BC officials pushing for raceday medication ban

[gm10]

Good on them ...

"USA: Breeders' Cup officials have underlined their determination to move towards banning all raceday medication by revealing that Santa Anita's ability willingness to host a Lasix-free event in 2013 was a major factor in the California track being granted the event for a second year running.

Only Santa Anita of the major-league tracks in the running to host the Breeders' Cup was able to make the guarantee regarding the potential prohibition of the anti-bleeding medication Furosemide, more commonly known by its former trade name Lasix."

http://www.racingpost.com/news/live.sd?event_id=205915

[Fager Fan]

The BC needs to do what it's supposed to do, which is promote Tb racing in the U.S. through a day (now 2 days) of championship calibre racing.

It screwed up the even for 2 years with its determination that US racing should switch from dirt to synthetics, forcing our dirt horses to run over the stuff, with non-championship results as the result. Now it wants to force non raceday use of meds so will require that to be done. The effects of this won't likely be as disastrous, but them trying to force racing to go this way or that way is grating. They should stick to doing their job.

[forced89]

Agree. The Breeders Cup should not be trying to change the way we race in the US. They should stick to promoting their event. I'm not saying change should (or should not) come to the ways we do things, just that the BC should not be the vehicle to create change.

[Sysonby]

I'm in favour of anything that moves us toward the European and Japanese model of no medications and much lower rates of catastrophic breakdowns. Good for the BC!

[Fager Fan]

I'm in favour of anything that moves us toward the European and Japanese model of no medications and much lower rates of catastrophic breakdowns. Good for the BC!

Meaning we should run horses 5 or 6 times a year, all on grass, over a course used for a week a time or two a year?

There's no indication that raceday meds have anything to do with breakdowns.

[Sysonby]

Meaning we should run horses 5 or 6 times a year, all on grass, over a course used for a week a time or two a year?

There's no indication that raceday meds have anything to do with breakdowns.

Wrong.

http://www.hsvma.org/racehorse_advocacy_raceday_medications

http://sidgustafson.blogspot.ca/2012/04/how-to-race-horses-without-lasix.html

http://cs.bloodhorse.com/blogs/finalturn/archive/2010/09/15/bute-not-in-racing-s-best-interet-by-dr-rick-arthur.aspx

There's more but I have other stuff I need to do.

[Sysonby]

One more, couldn't resist.

http://www.horsefund.org/the-chemical-horse-part-1.php

[Tom]

Without lasix, the BC will be a complete joke and waste of time.
They should take away the graded status of everyone of them if they do.

Why not mandate that they all wear blinkers while we're at it.
Nonsense.

Getting rid of lasix is one thing, this is moronic.

[Tom]

Meaning we should run horses 5 or 6 times a year, all on grass, over a course used for a week a time or two a year?

There's no indication that raceday meds have anything to do with breakdowns.

One cannot compare racing here and there - they are two widely different games. Your point is excellent.

[Fager Fan]

You really think Bute explains the difference between the breakdown rate in Europe and here? Isn't their breakdown rate on turf about equal to ours on turf?

[dilanesp]

Agree. The Breeders Cup should not be trying to change the way we race in the US. They should stick to promoting their event. I'm not saying change should (or should not) come to the ways we do things, just that the BC should not be the vehicle to create change.

The Breeders' Cup is a private event and they can set any rules of eligibility they wish. (And they had the right to run on synthetics too).

[DeltaLover]

One cannot compare racing here and there - they are two widely different games. Your point is excellent.

Can you please explain why they are so different?

[gm10]

You really think Bute explains the difference between the breakdown rate in Europe and here? Isn't their breakdown rate on turf about equal to ours on turf?

It's quite a bit higher ... 1.53 per 1000 starts vs 0.6 per 1000 starts.

[Fager Fan]

It's quite a bit higher ... 1.53 per 1000 starts vs 0.6 per 1000 starts.

What source are you looking at? Now that I'm looking and not going off memory, I'm finding quite varied breakdown rates in Europe, from your .6 up to 2.5 in Europe.

I'm not against banning bute on raceday, I just don't think that it's the cause of the increased breakdown rate in U.S. over Europe. Running over turf is inarguably safer. But we can also add courses that are in top condition, not chewed up from frequent use, and racing and training in varied directions with slight bends instead of the constant left-hand running around turns we have here. I'd like to see accidents separated out in the stats too - two horses dying after one breaks down and the other falls over it, these are two very different reasons for breaking down.

We sure don't get much information from the Injury Reporting Project, are we? A couple of mostly meaningless reports in 4 or 5 years.

[Sysonby]

What source are you looking at? Now that I'm looking and not going off memory, I'm finding quite varied breakdown rates in Europe, from your .6 up to 2.5 in Europe.

I'm not against banning bute on raceday, I just don't think that it's the cause of the increased breakdown rate in U.S. over Europe. Running over turf is inarguably safer. But we can also add courses that are in top condition, not chewed up from frequent use, and racing and training in varied directions with slight bends instead of the constant left-hand running around turns we have here. I'd like to see accidents separated out in the stats too - two horses dying after one breaks down and the other falls over it, these are two very different reasons for breaking down.

We sure don't get much information from the Injury Reporting Project, are we? A couple of mostly meaningless reports in 4 or 5 years.

True, track condition is very important, where it be dirt, synthetic or turf.

[Some_One]

It's quite a bit higher ... 1.53 per 1000 starts vs 0.6 per 1000 starts.

Flat only or includes jumps?

[rastajenk]

Do commoners own horses in Europe? Or do you have to be a silk-hatted aristocrat?

I don't pay much attention, but it seems like there are no Sackatoga-type success stories, no long-suffering small-time stables that get lucky once in a great while...

I'm just wondering if the depth of the ownership pool makes it a different game in different parts of the world.

[gm10]

Flat only or includes jumps?

Flat only. Jumps is even less safe than dirt. I think 4 per 1000 or something.

[gm10]

Sorry, I was just quoting the British stat.

Track condition is certainly an important factor. The going is, too ... they don't call it "good" because it's bad for the horses!!
In the US, the norm seems to be FIRM ground, which IMO is better for betting purposes, but it's probably not as good for the horses.

What source are you looking at? Now that I'm looking and not going off memory, I'm finding quite varied breakdown rates in Europe, from your .6 up to 2.5 in Europe.

I'm not against banning bute on raceday, I just don't think that it's the cause of the increased breakdown rate in U.S. over Europe. Running over turf is inarguably safer. But we can also add courses that are in top condition, not chewed up from frequent use, and racing and training in varied directions with slight bends instead of the constant left-hand running around turns we have here. I'd like to see accidents separated out in the stats too - two horses dying after one breaks down and the other falls over it, these are two very different reasons for breaking down.

We sure don't get much information from the Injury Reporting Project, are we? A couple of mostly meaningless reports in 4 or 5 years.

[Fager Fan]

A couple of good points about the softer ground conditions as well as the aristocracy which seems to own every racehorse in Europe.

Other differences include the forced break every Winter that our lesser horses don't get here. Instead, we have horses running 30 and 40 times without a break in 2-3-4 years. That's absolutely imperitive to let a horse recup from the small fractures and injuries accumulated by every horse.

[Tom]

Can you please explain why they are so different?

They have nowhere near the number of tracks of races we have, and they run much less in the winter - we are year round. We are primarily dirt racing and speed focused. They are mostly grass and they dawdle most of the race. Their races end up being mostly 2 furlong sprints.


If that is what you want, here, better enjoy it because it would die from lack of participation pretty quickly.

[dilanesp]

Other differences include the forced break every Winter that our lesser horses don't get here. Instead, we have horses running 30 and 40 times without a break in 2-3-4 years. That's absolutely imperitive to let a horse recup from the small fractures and injuries accumulated by every horse.

