How Can Racing Lower the Cost of Keeping a Horse Racing

[chickenhead]

This has come up a few times recently, tangentially, its something I've thought about before and I'd like to hear from people that run horses how things are done now and how things could be done differently.

Specifically things like:

Farrier Services
Medication
Access to medical equipment
Vets
Feed

etc. What could the tracks save small owners money just by pooling or providing. Not necessarily for free, but in some reduced manner.

What could be made more efficient and cost effective about owning a race horse, and have a meaningful impact? Are there some "no-brainers" lying about that people should be advocating for, that would make some difference.

[Saratoga_Mike]

This has come up a few times recently, tangentially, its something I've thought about before and I'd like to hear from people that run horses how things are done now and how things could be done differently.

Specifically things like:

Farrier Services
Medication
Access to medical equipment
Vets
Feed

etc. What could the tracks save small owners money just by pooling or providing. Not necessarily for free, but in some reduced manner.

What could be more more efficient and cost effective about owning a race horse, and have a meaningful impact?

Ban clenbuterol - there, just saved everyone $2,500/yr/horse

[DeanT]

That's a job for Zetcher and Israel on the CHRB, but it appears they spend their time on multi-billion dollar takeout decisions.

A couple of posts from trainers on a chat board I follow on the ownership side of racing. Costs are marked up huge. The HK model is much better (track vet dispensing at little mark up, bulk buying etc) or so I have heard.

if purses do end up going up in Cali, these prices all will too. It's a never ending circle.

The cost of vet work is insane. It got so out of hand that vets in the U.K. now have to have there prices listed when you walk into there clinic. All the most commonly Rx'd meds are up on a black board type of set up. I have a up to date list of the wholesale prices of vet. meds. Included is a suggested retail price. One med. commonly used on horses wholesales for $45. The suggested retail is $175!! That is simply insane. Go to a vet seminar/workshop. Hearing the Pharma company rep talk about getting every penny they can get out of there clients is sickening! Then they tell you how to sell that product. What to say to sell the product, where to place the brochures, etc..

I can't begrudge someone making a good living. But these vets have more income than a good casino does!! Youtube some of these workshops/seminars. CBC and W5 did a show on vets and what they charge. It made for some very unhappy vets, pharma. companies. But it sure let the public know what was going on.

The mark up on products and vet work is hard to believe. This winter when we were in vegas we got into the the vets trade show. alot of the vets we use were in attendence. if you had seen the prices that they buy the products for you would be sick. 150 % markup on most products like acid adiquin anything else you want to mention. I was sick when we walk'd out.


Some of my favorite fees you see on a vet bill now

:examanation fee
:injection fee
:x ray set up fee
:$10 for a shot of bute, after they put in $480 worth of acid in your horses Knees

[MickJ26]

Would it be cheaper to base your horse(s) in a place like West Virginia or Ohio and just ship to New York, Kentucky or Chicago for the races where expenses are more cost efficient?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Would it be cheaper to base your horse(s) in a place like West Virginia or Ohio and just ship to New York, Kentucky or Chicago for the races where expenses are more cost efficient?

Probably not the best thing for most horses and the shipping costs would be killer.

[Robert Goren]

I am outsider looking in, but to me it seems the cost of the horse to start with is out of whack. Stud Fees and Yearling prices seem way too high. The cost of getting what might be a decent runner would keep me from getting into if I was interested in becoming an owner.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I am outsider looking in, but to me it seems the cost of the horse to start with is out of whack. Stud Fees and Yearling prices seem way too high. [B]The cost of getting what might be a decent runner would keep me from getting into if I was interested in becoming an owner.

True detective, as racing is a business/hobby for most, so it isn't driven by pure economics.

[Stillriledup]

Buy a quality horse and give him to a trainer who doesnt charge much and doesnt do much vet work.

Problem solved. :eek:

[Saratoga_Mike]

Buy a quality horse and give him to a trainer who doesnt charge much and doesnt do much vet work.

