PDA

View Full Version : Starter fees as a source of trouble


Vengeance of Rain
02-07-2012, 04:49 PM
Does anyone have thoughts on this?

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/are-starter-fees-a-source-of-trouble-in-horse-racing/

bob60566
02-07-2012, 05:21 PM
I think Hastings Park is going that way 2012 my thoughts will help out the smaller stables with expenses and get the field size up.

Mac:)

macguy
02-07-2012, 07:17 PM
$1000 sounds a little bit ridiculous. $150 or so to cover the cost of the jockey and pony sounds fair, though.

Robert Goren
02-07-2012, 07:22 PM
As a bettor, I want every horse in the race trying for some prize money. I do not like the idea of a horse get paid for running last at every call.

wisconsin
02-07-2012, 08:19 PM
As a bettor, I want every horse in the race trying for some prize money. I do not like the idea of a horse get paid for running last at every call.


Second that.

thespaah
02-07-2012, 08:21 PM
Sticky subject. I fall on the side of starter fees for one reason only.
That is due to the increasing costs of training, feed and other incidentals need to be covered.
I can think of more good reasons to offer starter fees than bad ones.
However, I think a set of rules should be written for those stables that take advantage of the fees.
A little policing of a benefit is the way to go.

therussmeister
02-07-2012, 08:27 PM
As a bettor I like dead money in the pool; as long as I know it's dead, which isn't much of a problem for me. If they want to pay horses to finish last, I'm fine with that. It adds dead money.

Delta Cone
02-08-2012, 12:16 AM
As a bettor I like dead money in the pool; as long as I know it's dead, which isn't much of a problem for me. If they want to pay horses to finish last, I'm fine with that. It adds dead money.

I agree 100% that dead money in the pool helps me (as long as I know it's dead :confused: ), but is there really enough dead money to make a difference?

The article points out:

"Only two of the starters (a coupled entry of Turn Red and Bears N the Creek in a July 23 maiden claiming event) went off at odds of less than 30-1. Odds for five of the runners were over 100-1."

Another thought: does the dead money advantage outweigh the possible negative effects that one of these sad cases may have on the real contenders in the race?...(i.e., interference with legit contenders, acting up in the gate, etc.)

Do we want a bunch of Rick's Natural Star -types running in races?

startngate
02-08-2012, 01:06 PM
Have worked at places that pay all the way back, and those that don't. It can help fill races, however I have always believed that the stipend for starting shouldn't be more than the jock mount fee plus an allowance to cover legal meds. Basically, so it just doesn't cost an owner any 'extra' to run.

If the owners actually 'profit' from starting a horse that they know is not competitive, it can lead to abuse. Have seen it happen a few times.

tbwinner
02-08-2012, 01:10 PM
Have worked at places that pay all the way back, and those that don't. It can help fill races, however I have always believed that the stipend for starting shouldn't be more than the jock mount fee plus an allowance to cover legal meds. Basically, so it just doesn't cost an owner any 'extra' to run.

If the owners actually 'profit' from starting a horse that they know is not competitive, it can lead to abuse. Have seen it happen a few times.

This is usually the case with most tracks. The real reason is the bookkeeper does not want to deal with people depositing jock mount fees or having accounts go negative. That's why you'll see $100~ paid through last place.

Stakes races that pay a few thousand past fifth place is OK by me because it usually covers the entrance/nomination fees, etc... But in an allowance race paying $1000 to last place doesn't make much sense, especially if the horse has been running up the track each time doing so.

Robert Goren
02-08-2012, 02:32 PM
As a bettor I like dead money in the pool; as long as I know it's dead, which isn't much of a problem for me. If they want to pay horses to finish last, I'm fine with that. It adds dead money.How much dead money do these horses actually put into the pools? 1%? Unless the amount of money bet on favorite is right on the breakage line, it won't effect its payout at all. on higher priced horses you might an extra dime or 20 cents. unless you are get 4 or 5 or more of these long shots in a race, it not going do to much for the bettors bottom line.

mountainman
02-08-2012, 03:06 PM
We addressed this topic on the show when Iacovacci returned from mth. As a longtime official who specializes in race-hustling, my priority has always been to hustle a horse that can win. This constitutes race-hustling that really makes a difference and creates goodwill with the connections of said runner. Failing that, I'll solicit a horse certain to boost handle. Having exhausted those options, I'll go after horses that at least fit the race-type and conditions. As a last resort, however distasteful, I'll look for any warm body to fill the overnight.