They have nowhere near the number of tracks of races we have, and they run much less in the winter - we are year round.

People act as if winter racing is inevitable or some sort of constitutional right or something.

For a long time, there was only winter racing at Santa Anita and in Florida, and the sport flourished. Nowhere is it written that the betting public must be afforded the opportunity to wager on questionably sound animals running on an iced-over surface in the Northeast in January.

This is circular reasoning. We have all these ridiculously abusive racing practices in the US. And then, because we have them, we have to allow a lot of doping to mask all the injuries that the abusive racing practices cause. That's curing the symptom, not the problem.

Take a step back. It was once possible to have plenty of horse racing without everyone being declared a bleeder and running on performance enhancing, dope-masking medication. Now it isn't. What changed? How do we change it back?

The reality is I suspect that current trends are unsustainable. Not only does the industry command a smaller and smaller slice of the gambling pie (and thus is more expendable), but animal rights activism is garnering more and more support. That means for the sport to survive, it needs to figure out how to get the horses off Lasix and other raceday meds. It's probably a long and tortured process to do this, but it has to be done somehow.

[gm10]

They have nowhere near the number of tracks of races we have, and they run much less in the winter - we are year round. We are primarily dirt racing and speed focused. They are mostly grass and they dawdle most of the race. Their races end up being mostly 2 furlong sprints.


If that is what you want, here, better enjoy it because it would die from lack of participation pretty quickly.

Your post contains a lot of wrong information, unfortunately.

* There are 89 tracks in Britain and Ireland alone, most of them are for flat racing, some are dual purpose. There are many tracks in France as well, at a guess I'd say 60 or more. Then of course there is Germany, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, Spain, etc.

* There do all year round racing here, too, on the all weather, on which the breakdown rate is also much lower than on the American dirt, turf and A-W.

* The pace in European turf races is not nearly as slow as you think it is. It's certainly quicker than in American turf races. Some turf courses are even more speed biased than any of the major American dirt tracks (Epsom Downs comes to mind). You are making a big mistake when you assume that every race is a two furlong sprint for home, most of them aren't.

[Tom]

Take a step back. It was once possible to have plenty of horse racing without everyone being declared a bleeder and running on performance enhancing, dope-masking medication. Now it isn't. What changed? How do we change it back?

While I agree with this, and I agree we need to get rid of cavalier use of any drugs, the point here is to suddenly take it away on the biggest day of racing is an insult to the people who will be betting the races.

[jorcus99]

To the point that Lasix masks other drugs may have been true at one time but in the modern era of drug testing that is very unlikely.

Banning lasix will not help horseracing at all. Now you will have to guess if a horse is going to bleed or not. Watching a well ment horse spit up blood while it stops running suddenly is not in the best interest of the horse or the bettors. The only way to prevent that from happening without lasix is to dehydrate the horse by withholding water. Good trainers may know how to do it, bad trainers will not. Watching a horse collapse from heat stroke because a trainer did not know how to ration water correctly will not be good.

People act as if winter racing is inevitable or some sort of constitutional right or something.

For a long time, there was only winter racing at Santa Anita and in Florida, and the sport flourished. Nowhere is it written that the betting public must be afforded the opportunity to wager on questionably sound animals running on an iced-over surface in the Northeast in January.

This is circular reasoning. We have all these ridiculously abusive racing practices in the US. And then, because we have them, we have to allow a lot of doping to mask all the injuries that the abusive racing practices cause. That's curing the symptom, not the problem.

Take a step back. It was once possible to have plenty of horse racing without everyone being declared a bleeder and running on performance enhancing, dope-masking medication. Now it isn't. What changed? How do we change it back?

The reality is I suspect that current trends are unsustainable. Not only does the industry command a smaller and smaller slice of the gambling pie (and thus is more expendable), but animal rights activism is garnering more and more support. That means for the sport to survive, it needs to figure out how to get the horses off Lasix and other raceday meds. It's probably a long and tortured process to do this, but it has to be done somehow.

[burnsy]

The Breeders' Cup is a private event and they can set any rules of eligibility they wish. (And they had the right to run on synthetics too).
Yeah, and i hope they keep operating this way....because it will be gone soon. The bafoonery continues. It was going to be at Santa Anita regaurdless, who are they kidding? The synthetic years were a joke....those results proved nothing for dirt horses...sure they can do it, but people are free to ridicule and laugh at the results too.(and NOT BET) You can't have championship caliber horses campaigning one way all year and then change the rules for 2 days, i'm sorry. Changing the surface and then the rules on horses that have been doing something for a year....negates all results. Thats one of the reasons they tore that crap out...besides the fact it NEVER drained properly. Yet, morons still believe in the synth...in California...like they really need it! I'm not saying that removing race day medication may not be a bad thing. I'm saying doing it like this is a dumb political move, besides not even being fair to the horses themselves. If Belmont held a competing weekend...many of the horsemen and most of the bettors would be all over it......this may be the stupidest thing i've ever heard of....just when i thought racing had done it all to look that way! Lets implement the "new" rule on Breeders Cup days...thats just brilliant> I hope half of the USA horses tell them to shove it! They have that right too. This event has been on "farce" cycle for years! Belly up wouldn't be a bad thing for the game.

[dilanesp]

To the point that Lasix masks other drugs may have been true at one time but in the modern era of drug testing that is very unlikely.

Banning lasix will not help horseracing at all. Now you will have to guess if a horse is going to bleed or not. Watching a well ment horse spit up blood while it stops running suddenly is not in the best interest of the horse or the bettors. The only way to prevent that from happening without lasix is to dehydrate the horse by withholding water. Good trainers may know how to do it, bad trainers will not. Watching a horse collapse from heat stroke because a trainer did not know how to ration water correctly will not be good.

This is wrong on a number of levels:

1. The World Anti-Doping Agency, which is comprised of experts on drug testing and PED's, considers Lasix a masking agent. Athletes can and have been suspended from sport for using it.

In contrast, horse racing is a sort of Damon Runyan-esque world of rogues and colorful characters. There's plenty of chicanery in the sport. So in terms of who I trust as far as whether Lasix masks other drugs-- I trust WADA and basically distrust anyone in the horse racing business.

2. Horse racing survived for decades here without Lasix and still survives in other places without it. Indeed, even WITH Lasix, 25 years ago, not every horse ran on it. Plenty of horses were NOT on the bleeders' list. Not only does that suggest that horse racing can survive without it, but it also evidences point 1 as well-- if Lasix were really only about bleeding, since many horses don't bleed, they wouldn't be taking Lasix. The fact that everyone uses it basically confirms that it is a form of legal doping.

3. If trainers respond to a hypothetical future Lasix ban by endangering their horses, the solution to that is to pull their licenses and prosecute them for animal cruelty, not to allow that conduct to serve as a form of extortion to force us to allow them to dope their horses.

4. At any rate, how many horses might die of heat exhaustion versus the death rate now? I have a hard time believing that the death rate will INCREASE without Lasix. Most likely, these "medications" allow horses who are unsound and shouldn't be running to run.

[dilanesp]

Yeah, and i hope they keep operating this way....because it will be gone soon. The bafoonery continues. It was going to be at Santa Anita regaurdless, who are they kidding? The synthetic years were a joke....those results proved nothing for dirt horses...sure they can do it, but people are free to ridicule and laugh at the results too.(and NOT BET) You can't have championship caliber horses campaigning one way all year and then change the rules for 2 days, i'm sorry. Changing the surface and then the rules on horses that have been doing something for a year....negates all results. Thats one of the reasons they tore that crap out...besides the fact it NEVER drained properly. Yet, morons still believe in the synth...in California...like they really need it! I'm not saying that removing race day medication may not be a bad thing. I'm saying doing it like this is a dumb political move, besides not even being fair to the horses themselves. If Belmont held a competing weekend...many of the horsemen and most of the bettors would be all over it......this may be the stupidest thing i've ever heard of....just when i thought racing had done it all to look that way! Lets implement the "new" rule on Breeders Cup days...thats just brilliant> I hope half of the USA horses tell them to shove it! They have that right too. This event has been on "farce" cycle for years! Belly up wouldn't be a bad thing for the game.

