that's the case a lot of the time, but something else I heard regularly from trainers was "I didn't even know that race was in the book (or back up on the overnight as an extra), sure, go ahead and put me in there."

[DJofSD]

I wonder if the people in charge of racing in California have ever read Gladwell's "The Tipping Point" (http://www.wikisummaries.org/The_Tipping_Point) and thought about how it applies to the current situation. But then that assumes they know how to read and think. Doubtful on the face of it.