Problem solved. :eek:

You get what you pay for! In addition, at many tracks the vast majority of the trainers all charge the same day rate. In NY, they all charge right around $90/day with a few exceptions (Pletcher $110).

[GatetoWire]

Probably not the best thing for most horses and the shipping costs would be killer.

Yeah a truck and trailer.....gas and tolls.....that cost would be huge!! :confused:

The real issue is that the trainer would probably use the ship as a way to pad the bill.

Trainers are the issue.....the markup on everything is huge. You do the math on what they are making at $90/day.

The biggest lie in racing. "a trainer can't make a living on the day rate"

Anyone with 15 or more horses is raking it in compared to other jobs with similar hours.

[chickenhead]

it seems like you would want to separate out any "goods" from the "services".

So you'd have a price list at the track for feed, medication, etc -- at cost. Kinda like the store on a military base. That could all be transparent, fairly easily.

If you pull out all the goods and eliminate the markups, then you are left only with the variable of the cost of services. I'm just wondering which services might actually work under the track umbrella, and which wouldn't.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Yeah a truck and trailer.....gas and tolls.....that cost would be huge!! :confused:

The real issue is that the trainer would probably use the ship as a way to pad the bill.

Trainers are the issue.....the markup on everything is huge. You do the math on what they are making at $90/day.

The biggest lie in racing. "a trainer can't make a living on the day rate"
Anyone with 15 or more horses is raking it in compared to other jobs with similar hours.

Yes, I call this the "day rate" union (all trainers are members), as members no trainer is allowed to admit they ever make any money, not a dime, on the day rate. I'm not saying they're getting rich on their day rate, but at least a little with the proper scale.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Yeah a truck and trailer.....gas and tolls.....that cost would be huge!! :confused:

The real issue is that the trainer would probably use the ship as a way to pad the bill.

Trainers are the issue.....the markup on everything is huge. You do the math on what they are making at $90/day.

The biggest lie in racing. "a trainer can't make a living on the day rate"

Anyone with 15 or more horses is raking it in compared to other jobs with similar hours.

Trucking a horse from CT to AQU roundtrip is going to run about $1,000, and I suspect you may need to ship in the night b/f, so that would add to the cost. If you expect the trainer to haul the horse up himself, he should be able to charge what a regular van company would charge (i.e., $1,000+).

All the trainers I've used have been honest.

[Fager Fan]

True detective, as racing is a business/hobby for most, so it isn't driven by pure economics.

You're not entirely right about that. Not many of these folks that do have money will keep pouring it in endlessly. If they don't operate in the black, they'll eventually get out. They're not going to go bankrupt for this little hobby.

[Saratoga_Mike]

You're not entirely right about that. Not many of these folks that do have money will keep pouring it in endlessly. If they don't operate in the black, they'll eventually get out. They're not going to go bankrupt for this little hobby.

That's why someone worth $5 mm might be willing to lose say $20k/yr, whereas someone worth $1 bb might be willing to lose $5 mm/yr. Everything is relative.

[Fager Fan]

That's why someone worth $5 mm might be willing to lose say $20k/yr, whereas someone worth $1 bb might be willing to lose $5 mm/yr. Everything is relative.

Sure, just like gambling is a hobby (or at least it should be), so we could say that's not driven by pure economics either.

[DeanT]

Sure, just like gambling is a hobby (or at least it should be), so we could say that's not driven by pure economics either.

Oh man. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who have made gambling their craft and have put their kids through school, and paid off mortgages like a productive member of society.

Just because you dont understand it, and cant do it yourself, there is no need to be ignorant about it.

[Fager Fan]

Oh man. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people who have made gambling their craft and have put their kids through school, and paid off mortgages like a productive member of society.

Just because you dont understand it, and cant do it yourself, there is no need to be ignorant about it.