They held it on synthetics for 2 years. One year, Raven's Pass won the Classic-- a freak result. The other year, Zenyatta won the Classic, and she's one of the greatest champions in history.

Meanwhile, on dirt, such luminaries as Wild Again, Arcangues, Cat Thief, Pleasantly Perfect, and Volponi have won the Classic. I don't think that the synthetic results are any more worthy of dismissal than some of the dirt results.

As for setting up a competitor to the Breeders' Cup, I don't think you realize how much money it takes to stage these races, and how much television revenue, sponsorship money, and public support is necessary to generate the cash. Your rump "championship" day at Belmont would draw 11,000 people paying low NYRA admission charges, and get little attention from television or corporate America. Now, how are you going to pay the purse money? I know that some New York types like to think of their racing as the center of the universe, but the reality is that nobody in New York City cares about horse racing except one day a year and that sort of puts a damper in the pretensions of Belmont Park and its partisans.

The Breeders' Cup has something that a certain segment of the public likes. That gives them some leverage in setting eligibility rules. They can use that leverage as they wish, and the rest of us are free to whine about it, or not.

[the little guy]

They held it on synthetics for 2 years. One year, Raven's Pass won the Classic-- a freak result. The other year, Zenyatta won the Classic, and she's one of the greatest champions in history.

Meanwhile, on dirt, such luminaries as Wild Again, Arcangues, Cat Thief, Pleasantly Perfect, and Volponi have won the Classic. I don't think that the synthetic results are any more worthy of dismissal than some of the dirt results.

As for setting up a competitor to the Breeders' Cup, I don't think you realize how much money it takes to stage these races, and how much television revenue, sponsorship money, and public support is necessary to generate the cash. Your rump "championship" day at Belmont would draw 11,000 people paying low NYRA admission charges, and get little attention from television or corporate America. Now, how are you going to pay the purse money? I know that some New York types like to think of their racing as the center of the universe, but the reality is that nobody in New York City cares about horse racing except one day a year and that sort of puts a damper in the pretensions of Belmont Park and its partisans.

The Breeders' Cup has something that a certain segment of the public likes. That gives them some leverage in setting eligibility rules. They can use that leverage as they wish, and the rest of us are free to whine about it, or not.

Zenyatta beat a turf horse on synth and Pleasantly Perfect beat Medaglia D'oro in the Dubai World Cup after winning the Classic. Raven's Pass beating Henry the Navigator was hardly a fluke result. They were world class turf horses winning on a synthetic turf course.

New York racing accounts for 25% of all monies wagered on US racing.
Get your facts straight.

[dilanesp]

Zenyatta beat a turf horse on synth and Pleasantly Perfect beat Medaglia D'oro in the Dubai World Cup after winning the Classic. Raven's Pass beating Henry the Navigator was hardly a fluke result. They were world class turf horses winning on a synthetic turf course.

New York racing accounts for 25% of all monies wagered on US racing.
Get your facts straight.

With respect to synthetics, you missed the point. My point was the BC was not compromised by running on synthetics. Dirt or synthetic, you get some formful results and some freak results.

As for New York, I'm not impressed by the betting handle, especially since you are counting Saratoga which isn't anywhere near New York City. My point is Belmont Park holding a competitor to the BC can never happen, because there is no fan interest in horse racing in New York City other than on Belmont day. The BC itself always draws its worst crowds in New York.

It takes money to stage a championship card of racing, which in turn requires fan interest. The BC has some of that and can bring some amount of it to NYC. Without the BC and its brand name though, Belmont can barely outdraw a wedding.

Until the New York City tracks can figure out how to get someone to show up, they're not a serious player to take on the BC.

[Sysonby]

just re use of Lasix essential for bleeding, the nasal strips have almost the same effect on bleeding that Lasix does without dehydrating the horse or leaching calcium out of their system.

[Tom]

My point was the BC was not compromised by running on synthetics. Dirt or synthetic, you get some formful results and some freak results.


Formful results?
What is the record of all the top dirt horses in any of those plastic races?
It was two years of meaningless results.

It was like running the JCGC on the turf.
Ridiculous. No race on synthetics should have ever retained thier graded status - they should have had to earn then all over.

[burnsy]

[QUOTE=Tom]Formful results?
What is the record of all the top dirt horses in any of those plastic races?
It was two years of meaningless results.

Agreed, trying to say that those years were just as formful as the dirt years....is a joke. I'm surprised someone even attempts to defend the synth years results. What Breeders Cups do they watch? I think the dirt horses won one or two in the whole two years. i'd have to look back but i know i'm close. They knew it was problem too. They tore the crap out to have it there again ....because too many people were pointing out the farce that it was. When will racing learn? They do nothing then they implement changes overnight. Putting those tracks in without proper research and testing showed a lack of judgment. Besides the results, how many days did they lose (at Santa Anita) because the track was not usable? Then they had to resurface and that was a joke too. Why is it polictically incorrect these days to admit that something sucks, doesn't work and move on? This lasix stand by the BC is another stupid move. Doing it without time parameters or by increments before the biggest days of racing is just not using your head. People can bitch back and forth on the debate of race day medication.....its a debate that needs to be had. But forcing it on horses during the Breeders Cup...is another retarded move by the Breeders Cup. These morons worry more about they way they look....then what really works. "oh, Breeders Cup is our biggest weekend we better look like were doing something because everyones watching." What about the other 363 days of the year? You can't work on things then? So dumb its an embarassment......this is why i'm worried about NY. If we get baffoons like this playing a political game with racing because they are with NYS...we are going to get the same crap here. Being fair, pragmatic, prudent and loigical is a thing of the past......lets make a statement...that will fix it!

[the little guy]

With respect to synthetics, you missed the point. My point was the BC was not compromised by running on synthetics. Dirt or synthetic, you get some formful results and some freak results.

As for New York, I'm not impressed by the betting handle, especially since you are counting Saratoga which isn't anywhere near New York City. My point is Belmont Park holding a competitor to the BC can never happen, because there is no fan interest in horse racing in New York City other than on Belmont day. The BC itself always draws its worst crowds in New York.

It takes money to stage a championship card of racing, which in turn requires fan interest. The BC has some of that and can bring some amount of it to NYC. Without the BC and its brand name though, Belmont can barely outdraw a wedding.

Until the New York City tracks can figure out how to get someone to show up, they're not a serious player to take on the BC.

Belmont is over 24% of daily US handle.

If you actually believe on-track attendance is of major importance, then you are badly confused. In today's racing world we have to measure virtual attendance, as close to 90% of the players are not at the track.

Your opinions on this matter are flawed by your misunderstandings of much of the issue. Regardless, going forward, try to focus on what I post, not what you need to say that I don"t respond to.

[gm10]

Belmont is over 24% of daily US handle.

If you actually believe on-track attendance is of major importance, then you are badly confused. In today's racing world we have to measure virtual attendance, as close to 90% of the players are not at the track.

Your opinions on this matter are flawed by your misunderstandings of much of the issue. Regardless, going forward, try to focus on what I post, not what you need to say that I don"t respond to.

Wow. There is plenty of food for thought in there.

Maybe you are ripe for a trip abroad, where racing is still run as a spectator sport.