5k-claim
02-08-2012, 03:47 PM
We addressed this topic on the show when Iacovacci returned from mth. As a longtime official who specializes in race-hustling, my priority has always been to hustle a horse that can win. This constitutes race-hustling that really makes a difference and creates goodwill with the connections of said runner. Failing that, I'll solicit a horse certain to boost handle. Having exhausted those options, I'll go after horses that at least fit the race-type and conditions. As a last resort, however distasteful, I'll look for any warm body to fill the overnight. I actually agree with those who say the $1,000 might be too much. I liked the comment about making it high enough to cover race day expenses like the jockey, pony and perhaps even meds. That would be fine. Or just the jockey and pony is enough.

Also, if you guys had it you could run a shuttle between Lexington and Mountaineer Park. That would be cool. Help out the shippers if you could.

Other than that, as a competitor, I do think you need to finish in the top 4 or 5 to actually make any money on a horse in a race.

.

therussmeister
02-08-2012, 06:14 PM
Part of my fondness for dead money is due to my preference for vertical exotics; particularly superfectas. A few no-chance horses can lead to hundreds of no-chance superfecta combos.

bob60566
02-08-2012, 09:36 PM
Part of my fondness for dead money is due to my preference for vertical exotics; particularly superfectas. A few no-chance horses can lead to hundreds of no-chance superfecta combos.

For a win bettor and odd Exb the above says it all.

Mac:)

toussaud
02-09-2012, 06:14 PM
Does anyone have thoughts on this?

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/are-starter-fees-a-source-of-trouble-in-horse-racing/
I just wanted to say vengeance of rain is one of my fav race horses ever. RIP

Vengeance of Rain
02-10-2012, 12:28 AM
I just wanted to say vengeance of rain is one of my fav race horses ever. RIP
Yeah he was amazing, especially that season when he won one after another after another.
He was one of my favorites too.

Capper Al
02-10-2012, 05:29 AM
I like starting fees. They should work to increase field sizes.

LottaKash
02-10-2012, 09:33 AM
If the owners actually 'profit' from starting a horse that they know is not competitive, it can lead to abuse. Have seen it happen a few times.

Sure it can lead to abuse, because that is the nature of man....

So now it's "welfare for horses" too, is it ?

Why not ?.....If it is ok for a man, living in this country nowadays, to "do nothing" to earn a living, eat well enough, get an education, and free medical expenses to boot, I say why not the horses too....Let's be fair, right ?

Why not import ALL the horses from Mexico too, while we're at it....That would be fair right ?....Heck give all the connections too, both young and old, a coupla new phones while we're at it...

Racing is dying in the USA, and I don't believe that this will change anything....

In order for racing to survive, it must downsize, period.....That is "the reality of the day", imo.....Fees won't do it, it is a last ditch effort, at best...

best,

FenceBored
02-10-2012, 09:46 AM
Sure it can lead to abuse, because that is the nature of man....

So now it's "welfare for horses" too, is it ?

Why not ?.....If it is ok for a man, living in this country nowadays, to "do nothing" to earn a living, eat well enough, get an education, and free medical expenses to boot, I say why not the horses too....Let's be fair, right ?

Why not import ALL the horses from Mexico too, while we're at it....That would be fair right ?....Heck give all the connections too, both young and old, a coupla new phones while we're at it...

Racing is dying in the USA, and I don't believe that this will change anything....

In order for racing to survive, it must downsize, period.....That is "the reality of the day", imo.....Fees won't do it, it is a last ditch effort, at best...

best,

How is it welfare? The horse is performing. Should only the stars of a television cop show get paid, or should they pay the people who appear as the corpse for their time as well?

LottaKash
02-10-2012, 10:24 AM
How is it welfare? The horse is performing. Should only the stars of a television cop show get paid, or should they pay the people who appear as the corpse for their time as well?

If you don't see it, what can I say to help you there ?

