Late scratches galore...

[thaskalos]

One of the most frustrating problems the everyday horseplayer faces is this rash of late scratches plaguing our sport recently...and no major track seems immune.

Beautiful weather...fast track...and we have original fields of seven and eight horses reduced to pathetic fields of five or six runners, all as a result of these late scratches.

In today's Belmont card, late scratches in the first and fourth races have reduced the first four races to an unappetizing menu of three 5-horse fields, and one 7-horse field.

[Spiderman]

One of the most frustrating problems the everyday horseplayer faces is this rash of late scratches plaguing our sport recently...and no major track seems immune.

Beautiful weather...fast track...and we have original fields of seven and eight horses reduced to pathetic fields of five or six runners, all as a result of these late scratches.

In today's Belmont card, late scratches in the first and fourth races have reduced the first four races to an unappetizing menu of three 5-horse fields, and one 7-horse field.

Races 5-9 are OK. Belmont races 1-4 have been small, last few cards. Good luck, today.

[JustRalph]

it's getting late in the meet, I suspect that has something to do with it.

[Tom]

I used to chomp at the bit to get the PPs a day early.
Nowadays, I don't look a trace until about 10 minutes to post time.
More often than not, I miss more races than I bet. Just got tired of wasting time on races that turn out to be "el passos."

[mountainman]

One of the most frustrating problems the everyday horseplayer faces is this rash of late scratches plaguing our sport recently...and no major track seems immune.

Beautiful weather...fast track...and we have original fields of seven and eight horses reduced to pathetic fields of five or six runners, all as a result of these late scratches.

In today's Belmont card, late scratches in the first and fourth races have reduced the first four races to an unappetizing menu of three 5-horse fields, and one 7-horse field.

Just blogged on this very issue and took it right to the edge. I suspect that many players are unaware of what precipitates late scratches and how certain forces conspire to create short fields.

[Producer]

I wonder if all these "late-scratch" horses ever intended to run in the first place. I've always thought that racing secretaries got trainers to enter just to make the fields seem more appealing to the eyes in the days leading up to races, with no real intention in running.

CD has had its share of scratches also lately, including 4 horses scratched out of the Bashford-Manor today.

[sandpit]

I wonder if all these "late-scratch" horses ever intended to run in the first place. I've always thought that racing secretaries got trainers to enter just to make the fields seem more appealing to the eyes in the days leading up to races, with no real intention in running.

CD has had its share of scratches also lately, including 4 horses scratched out of the Bashford-Manor today.

I was at CD last night, and they had some scratches, but nothing out of whack. The race card itself, though, was horrible for the most part. I felt like I was watching Ellis Park on a Thursday. They had 13 races; got there just before the 4th, and the place was basically empty. Young crowd full of teenage girls came later to see the DJ and get older dudes to buy their liquor. Those Friday nights are basically a track divided: the aforementioned people there to see the music, and the other out watching the races...there is very little mixing b/n the two groups.

[thaskalos]

Just blogged on this very issue and took it right to the edge. I suspect that many players are unaware of what precipitates late scratches and how certain forces conspire to create short fields.
Great article mountainman...:ThmbUp:

Whether these late scratches are attributed to the "supertrainers" protecting their win percentages, or to the OTHER trainers' reluctance to run AGAINST these miracle workers...or even if it's the trainers in general, choosing to run their horses against the fewest competitors possible...one thing is certain:

The racetracks better do something to remedy this situation soon, or they will soon be forced to deal with yet ANOTHER rash of UNEXPECTED "late scratches"...

Their best customers.

[Tom]

Every track could afford to cut its number of races in half. If there was only one race for $10K claimers every month, maybe they would be slower to scratch out.

Why pay two purses for two 5 horse fields when you can pay for one 10 horse field?

[mountainman]

Great article mountainman...:ThmbUp:

Whether these late scratches are attributed to the "supertrainers" protecting their win percentages, or to the OTHER trainers' reluctance to run AGAINST these miracle workers...or even if it's the trainers in general, choosing to run their horses against the fewest competitors possible...one thing is certain:

The racetracks better do something to remedy this situation soon, or they will soon be forced to deal with yet ANOTHER rash of UNEXPECTED "late scratches"...

Their best customers.

Tx, sir. Jocks agents are little known accomplices in this, scheming endlessly behind the scenes to prevent their live mounts from overlapping.

[Jeff P]

Great write up Mark... I really enjoyed reading it.

Field size is rapidly becoming an issue for all tracks everywhere.

I'm wondering, what can tracks actually do about this?

Economic studies prepared for the industry (Thalheimer (http://cobweb2.louisville.edu/eip/Newsletters/research/economic%20analysis.pdf)) name field size as the second most important factor (behind takeout) in terms of ability to drive handle (actions taken by the TOC notwithstanding, purse size actually ranks last.)

I'd like to see a track try something along the lines of the following experiment... where Purse size for each race becomes a function of the amount wagered that race.

Example, two hypothetical races:

R1 $10k claimers - field of 6... attracts handle of $80k
R2 $10k claimers - field of 8... attracts handle of $120k

All else being equal, purse money paid out to the winning connections of R2 would be 12/8ths or 50% more than purse money paid out to the winning connections of R1.

Thoughts?

-jp

.