Going back to the post you responded to ... he has a point. The BC at Belmont doesn't seem to attract a sell-out crowd.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Thoroughbred_Racing_top_Attended_Events

[Tom]

What would a trip overseas to see how OUR racing exists do?
It is a gambling sport over here.
When the majority of your fan base is off track, that is how you have to gear your product. there is NO WAY we will EVER see consistently large crowds at any track like we used to. That ship has sailed. Hmmmm, maybe it sailed across the pond! :rolleyes:

When was the last time the BC was held at Belmont?
And what was the total combined handle, on and off track.

[Fager Fan]

They held it on synthetics for 2 years. One year, Raven's Pass won the Classic-- a freak result. The other year, Zenyatta won the Classic, and she's one of the greatest champions in history.

Meanwhile, on dirt, such luminaries as Wild Again, Arcangues, Cat Thief, Pleasantly Perfect, and Volponi have won the Classic. I don't think that the synthetic results are any more worthy of dismissal than some of the dirt results.

Zenyatta isn't just a great mare, but she's also the greatest synthetic horse to date (and likely ever, as it's unlikely any horse will surpass in the future). So while the results weren't a fluke in her winning, look who finished 2nd and 3rd behind her. Straight up turf horses. Her 2nd Classic was her best race ever, in my opinion, but note that she did lose. Her toughest competition weren't turf horses this time (not even running on turf), but instead top dirt horses running on dirt.

As for setting up a competitor to the Breeders' Cup, I don't think you realize how much money it takes to stage these races, and how much television revenue, sponsorship money, and public support is necessary to generate the cash. Your rump "championship" day at Belmont would draw 11,000 people paying low NYRA admission charges, and get little attention from television or corporate America. Now, how are you going to pay the purse money? I know that some New York types like to think of their racing as the center of the universe, but the reality is that nobody in New York City cares about horse racing except one day a year and that sort of puts a damper in the pretensions of Belmont Park and its partisans.

The Breeders' Cup has something that a certain segment of the public likes. That gives them some leverage in setting eligibility rules. They can use that leverage as they wish, and the rest of us are free to whine about it, or not.

The raceday med issue is less polarizing than the synthetic surface, so this won't be the death knell of the BC, but they do seem to try very hard to kill their event. Don't think that they can't be killed, though. If enough farms and breeders pulled their nominations and owners pulled their horses, the BC wouldn't have enough money to get through 2 BCs. With enough star horses missing and going elsewhere, the handle, broadcast rights, and other means of income for the BC would dry up.

This isn't politics. Nothing in racing is too big to fail.

[the little guy]

When was the last time the BC was held at Belmont?
And what was the total combined handle, on and off track.


It's tough to measure as there were " only " eight BC races in 2005.

Of course you were right about everything else you posted. Interestingly, France has a huge pari-mutual handle, greater than the US Thoroughbred handle, due in large part to the easily accessable off-track wagering.

[dilanesp]

Formful results?
What is the record of all the top dirt horses in any of those plastic races?
It was two years of meaningless results.

It was like running the JCGC on the turf.
Ridiculous. No race on synthetics should have ever retained thier graded status - they should have had to earn then all over.

Or maybe the dirt results are meaningless and the synthetic results are meaningful. It depends on your preexisting point of view.

Way back when, horses like Kelso and Damascus couldn't win on the hard California surfaces either.

[dilanesp]

Belmont is over 24% of daily US handle.

If you actually believe on-track attendance is of major importance, then you are badly confused. In today's racing world we have to measure virtual attendance, as close to 90% of the players are not at the track.

Your opinions on this matter are flawed by your misunderstandings of much of the issue. Regardless, going forward, try to focus on what I post, not what you need to say that I don"t respond to.

On track attendance is crucial TO THE BC. They generate over $10 million in ticket sales. Handle doesn't generate that type of cash.

You need to learn more about how the BC can afford to put on all those expensive races. Tickets are a big part of it.

[Fager Fan]

Or maybe the dirt results are meaningless and the synthetic results are meaningful. It depends on your preexisting point of view.

Way back when, horses like Kelso and Damascus couldn't win on the hard California surfaces either.

You can't be serious. We've only bred these horses for dirt for decades after decades, see them win big races on the dirt, then force them to run on a surface that favors turf horses, watch the turf horses win, and you really think the results are meaningful as a "dirt" race?

As to your other post, the Belmont among other NYRA days seem to do ok, including when they get the BC, so I don't know why you are acting as if they'd have 3 people show up for a "new BC". The fans will go where the horses go.

[Tom]

Or maybe the dirt results are meaningless and the synthetic results are meaningful. It depends on your preexisting point of view.

Way back when, horses like Kelso and Damascus couldn't win on the hard California surfaces either.

Oh, yes. We run all of our major races over dirt all yer long, then, the biggest day of the year we decide to change to a foreign surface that inhibits all of our best horses and applaud foreign horses coming over and winning the races.

Makes sense to me.

Maybe for the Super Bowl this year, we could say screw football and have a softball game instead.

[Tom]

On track attendance is crucial TO THE BC. They generate over $10 million in ticket sales. Handle doesn't generate that type of cash.

You need to learn more about how the BC can afford to put on all those expensive races. Tickets are a big part of it.

As a bettor, I could give a shot how big the purses are.
Maybe they are too big now.

[gm10]

What would a trip overseas to see how OUR racing exists do?
It is a gambling sport over here.
When the majority of your fan base is off track, that is how you have to gear your product. there is NO WAY we will EVER see consistently large crowds at any track like we used to. That ship has sailed. Hmmmm, maybe it sailed across the pond! :rolleyes:



I don't buy any of that. The majority of fans is off-track in the rest of the world as well, but have you seen the crowds in Hong Kong, Australia, Dubai, Ascot/Cheltenham and many others?

I went to Family Day at Sandown on Saturday. There were at least 20.000 people. The only attractions apart from the horses was a bouncy castle, face painting and some puppet show. You're not going to tell me that it's hard to make families come to the races.

[the little guy]

On track attendance is crucial TO THE BC. They generate over $10 million in ticket sales. Handle doesn't generate that type of cash.

You need to learn more about how the BC can afford to put on all those expensive races. Tickets are a big part of it.

The likelihood that you know more about how the BC operates than me is extremely slim.

Once again, you chose to make this about something I didn't say. Nothing new.

[Tom]

I don't buy any of that. The majority of fans is off-track in the rest of the world as well, but have you seen the crowds in Hong Kong, Australia, Dubai, Ascot/Cheltenham and many others?

I went to Family Day at Sandown on Saturday. There were at least 20.000 people. The only attractions apart from the horses was a bouncy castle, face painting and some puppet show. You're not going to tell me that it's hard to make families come to the races.


Yes, I am.
Maybe we get bi crowds some days, like Toga, Belmont Stakes day, JCGC day, but go count heads any Wednesday or Thursday at Aqueduct in January, or Parx, or Suffolk.

90% of the handel is off track - that is the stat that matters.

And comparing Hong Kong to anything else is really a waste of time - that market has precious little in common with any American racing.

[Tom]

It's quite a bit higher ... 1.53 per 1000 starts vs 0.6 per 1000 starts.
OK, so is it the dirt or the lasix?
You can't blame the breakdowns on everything.

[gm10]

Yes, I am.
Maybe we get bi crowds some days, like Toga, Belmont Stakes day, JCGC day, but go count heads any Wednesday or Thursday at Aqueduct in January, or Parx, or Suffolk.

90% of the handel is off track - that is the stat that matters.

And comparing Hong Kong to anything else is really a waste of time - that market has precious little in common with any American racing.

Handle is a meaningless stat. Another one of those hopeless corporate numbers that litter our world.

Yes, the gamblers keep racing ticking over, but you have to keep racing relevant to society as a whole or it will disappear, just like everything else.

[cj]

Handle is a meaningless stat.

You have to be kidding, right?

[gm10]

OK, so is it the dirt or the lasix?
You can't blame the breakdowns on everything.

It's not just one factor.