Good job at missing the point, Dean. Gamblers are no different than owners in that they should only be gambling (which is what owners are doing) with funds they can afford to lose. Every gambler and owner has a limit as to what he's willing to lose before he walks (unless he's a loser who doesn't walk before he's carried out flat broke), so it's incorrect to think that owners are immune to normal financial considerations.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Sure, just like gambling is a hobby (or at least it should be), so we could say that's not driven by pure economics either.

For some, gambling isn't a hobby. For most, it is, or should be, as you point out. Overall, I beleive we agree--I hope that doesn't disappoint you.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Good job at missing the point, Dean. Gamblers are no different than owners in that they should only be gambling (which is what owners are doing) with funds they can afford to lose. Every gambler and owner has a limit as to what he's willing to lose before he walks (unless he's a loser who doesn't walk before he's carried out flat broke), so it's incorrect to think that owners are immune to normal financial considerations.

Who said they were immune from normal financial considerations? I said owning race horses was best defined as a hobby/business for most. I stand by that. And spare me and others your haughty attitude.

[Fager Fan]

Who said they were immune from normal financial considerations? I said owning race horses was best defined as a hobby/business for most. I stand by that. And spare me and others your haughty attitude.


"as racing is a business/hobby for most, so it isn't driven by pure economics"

Call it haughty if you like, but it's incorrect.

And did you just say that gambling is a hobby/business for some gamblers?

So again, both sets of gamblers in the sport seek to make a profit and they'll only pay so much for their entertainment and lose but so much before they walk.

[Saratoga_Mike]

"as racing is a business/hobby for most, so it isn't driven by pure economics"

Call it haughty if you like, but it's incorrect.

And did you just say that gambling is a hobby/business for some gamblers?

So again, both sets of gamblers in the sport seek to make a profit and they'll only pay so much for their entertainment and lose but so much before they walk.

"As racing is a business/hobby for most, so it isn't driven by pure economics" -- do you see the modifier PURE? And what about the FOR MOST? I'm correct. You are wrong. I don't care if you worked for every top t'bred farm in Kentucky. You're simply wrong, and I'm tired of you and your haughty attitude. Name another industry where expenses (training/vet care/shipping of race horses) have exceeded revenue (purses) every year for the past 10 yrs. So something tells me something other than PURE ECONOMICS are driving this business.

[Fager Fan]

"As racing is a business/hobby for most, so it isn't driven by pure economics" -- do you see the modifier PURE? And what about the FOR MOST? I'm correct. You are wrong. I don't care if you worked for every top t'bred farm in Kentucky. You're simply wrong, and I'm tired of you and your haughty attitude. Name another industry where expenses (training/vet care/shipping of race horses) have exceeded revenue (purses) every year for the past 10 yrs. So something tells me something other than PURE ECONOMICS are driving this business.

Something tells me that something other than PURE ECONOMICS are driving you gamblers since the entire parimutuel system pays out less than it takes in.

The point being that everyone is in this with the hopes of big scores but the acknowledgement that there are going to be losses. Owners aren't less immune than gamblers. They play on a bigger scale than gamblers, but for all there is a point where they'll walk away.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Something tells me that something other than PURE ECONOMICS are driving you gamblers since the entire parimutuel system pays out less than it takes in.

The point being that everyone is in this with the hopes of big scores but the acknowledgement that there are going to be losses. Owners aren't less immune than gamblers. They play on a bigger scale than gamblers, but for all there is a point where they'll walk away.

"You gamblers..." Classic. It's the gamblers that keep you in business and me, as I typically own a horse or two (none right now).

[DeanT]

Horse owning is a luxury good and has been for sometime, so the elasticy of owning is what it is.

Horse racing betting is not a luxury good, it is a good which is ruled by the perfectly competitive gambling market.

Two completely different pursuits.

[Fager Fan]

"You gamblers..." Classic. It's the gamblers that keep you in business and me, as I typically own a horse or two (none right now).

Actually, it's the owners who keep racing in business. They put in a bigger investment in total than do gamblers. Gamblers put in the second largest investment.