[castaway01]

Great write up Mark... I really enjoyed reading it.

Field size is rapidly becoming an issue for all tracks everywhere.

I'm wondering, what can tracks actually do about this?

Economic studies prepared for the industry (Thalheimer (http://cobweb2.louisville.edu/eip/Newsletters/research/economic%20analysis.pdf)) name field size as the second most important factor (behind takeout) in terms of ability to drive handle (actions taken by the TOC notwithstanding, purse size actually ranks last.)

I'd like to see a track try something along the lines of the following experiment... where Purse size for each race becomes a function of the amount wagered that race.

Example, two hypothetical races:

R1 $10k claimers - field of 6... attracts handle of $80k
R2 $10k claimers - field of 8... attracts handle of $120k

All else being equal, purse money paid out to the winning connections of R2 would be 12/8ths or 50% more than purse money paid out to the winning connections of R1.

Thoughts?

-jp

.

I think the idea on paper has merit, but what is the incentive for the owners/trainers of horses 6-8 in the 8-horse race to enter if they're largely there as cannon fodder and purses are only paid to 5th place?

[Jeff P]

It's very discouraging to see what the game has become (and where things are headed.)

It's not all that long ago that horses made 12 starts per year instead of the 6 pt something they make now.

If you had a fit horse and there was a race in the condition book that you thought would be a good fit for your horse: you entered.

Sure, sometimes you were cannon fodder for a better horse. But if you were fit you got a check. And if you were fit and your horse came out of the race ok, you found another race in the condition book and ran right back (and got another check.)

I think Mark has a point.

How and why did running (and getting a check) start taking a back seat to maintaining a 30% win rate?



-jp

.

[Tom]

Horsemen would rather wun in a small filed. Better shot to get a check. Until the tracks start carding races for the customers, it will be this way.

[therussmeister]

Great write up Mark... I really enjoyed reading it.

Field size is rapidly becoming an issue for all tracks everywhere.

I'm wondering, what can tracks actually do about this?

Economic studies prepared for the industry (Thalheimer (http://cobweb2.louisville.edu/eip/Newsletters/research/economic%20analysis.pdf)) name field size as the second most important factor (behind takeout) in terms of ability to drive handle (actions taken by the TOC notwithstanding, purse size actually ranks last.)

I'd like to see a track try something along the lines of the following experiment... where Purse size for each race becomes a function of the amount wagered that race.

Example, two hypothetical races:

R1 $10k claimers - field of 6... attracts handle of $80k
R2 $10k claimers - field of 8... attracts handle of $120k

All else being equal, purse money paid out to the winning connections of R2 would be 12/8ths or 50% more than purse money paid out to the winning connections of R1.

Thoughts?

-jp

.
First thing is the first race of the day has always had a smaller handle than the latter races (and I suspect always will), so no one would want to enter in the first race if there is a similar race carded as race 3 tomorrow.

Certain days of the week tend to draw bigger handle than others, so trainers will only enter on those days, (although you may intend to adjust pay according to same day handle.)

[mountainman]

It's very discouraging to see what the game has become (and where things are headed.)

It's not all that long ago that horses made 12 starts per year instead of the 6 pt something they make now.

If you had a fit horse and there was a race in the condition book that you thought would be a good fit for your horse: you entered.

Sure, sometimes you were cannon fodder for a better horse. But if you were fit you got a check. And if you were fit and your horse came out of the race ok, you found another race in the condition book and ran right back (and got another check.)





-jp

.

I couldn't agree more, Jeff. True, purses individually proportionate to race-handle would be a difficult idea to implement fairly. However, I don't think you proposed that as a complete, polished solution to short fields, but instead as a starting point for creative dialogue. And one thing is certain, SOME incentive -probably financial-must be offered if racing is to combat late scratches and short fields, two closely related problems eroding player interest at an alarming rate. I would also counter those dismissive of your proposal by pointing out that, casino supplements aside, purses are ALREADY based on handle. Stay on this problem and keep thinking outside the box, sir.

I would further add that as an official, I'm trained to think in punitive terms and consider stiffer deterrents to scratching just as necessary as positive inducements to compete. Now that approach is a REAL minefield. With unscrupulous private vets out there to provide fake excuses for scratching, how do you prove that a horse DIDN'T colic, develop filling in a tendon, or throw a fever?

And beyond all is the slightly separate and more insidious problem of entries made in bad faith by those conspring to make certain book races "go." It's an issue of national proportions that's extremely hard to root out and attack.

[Pell Mell]

I put most of the blame on the way conditions are written these days. Way back when; there were not nearly as many divisions of horses. For instance; there were 3,500 claiming races, period!. There were no races for non-winners of 2,3 or 4 races nor NW 1,2,or 3 this year or in so many months. The only restrictions were weight penalties for recent wins. Do away with all the "Conditioned" races and go back to just plain claimers. If there are 200 5G claimers on the grounds, lump them together instead of having 6 different divisions.

It worked 50 yrs ago when racing was in it's hey-dey so don't say it can't work now.

Another item I'd like to see implemented is the condition that you can only drop a horse in class if it ran below a certain level last time. For instance, a 5 G claiming race that says; any horse entered for more than 7,500 last out is not eligible.

The biggest problem is with the way race conditions are written and the racing Sec's have the power to do something about it. JMO ;)