Of course the Lasix is rubbish, that is so obvious to me. You can't expect to produce durable horses if what you're breeding from is masked by all the drugs.

Dirt is not the most exciting surface to watch horses run on (just my personal preference, I'm not trying to provoke anyone), but if the effort and cost are made to keep it up to standard, it can be safe.

Maybe it is very cheap to maintain a basic dirt track, but expensive to make it safe? Who knows ... in any case, some tracks seem to be able to keep it safe, whereas others can't.

[the little guy]

You have to be kidding, right?

He's said some remarkably clueless things, but that was his best.

[gm10]

You have to be kidding, right?

Why would I be kidding? What does handle do for racing? It's another one of those metrics that gives people comfort and something to talk about in corporate meetings, but it is essentially meaningless. As an analogue, take Price/Earnings ratio. What good is it if you can't predict earnings?? Do you think Kodak went bust because of its P/E ratio?

It's just completely pointless. When something REAL happens, 99% of these numbers will fail to explain what happened and why.

[castaway01]

Why would I be kidding? What does handle do for racing? It's another one of those metrics that gives people comfort and something to talk about in corporate meetings, but it is essentially meaningless. As an analogue, take Price/Earnings ratio. What good is it if you can't predict earnings?? Do you think Kodak went bust because of its P/E ratio?

It's just completely pointless. When something REAL happens, 99% of these numbers will fail to explain what happened and why.

Handle is the only meaningful stat to the people running racing. And actually, since it was declining until very recently, it's giving NO ONE any comfort.

[gm10]

Handle is the only meaningful stat to the people running racing. And actually, since it was declining until very recently, it's giving NO ONE any comfort.

It gives clueless people the comfort of thinking they know what they are talking about.

[cj]

Why would I be kidding? What does handle do for racing? It's another one of those metrics that gives people comfort and something to talk about in corporate meetings, but it is essentially meaningless. As an analogue, take Price/Earnings ratio. What good is it if you can't predict earnings?? Do you think Kodak went bust because of its P/E ratio?

It's just completely pointless. When something REAL happens, 99% of these numbers will fail to explain what happened and why.

Handle is revenue. I don't know a business that doesn't depend on it.

[Charli125]

Handle is revenue. I don't know a business that doesn't depend on it.

What CJ said. Revenue is a direct percentage of handle. Revenue drives purses, profit, etc. If Handle isn't an important statistic then what is? Sure, with slots handle is less important to purses than it once was(and than it should be), but it's still very important to tracks and anyone not reliant on purses.

Not to mention that it's important to the horseplayer. If you don't have enough handle then you can't bet as much as you'd like.

[gm10]

Handle is revenue. I don't know a business that doesn't depend on it.

Since when? Businesses depend on profits, both short term and long term. If they fail to generate those, they disappear.

[PhantomOnTour]

Since when? Businesses depend on profits, both short term and long term. If they fail to generate those, they disappear.
Okay...how do businesses profit?
Thru sales...ie...HANDLE.

To a race track, handle = sales...they are selling tickets to bettors

[gm10]

Since when? Businesses depend on profits, both short term and long term. If they fail to generate those, they disappear.


This is not my point anyway.

Going back to the original post, I was just saying that handle is a very basic number. In no way does it EXPLAIN why families aren't showing up at the track.

[cj]

This is not my point anyway.

Going back to the original post, I was just saying that handle is a very basic number. In no way does it EXPLAIN why families aren't showing up at the track.

Families have not been very important at the track in the 30 years I've been going. The tracks need bettors. I guess a few have been created by going on a family outing, but in the US I don't think that happens very often.

[PaceAdvantage]

The people crying over attendance and the BC are probably the very same people who never want to see a BC at Monmouth again, yet Monmouth drew almost 70,000 people on what I recall to be a horrible weather day.

The last BC at Belmont (2005) drew 54K. This was more than Santa Anita drew in 2003 (51K).

Santa Anita benefited greatly from Zenyatta in 2009 (and to a lesser extent in 2008). Throw those aberrant years out and Belmont compares very favorably in BC attendance to Southern California (SA and HOL) throughout BC history, sometimes outdrawing them outright.

So I don't quite understand all this Belmont bashing when it comes to BC attendance.

If you want to base it solely on attendance, then hold it at Churchill every year. They are the kings of BC attendance.

[Tom]

Throw facts out there and kill a good rant. :D

[gm10]

Throw facts out there and kill a good rant. :D

Isn't the capacity at Belmont Park > 100.000, so the stands would be half empty?

[gm10]

Families have not been very important at the track in the 30 years I've been going. The tracks need bettors. I guess a few have been created by going on a family outing, but in the US I don't think that happens very often.

Yes, bettors keep the sport going on a day-to-day basis, but there is no way that the bettors by themselves can keep such big, valuable pieces of land out of the hands of developers. They need the rest of society's help for that, whether they like it or not, and that means making racing a family-friendly product.

Don't get me wrong, as a gambler, I prefer it that these people aren't there when I go to the track. It's distracting. The flip side is that if they weren't there, then the place would go into decline very quickly.

Something interesting happened in Belgium during the 90's. Up to the 80's, going to the races was a very popular day out. Then a few dirty stories emerged, people stopped going, and only a small core of fans, essentially the gamblers, was left.

The sport clung on for another 10 years, and that was that. Race courses could not justify their existence anymore, and most of them were turned into residential area's.

[Tom]

Isn't the capacity at Belmont Park > 100.000, so the stands would be half empty?

Not relevant.
They outdrew SA.....that is all that matters.

[gm10]

Not relevant.
They outdrew SA.....that is all that matters.

It is debatable whether a showcase day like the BC should be held in front of a half-empty grandstand.

SA seems to outdraw Belmont if you look at that list.
I get an average BC Saturday attendance of 57989 for SA but only 48939 for BEL.

[the little guy]

Isn't the capacity at Belmont Park > 100.000, so the stands would be half empty?


Belmont Park seats 25,000 people.

Just the facts ma'am.

[Tom]

Dang. More of those pesky facts.
How's a boy to rant around here?

[PaceAdvantage]

It is debatable whether a showcase day like the BC should be held in front of a half-empty grandstand.

SA seems to outdraw Belmont if you look at that list.
I get an average BC Saturday attendance of 57989 for SA but only 48939 for BEL.But you included the Zenyatta years in that average...she would have pulled more attendance to any track she ran at for a BC...so your numbers are skewed in my opinion.

[gm10]

But you included the Zenyatta years in that average...she would have pulled more attendance to any track she ran at for a BC...so your numbers are skewed in my opinion.

Actually the 2008/2009 numbers bring the average down a little.

[cj]

Yes, bettors keep the sport going on a day-to-day basis, but there is no way that the bettors by themselves can keep such big, valuable pieces of land out of the hands of developers. They need the rest of society's help for that, whether they like it or not, and that means making racing a family-friendly product.



Sorry, but this is hilarious. Gambling on horses is always going to be drawn from a certain group of people, and families aren't part of that. Families don't go to strip clubs and they seem to stay in business.

[Al Gobbi]

As for setting up a competitor to the Breeders' Cup, I don't think you realize how much money it takes to stage these races, and how much television revenue, sponsorship money, and public support is necessary to generate the cash. Your rump "championship" day at Belmont would draw 11,000 people paying low NYRA admission charges, and get little attention from television or corporate America. Now, how are you going to pay the purse money? I know that some New York types like to think of their racing as the center of the universe, but the reality is that nobody in New York City cares about horse racing except one day a year and that sort of puts a damper in the pretensions of Belmont Park and its partisans.

The Breeders' Cup has something that a certain segment of the public likes. That gives them some leverage in setting eligibility rules. They can use that leverage as they wish, and the rest of us are free to whine about it, or not.