There is a severe shortage of competitive horses, owners, trainers and jockey...Nationwide...

Giving money to a warm body just to keep up appearances of fuller fields, is just an illusion, I'd say....A stopgap measure, to avoid the inevitable, which is the downsizing of horseracing "Nationwide"...Seems pretty clear to me, at least...It must be done...It "will" be done, sooner or later, imo...

Horses have been competing for prize money, based on their performances, for many generations.....Now all you have to do is show up and get paid ?....

This is akin to having our children play a competitive game, and not keeping score....Everybody wins, right ?...What incentive will there be to win, then ?

"Welfare and Equality for all", right ?....Seems, that this mindset has spilled over into other venues, horseracing too, I guess...

best,

FenceBored
02-10-2012, 11:13 AM
If you don't see it, what can I say to help you there ?

There is a severe shortage of competitive horses, owners, trainers and jockey...Nationwide...

Giving money to a warm body just to keep up appearances of fuller fields, is just an illusion, I'd say....A stopgap measure, to avoid the inevitable, which is the downsizing of horseracing "Nationwide"...Seems pretty clear to me, at least...It must be done...It "will" be done, sooner or later, imo...

Horses have been competing for prize money, based on their performances, for many generations.....Now all you have to do is show up and get paid ?....

This is akin to having our children play a competitive game, and not keeping score....Everybody wins, right ?...What incentive will there be to win, then ?

"Welfare and Equality for all", right ?....Seems, that this mindset has spilled over into other venues, horseracing too, I guess...

best,


Your horse is running in a race with a $25k purse. If he wins you get 60% of that. If he finishes last you get a grand. $16k or $1k, which would you want? Looks like a healthy incentive to me.

LottaKash
02-10-2012, 11:36 AM
Your horse is running in a race with a $25k purse. If he wins you get 60% of that. If he finishes last you get a grand. $16k or $1k, which would you want? Looks like a healthy incentive to me.

Well Fence, that is one way to look at it....

I think I am a bit ahead of schedule, but the status quo in horseracing will be changing drastically and perhaps much sooner than many may think, imo........Change is imminent, as I see it..

best,

macguy
02-10-2012, 11:37 AM
Your horse is running in a race with a $25k purse. If he wins you get 60% of that. If he finishes last you get a grand. $16k or $1k, which would you want? Looks like a healthy incentive to me.


Argument kind of works both ways though...

You have a horse that you know won't be competitive to run in the top places, but the race is going and no matter what you're guaranteed to make $1000. You may be more inclined to enter if times have been tough and the feed bills are coming due, just so you can at least collect that starter fee.

If there's no payout, you're probably not going to bother running your horse for nothing.

LottaKash
02-10-2012, 11:54 AM
Argument kind of works both ways though...

If there's no payout, you're probably not going to bother running your horse for nothing.

That's my point....Welfare....If you are not going to run your horse for a purse, then your horse is not ready to race....Who needs this junk in a race ?....I'd rather have horses that have a legitimate shot to win, than a bunch of no try horses...

It just just "muddies" the game, so to speak, for me at least.....

Change must come, now where have I heard that before ?...:D

best,

FenceBored
02-10-2012, 01:05 PM
Argument kind of works both ways though...

You have a horse that you know won't be competitive to run in the top places, but the race is going and no matter what you're guaranteed to make $1000. You may be more inclined to enter if times have been tough and the feed bills are coming due, just so you can at least collect that starter fee.

If there's no payout, you're probably not going to bother running your horse for nothing.

Does the $130 payout explain why they ran Rachel's Girl in today's 1st at Gulfstream?

macguy
02-11-2012, 12:16 PM
Does the $130 payout explain why they ran Rachel's Girl in today's 1st at Gulfstream?


That's a good point, 99-1 shots do finish in the money (often first) in the majority of races. :rolleyes:

FenceBored
02-11-2012, 01:24 PM
That's a good point, 99-1 shots do finish in the money (often first) in the majority of races. :rolleyes:

So you do think they entered her there just to get that whopping $130. Good to know.

green80
02-12-2012, 03:52 PM
with pre-race meds, help, pony, jock mount, transportation, etc it cost about 400-500 bucks to run a horse. I don't think $130 would do anything but offset a little expense.