So you're still gambling but not owning. See my point?

[thaskalos]

Owners aren't less immune than gamblers.The horse owners are "gambling" as much as we "gamblers" are...it's just that our "games" are a little different.

They just happen to enjoy a higher level of respectability in this game than we do...so they feel that this entitles them to call us "gamblers"...whereas THEY call themselves "businessmen", or "sportsmen".

Funny...

[DeanT]

Actually, it's the owners who keep racing in business. They put in a bigger investment in total than do gamblers. Gamblers put in the second largest investment.


It's my favorite owner quote!

Actually, it's the person who builds the Wal Mart who keeps the store in business. They put in a bigger investment in total than do customers. Customers put in the second largest investment.

No one would write that about a business, because it is insane.

I go to a yearling sale, buy a horse, pay for them, and hopefully race them for money.

Customers bet my horse and if they bet enough my purses go up.

As a horse owner I supply product and customers give me money to bet on them. Owners supply and customers demand.

It is amazing that we even have to have this conversation.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Actually, it's the owners who keep racing in business. They put in a bigger investment in total than do gamblers. Gamblers put in the second largest investment.

So you're still gambling but not owning. See my point?

No, I do not prove your point. My last horse was claimed from me a few months ago, and I just haven't replaced him yet. The pause in ownership has nothing to do with the economics of the situation, even though I concede I've had more losing yrs than money-making years as an owner.

[Saratoga_Mike]

It's my favorite owner quote!



No one would write that about a business because it is insane.

I go to a yearling sale, buy a horse pay for them, and hopefully race them for money.

Customers bet my horse and if they bet enough my purses go up.

As a horse owner I supply product and customers give me money to bet on them. Owners supply and customers demand.

It is amazing we are even having this conversation in 2010.

Dean, Dr. Fager is assuming you and I (and others on the board) know nothing about horse ownership and have had no personal experience with it.

[DeanT]

Dean, Dr. Fager is assuming you and I (and others on the board) know nothing about horse ownership and have had no personal experience with it.

Since I have put three of my vets kids through school, I have a decent idea about horse supply :)

[Saratoga_Mike]

Since I have put three of my vets kids through school, I have a decent idea about horse supply :)

Trust me, I don't share his conscending view of you or others.

[DeanT]

Trust me, I don't share his conscending view of you or others.

Ditto.

The strange thing is, from my experience, other than a couple of breeders, and horseman group types, we all know we supply the product and the customer demands it. Many owners are successful business people so this is rudimentary. The vocal types seem to want to throw the whole "put on a show" line out there, like somehow just because we buy a horse to race we are somehow special. We're not.

[thaskalos]

The vocal types seem to want to throw the whole "put on a show" line out there, like somehow just because we buy a horse to race we are somehow special. We're not.Not only that...but since YOU guys "put on a show" for us...you are ENTITLED to make a profit...whereas WE should be content to pay the entertainment price...

[Horseplayersbet.com]

I've seen estimations that state that owners lose 40% collectively each year.
Using this number, it means that if there was 1 billion given out in purses, approximately 800 million went to owners. A 40% loss means owners lost $320 million.

Meanwhile handle last year was 12 billion. At a 21% blended takeout and the factoring in rebates and the percentage of those who get them, it can be estimated that Horseplayers lost approximately 18% of 12 billion, or $2.1 billion last year.

This doesn't even take into account the subsidized money that comes from gambler's losses at slots, Instant Racing, etc.

Another thing is that even though owners lose $320 million, that money goes to the industry, and some of the recipients of that money are horse owners with side businesses or full time businesses that are horse related.

So who is more important to the industry, those who lose 2 billion or those who lose less than one 7th of that amount?

[Saratoga_Mike]

My accountant has prepared approximately 125 horse-racing business returns (all race horse ownership) in the past 10 yrs or so. He's had 5 returns show a profit in that time frame, and I had two of them.