Here are the JCGC day attendance figures for example:
2011 - 10,481
2010 - 9,671
2009 - 7,000 (estimated)
2008 - 8,563
2007 - 19,338 (Sunday card)
2006 - 16,959
2005 - 15,737
2004 - 16,508
2003 - 19,034

[foregoforever]

Sorry, but this is hilarious. Gambling on horses is always going to be drawn from a certain group of people, and families aren't part of that. Families don't go to strip clubs and they seem to stay in business.

Strip clubs aren't reliant on state-supplied slots subsidies for their survival. They don't operate in facilities owned by the state. And their management isn't selected by a politician. Not a very good analogy.

If a genie appeared before NYRA management and offered to grant them a single wish, I suspect they would ask him to bring back the families and crowds that used to attend the races. It might not bring a dramatic increase in handle, but it would be a very potent weapon in their coming battles with little Mario.

[Tom]

Baby Mario has already scripted the outcome here.
Reality is never a factor in a Cuomo's thinking. Just their personal windfall.

[foregoforever]

Baby Mario has already scripted the outcome here.
Reality is never a factor in a Cuomo's thinking. Just their personal windfall.

You're probably right. But BM ( ;) ) would never have been in the position to make his power play if the sport enjoyed the popularity of the old days. The lack of attendance makes the sport an easy target for the pols.

[cj]

Strip clubs aren't reliant on state-supplied slots subsidies for their survival. They don't operate in facilities owned by the state. And their management isn't selected by a politician. Not a very good analogy.

If a genie appeared before NYRA management and offered to grant them a single wish, I suspect they would ask him to bring back the families and crowds that used to attend the races. It might not bring a dramatic increase in handle, but it would be a very potent weapon in their coming battles with little Mario.

First off, very few tracks are owned by the state. This wasn't about NYRA. It was about handle and its importance. I've been going to the track for 30 years. I'm sure there are some that go back much further. But, in my 30 years, I don't ever remember a bunch of families flocking to the track. Now and then there were a few big days, but what good does that do? Those people don't come back until the next big day.

I have to ask why you felt the need to make this about New York?

[gm10]

Sorry, but this is hilarious. Gambling on horses is always going to be drawn from a certain group of people, and families aren't part of that. Families don't go to strip clubs and they seem to stay in business.

You are getting things mixed up. I never said they were (and I never said they weren't either, because they are to some extent).

[cj]

You are getting things mixed up. I never said they were (and I never said they weren't either, because they are to some extent).

I'm going to need to find a translator for this one.

[gm10]

First off, very few tracks are owned by the state. This wasn't about NYRA. It was about handle and its importance. I've been going to the track for 30 years. I'm sure there are some that go back much further. But, in my 30 years, I don't ever remember a bunch of families flocking to the track. Now and then there were a few big days, but what good does that do? Those people don't come back until the next big day.



So the sport is on the decline (struggling for survival in some places), attendance is low, and families aren't showing up? In other countries, they do show up, the tracks try to make racing a social occasion in general, and the sport is doing a lot better. Do you detect a pattern?

[the little guy]

I'm going to need to find a translator for this one.

I think I'm detecting a pattern.

[cj]

So the sport is on the decline (struggling for survival in some places), attendance is low, and families aren't showing up? In other countries, they do show up, the tracks try to make racing a social occasion in general, and the sport is doing a lot better. Do you detect a pattern?

The sport is not in decline because families aren't showing up. Personally, I would do things to bring bettors to the track, the people that actually matter financially. Sorry, but families don't.

I understand your point I guess. When a business is failing, you can do two things. You can try to bring back old customers and/or bring in new ones. Unfortunately, bringing in the new ones you seem to be targeting is never going to create revenue. The sport can't exist on the price of admission.

[Tom]

A very well defined pattern!

I can't wait to set up my hibachi at PARX this January 25th....would be good picnic weather.

[foregoforever]

I have to ask why you felt the need to make this about New York?

Every thread on this board ends up being about NYRA sooner or later.

Bringing in gamblers is very important, of course. But gm10's points are well taken as well. Not so much with families necessarily, but in bringing in casual fans for the event. That's where the next generation of horseplayers gets started. And the general lack of popularity of the sport among the public is a serious problem when these slots, land usage and regulatory issues come up.

I don't think an industry approach that is solely focused on gamblers is going to succeed, and that's what I'm reading from your comments.

[cj]

I don't think an industry approach that is solely focused on gamblers is going to succeed, and that's what I'm reading from your comments.

I don't think it should be solely focused on gamblers, but that is where it needs to start. How can you create new fans from casual ones when the game is in such a bad state? You have to make the game better first.

[PaceAdvantage]

Actually the 2008/2009 numbers bring the average down a little.How can that possibly be when those two years were by far the biggest attendance at SA ever?

[Al Gobbi]

How can that possibly be when those two years were by far the biggest attendance at SA ever?
They got 69,155 in 1986 (no local simulcasting back then).

[PaceAdvantage]

Am I just not understanding what he said? He said the 2008/2009 numbers bring the average DOWN? Maybe when adding up ALL sites, because Churchill is so dominating in terms of attendance, but I was just talking SoCal vs. Belmont

[dilanesp]

Oh, yes. We run all of our major races over dirt all yer long, then, the biggest day of the year we decide to change to a foreign surface that inhibits all of our best horses and applaud foreign horses coming over and winning the races.

Makes sense to me.

Maybe for the Super Bowl this year, we could say screw football and have a softball game instead.

How about the fact that football and baseball are sometimes played on artificial turf and under domes? Do you not think that changes the game? Do you discount the results of any games not played in outdoor stadiums on natural grass?

This "dirt is normal and synthetics are not" argument is nothing more than assuming its conclusion. Dirt racing and synthetic racing are both horse racing. There's nothing special about running on dirt that makes the results more "legitimate".

[dilanesp]

As a bettor, I could give a shot how big the purses are.
Maybe they are too big now.

Well if you want championship racing, you need big purses.

I swear, this discussion is a dead end.

[dilanesp]

The likelihood that you know more about how the BC operates than me is extremely slim.

Once again, you chose to make this about something I didn't say. Nothing new.

You keep babbling about New York's handle as if it somehow is relevant to the New York City tracks' ability to stage a competitor to the Breeders' Cup.

The problem is that the Breeders' Cup actually generates $10 million in ticket sales in addition to the stallion and nomination fees, and television revenue, and without all these things they wouldn't be able to afford to put on a bunch of races with huge purses. NYRA cannot do this because they can't sell tickets, obtain enough nomination fees, or obtain enough television revenue. Ergo, no potential competitor to the Breeders' Cup.

Until the powers that be in New York can figure out how to convince people to come to a racetrack that is actually in New York City, they simply aren't players in the championship race day realm.

[dilanesp]

The people crying over attendance and the BC are probably the very same people who never want to see a BC at Monmouth again, yet Monmouth drew almost 70,000 people on what I recall to be a horrible weather day.

The last BC at Belmont (2005) drew 54K. This was more than Santa Anita drew in 2003 (51K).

Santa Anita benefited greatly from Zenyatta in 2009 (and to a lesser extent in 2008). Throw those aberrant years out and Belmont compares very favorably in BC attendance to Southern California (SA and HOL) throughout BC history, sometimes outdrawing them outright.

So I don't quite understand all this Belmont bashing when it comes to BC attendance.

If you want to base it solely on attendance, then hold it at Churchill every year. They are the kings of BC attendance.

Oh come on. Aqueduct in 1985, Belmont in 1995, and Belmont in 2001 all drew terribly. And all of them charged less for tickets than Santa Anita, so their actual ticket revenue was even worse.

[dilanesp]

How can that possibly be when those two years were by far the biggest attendance at SA ever?

Um, because it's now a two day event?

The biggest attendance at Santa Anita for the BC was when it was a one day event.

[Tom]

Of al the people who watch and wager on the
BC, what small percentage of them are actually on track?

What even smaller percentage of then could give a hoot what the on track attendance is?

Belmont is an ideal track for the BC races.

[cj]

NYRA cannot do this because they can't sell tickets, obtain enough nomination fees, or obtain enough television revenue. Ergo, no potential competitor to the Breeders' Cup.



Say what? The crowds for NY Breeders Cups have been fine. What do nomination fees have to do with anything? I don't think a single owner would decide to nominate or not based on where the BC is going to be held. How would they even know?

[cj]

This "dirt is normal and synthetics are not" argument is nothing more than assuming its conclusion. Dirt racing and synthetic racing are both horse racing. There's nothing special about running on dirt that makes the results more "legitimate".

Sure, go ahead and bet that way and see how you do.

[cj]

Oh come on. Aqueduct in 1985, Belmont in 1995, and Belmont in 2001 all drew terribly. And all of them charged less for tickets than Santa Anita, so their actual ticket revenue was even worse.

Why are you making stuff up? One day BCs:

2005 Belmont 54,289
2003 Santa Anita 51,486
2001 Belmont 52,987
1997 Hollywood 51,161

[Tom]

That would be more.

[PaceAdvantage]

You keep babbling about New York's handle as if it somehow is relevant to the New York City tracks' ability to stage a competitor to the Breeders' Cup.

The problem is that the Breeders' Cup actually generates $10 million in ticket sales in addition to the stallion and nomination fees, and television revenue, and without all these things they wouldn't be able to afford to put on a bunch of races with huge purses. NYRA cannot do this because they can't sell tickets, obtain enough nomination fees, or obtain enough television revenue. Ergo, no potential competitor to the Breeders' Cup.

Until the powers that be in New York can figure out how to convince people to come to a racetrack that is actually in New York City, they simply aren't players in the championship race day realm. I've already proven through historical facts and figures that Belmont BC attendance compares favorably with SoCal and has even surpassed it in some years. Why do you keep babbling about "New York City" tracks and this supposed inability to sell tickets?

The last line of your quote above is the height of absurdity, and it is advisable not to take you seriously in this discussion going forward.

[gm10]

Why are you making stuff up? One day BCs:

2005 Belmont 54,289
2003 Santa Anita 51,486
2001 Belmont 52,987
1997 Hollywood 51,161

This is not my fight, but just out of interest, why are you ignoring

1995 Belmont (37,246)
1990 Belmont (51,236)
1985 Aqueduct (42,568)

You have to admit that BC Saturday attendance has been better at SA than at BEL over the years. There are no bad years for SA.

[cj]

This is not my fight, but just out of interest, why are you ignoring

1995 Belmont (37,246)
1990 Belmont (51,236)
1985 Aqueduct (42,568)

You have to admit that BC Saturday attendance has been better at SA than at BEL over the years. There are no bad years for SA.

Oh I don't know, maybe because they were between 17 and 27 years ago. I picked the most recent 4 which were two for SoCal and two for NYRA.

[Tom]

Aqueduct and Hollywood are not relevant to this.....neither one is being talked about as a future site.

Now it looks like Bel is better than SA more often than not. 1995 was some kind of fluke.

[cj]

Aqueduct and Hollywood are not relevant to this.....neither one is being talked about as a future site.

Now it looks like Bel is better than SA more often than not. 1995 was some kind of fluke.

Pretty sure the weather was miserable that day.

[GMB@BP]

Pretty sure the weather was miserable that day.

what are the chances of that happening in Nov. in new york?

[cj]

what are the chances of that happening in Nov. in new york?

I'm sure you could look that up as well as I can.

[GMB@BP]

I'm sure you could look that up as well as I can.

I would think when it comes to weather someone in Oklahoma would have that answer at your fingertips.

Off the top of my I head I will say it will be cold.

[cj]

I would think when it comes to weather someone in Oklahoma would have that answer at your fingertips.

Off the top of my I head I will say it will be cold.

It usually isn't too cold for racing in early November or late October. By miserable, I meant heavy rain. The weather isn't an argument against the BC in New York. If it was, Churchill would never have it either, not to mention Woodbine.

[GMB@BP]

It usually isn't too cold for racing in early November or late October. By miserable, I meant heavy rain. The weather isn't an argument against the BC in New York. If it was, Churchill would never have it either, not to mention Woodbine.

I vote for sun and palm trees!

[dilanesp]

Why are you making stuff up? One day BCs:

2005 Belmont 54,289
2003 Santa Anita 51,486
2001 Belmont 52,987
1997 Hollywood 51,161

Why are you being dishonest about 1985 and 1995 when I specifically mentioned them?

[dilanesp]

Aqueduct and Hollywood are not relevant to this.....neither one is being talked about as a future site.

Now it looks like Bel is better than SA more often than not. 1995 was some kind of fluke.

I should mention there were not really 51, 000 there in 2001 (I was there) though I suspect they did sell that many tickets. Lots of no shows.

[cj]

Why are you being dishonest about 1985 and 1995 when I specifically mentioned them?

Dishonest? I think you intentionally omitted the more recent ones which would seem to have more relevance. Who cares what happened in 1985 at a track that will not host the BC any time soon?

[cj]

I should mention there were not really 51, 000 there in 2001 (I was there) though I suspect they did sell that many tickets. Lots of no shows.

I'm sure the Santa Anita attendance is perfectly accurate though.

Belmont is huge. I seriously doubt you are an expert at judging the attendance just because you were there.

[Tom]

I should mention there were not really 51, 000 there in 2001 (I was there) though I suspect they did sell that many tickets. Lots of no shows.
Your point?
They got the ticket money - that is what you said was important.

[PaceAdvantage]

I had a complete mental block on the BC being two days as of late. Must be because I have always thought it was a bad idea.

[tucker6]

Pretty sure the weather was miserable that day.

The 1995 Breeders’ Cup





Belmont Park

October 28, 1995




Attendance: 37,246
Handle: $65,768,486
Races: 7
Weather: 66°

Following heavy early morning storms over New York,

[gm10]

The 1995 Breeders’ Cup





Belmont Park

October 28, 1995




Attendance: 37,246
Handle: $65,768,486
Races: 7
Weather: 66°

Following heavy early morning storms over New York,

A guy I used to work with was there that day ... I remember how he described it to me ... "GRIM" ... he had a bet on Halling in the Classic so that may have been part of the reason :)

[PaceAdvantage]

It's amazing the BC didn't fold the very next day.... :rolleyes:

[cj]

The 1995 Breeders’ Cup





Belmont Park

October 28, 1995




Attendance: 37,246
Handle: $65,768,486
Races: 7
Weather: 66°

Following heavy early morning storms over New York,

I remember the muddy track well. For some reason, I remember watching and betting the races from Trinity Meadows, a track that doesn't even exist any longer. It was the closest alternative in Texas.

[jorcus99]

The 1995 Breeders’ Cup





Belmont Park

October 28, 1995




Attendance: 37,246
Handle: $65,768,486
Races: 7
Weather: 66°

Following heavy early morning storms over New York,

The problem with tht particular Breeders cup was the fact that NYRA did not distribute tickets until about 10 days before the event. You did not even know if you had a ticket with less than three weeks to go. Not easy to make travel plans on a guess if you were going to have a seat or not. Then at the 11th hour they cut the grandstand ticket prices in half to get more people in the seats. It rained a lot the night before but the day was not that bad.

[affirmedny]

The problem with tht particular Breeders cup was the fact that NYRA did not distribute tickets until about 10 days before the event. You did not even know if you had a ticket with less than three weeks to go. Not easy to make travel plans on a guess if you were going to have a seat or not. Then at the 11th hour they cut the grandstand ticket prices in half to get more people in the seats. It rained a lot the night before but the day was not that bad.

NYRA does not control BC ticket sales, do they?