[Horseplayersbet.com]

My accountant has prepared approximately 125 horse-racing business returns (all race horse ownership) in the past 10 yrs or so. He's had 5 returns show a profit in that time frame, and I had two of them.
It is much greater in Ontario.

[DeanT]

My accountant has prepared approximately 125 horse-racing business returns (all race horse ownership) in the past 10 yrs or so. He's had 5 returns show a profit in that time frame, and I had two of them.

You are awesome.

I think I am three or four for around 20.

Congrats man. That is some good horse picking.

[Saratoga_Mike]

You are awesome.

I think I am three or four for around 20.

Congrats man. That is some good horse picking.

I hope I didn't mislead you there. I have had TWO profitable yrs out of EIGHT. Once I stopped buying yearlings and two-yr-olds in training, things did improve nicely. Knock on wood.

[JohnGalt1]

This has come up a few times recently, tangentially, its something I've thought about before and I'd like to hear from people that run horses how things are done now and how things could be done differently.

Specifically things like:

Farrier Services
Medication
Access to medical equipment
Vets
Feed

etc. What could the tracks save small owners money just by pooling or providing. Not necessarily for free, but in some reduced manner.

What could be made more efficient and cost effective about owning a race horse, and have a meaningful impact? Are there some "no-brainers" lying about that people should be advocating for, that would make some difference.

One thing that could help is instituting a minimun or increasing payments for runners, i.e. $250 or more per starter--flat rate or something like 60% to the winner, 20% to second 10% to third, 5% to 4th and 1% and/or less for all other starters totalling 100% of the purse for each race.

It could also encourage more starters.

It would help to subsidize smaller owners' ability to pay the jockey fees,

Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't Monmouth pay $1200 per starter this summer?

[Delawaretrainer]

There are a lot of ways to reduce costs. Hay, feed and straw at the track is very expensive. I go once a week to a farmer and buy hay for 25 to 50% of what it would cost me at the track which is $10-20 per bale! I also pick up my feed locally which is $2 cheaper a bag than it is at the track. Instead of being double, you would think it could be cheaper due to the volume purchased there.

The other big expenses include labor, and workman's comp, not really much you could do about this.

Vet work is actually very reasonable at the track. Vets commonly examine horses and don't charge unless they do some diagnostics or treatment. Home at the farm vet charges are much more since the vet has to come out there. Racehorse's vet bills are only high because 1-the horse has issues or 2-the trainer is overzealous.

[Beachbabe]

There are a lot of ways to reduce costs. Hay, feed and straw at the track is very expensive. I go once a week to a farmer and buy hay for 25 to 50% of what it would cost me at the track which is $10-20 per bale! I also pick up my feed locally which is $2 cheaper a bag than it is at the track. Instead of being double, you would think it could be cheaper due to the volume purchased there.

The other big expenses include labor, and workman's comp, not really much you could do about this.

Vet work is actually very reasonable at the track. Vets commonly examine horses and don't charge unless they do some diagnostics or treatment. Home at the farm vet charges are much more since the vet has to come out there. Racehorse's vet bills are only high because 1-the horse has issues or 2-the trainer is overzealous.


Welcome to the forum !
Nice to hear from a trainer once in awhile.

[CryingForTheHorses]

I am outsider looking in, but to me it seems the cost of the horse to start with is out of whack. Stud Fees and Yearling prices seem way too high. The cost of getting what might be a decent runner would keep me from getting into if I was interested in becoming an owner.


I feel it all boils down to this.You have these horse mills with trainers having 50 plus horses and charging 90 to 110 a day.That many horses gives the vets,blacksmiths.employees of the stable jobs,Not to mention the feed company,The tack store etc etc.The higher the day rate The more everyone is going to charge.Horse racing isnt cheap but expenses can be curbed but not so much as to hinder your animals.Saving a few buck getting stuff yourself is great for a small outfit but a huge outfit just cant do that.The only way to keep your expenses down is to pick a small operation that does the work themselves thus saving on huge overhead