[jorcus99]

I don't know about now but at that time the host track controlled the ticket lottery because they were the ones who over nighted me a letter with less than 3 weeks to go before the cup saying I would get tickets. Then with about a week to go I got them. If I remember right there was a single woman who was charged with this whole process which caused a big stink at the time.

NYRA does not control BC ticket sales, do they?

[dilanesp]

I'm sure the Santa Anita attendance is perfectly accurate though.

Belmont is huge. I seriously doubt you are an expert at judging the attendance just because you were there.

When large sections of "sold out" grandstands have scattered people, it is pretty easy to determine there were no shows.

BTW, tickets at the NYC BC's were far cheaper than at Santa Anita too.

[dilanesp]

The problem with tht particular Breeders cup was the fact that NYRA did not distribute tickets until about 10 days before the event. You did not even know if you had a ticket with less than three weeks to go. Not easy to make travel plans on a guess if you were going to have a seat or not. Then at the 11th hour they cut the grandstand ticket prices in half to get more people in the seats. It rained a lot the night before but the day was not that bad.

I had my tickets several weeks before and flew from California. It wasn't a problem.

The weather was awful. And locals didn't care. Those were the two issues. Cigar drew more people at Del Mar the following year without a championship day of racing. It was disgraceful how bad NYRA did that year.

[Tom]

Disgraceful?

To who?
You and four others?

[cj]

When large sections of "sold out" grandstands have scattered people, it is pretty easy to determine there were no shows.

BTW, tickets at the NYC BC's were far cheaper than at Santa Anita too.

Define far cheaper.

[tucker6]

Define far cheaper.
2003 BC at Santa Anita


Reserved seating areas include: Grandstand Seats – $75, $125, $150

Clubhouse Seats - $100, $150

Infield Picnic Circles - $50 (including Buffet Lunch)

Admission Only for:

General - $10.00
Clubhouse - $25.00

2005 BC at Belmont

Preferred Grandstand Seats (2nd, 3rd, 4th Floors with Clubhouse Access) - $175.00
Preferred Grandstand Seats (2nd Floor, partially obstructed view with Clubhouse Access) - $150.00
Clubhouse Reserved Seats (2nd, 3rd, 4th Floors) - $125.00
Grandstand Reserved Seats (2nd, 3rd, 4th Floors) - $125.00
Grandstand Reserved Seats (2nd Floor, partially obstructed view) - $100.00
Grandstand Reserved Seats (2nd, 3rd, 4th Floors) - $ 65.00
Grandstand Reserved Seats 2nd Floor, partially obstructed view) - $ 50.00
Grandstand Apron Reserved Seats (inside 1/16th pole) - $100.00
Clubhouse Apron Box - $ 75.00
Clubhouse Admission - $ 25.00
General Admission - $ 10.00

2008 BC at Santa Anita

Prices for tickets for the 25th Breeders' Cup will range from $20 for one-day general grandstand admission ($15 for Santa Anita's Thoroughbreds Club members) to reserved grandstand seats ranging from $200 to $600, depending on location, for the two-day package.
In addition to seats sold via the lottery, general admission ($20) and clubhouse admission ($50) will be available on both days of the Breeders' Cup World Championships.

[tucker6]

2003 BC at Santa Anita


Reserved seating areas include: Grandstand Seats – $75, $125, $150

Clubhouse Seats - $100, $150

Infield Picnic Circles - $50 (including Buffet Lunch)

Admission Only for:

General - $10.00
Clubhouse - $25.00
2005 BC at Belmont

Preferred Grandstand Seats (2nd, 3rd, 4th Floors with Clubhouse Access) - $175.00
Preferred Grandstand Seats (2nd Floor, partially obstructed view with Clubhouse Access) - $150.00
Clubhouse Reserved Seats (2nd, 3rd, 4th Floors) - $125.00
Grandstand Reserved Seats (2nd, 3rd, 4th Floors) - $125.00
Grandstand Reserved Seats (2nd Floor, partially obstructed view) - $100.00
Grandstand Reserved Seats (2nd, 3rd, 4th Floors) - $ 65.00
Grandstand Reserved Seats 2nd Floor, partially obstructed view) - $ 50.00
Grandstand Apron Reserved Seats (inside 1/16th pole) - $100.00
Clubhouse Apron Box - $ 75.00
Clubhouse Admission - $ 25.00
General Admission - $ 10.00

2008 BC at Santa Anita

Prices for tickets for the 25th Breeders' Cup will range from $20 for one-day general grandstand admission ($15 for Santa Anita's Thoroughbreds Club members) to reserved grandstand seats ranging from $200 to $600, depending on location, for the two-day package.
In addition to seats sold via the lottery, general admission ($20) and clubhouse admission ($50) will be available on both days of the Breeders' Cup World Championships.

Looks about the same to me except 2008 took a huge leap up in prices. Must have been a Zenyatta effect. Prices went back down in 2009 when SA hosted it again.

[cj]

Unless I'm misreading, that doesn't look cheaper, let alone far cheaper.

[dilanesp]

Disgraceful?

To who?
You and four others?

When one of the all time greats is running, the BC should not draw its lowest ever crowd. Upthread, Santa Anita's performance is dismissed because Zenyatta was running.

NYRA has decent racing Nobody disputes that. But despite drawing from the largest metropolitan area in the country, they draw awful other than one day a year and at a track in the boondocks. It's an embarrassment.

[tucker6]

Unless I'm misreading, that doesn't look cheaper, let alone far cheaper.
agreed. I tried to compare Belmont and SA when they were held close to each other. That would be 2003 and 2005. Prices those two years look very similar (Belmont may be a little higher as they seem to have more price points). All this tells me is that the BC may have influence of pricing on member racetracks and organizations.

[dilanesp]

Looks about the same to me except 2008 took a huge leap up in prices. Must have been a Zenyatta effect. Prices went back down in 2009 when SA hosted it again.

There have not been $50 grandstand seats at a California BC since 1997, and our premium seats sell for $300. The BC has ALWAYS cut ticket prices every time it went to NY. Tickets in 1990 were $20 for a grandstand seat.

[cj]

NYRA has decent racing Nobody disputes that. But despite drawing from the largest metropolitan area in the country, they draw awful other than one day a year and at a track in the boondocks. It's an embarrassment.

Again, just an outright lie. In the two most recent SoCal/NY comparisions, the one day BCs, NY drew more. Also, please, lets not pretend Los Angeles is some hick town with tumbleweeds blowing through.

[cj]

There have not been $50 grandstand seats at a California BC since 1997, and our premium seats sell for $300. The BC has ALWAYS cut ticket prices every time it went to NY. Tickets in 1990 were $20 for a grandstand seat.

22 years ago. Who cares? Why not address the most recent ones? I mean, other than they show you have no idea what you are talking about, that is.

[tucker6]

There have not been $50 grandstand seats at a California BC since 1997, and our premium seats sell for $300. The BC has ALWAYS cut ticket prices every time it went to NY. Tickets in 1990 were $20 for a grandstand seat.
Pricing seems to be the same when comparing the 2003 (belmont) and 2005(SA) Cups. I fear that you're letting your hatred of NYRA cloud your judgement. Facts are facts, and they do not support your contention.

[Tom]

When one of the all time greats is running, the BC should not draw its lowest ever crowd. Upthread, Santa Anita's performance is dismissed because Zenyatta was running.

NYRA has decent racing Nobody disputes that. But despite drawing from the largest metropolitan area in the country, they draw awful other than one day a year and at a track in the boondocks. It's an embarrassment.

Anyone concerned with great racing is looking at the track, with his ass pointed towards the stands. Maybe your view was obstructed. OR maybe you look at the world through the wrong end.

[dilanesp]

Again, just an outright lie. In the two most recent SoCal/NY comparisions, the one day BCs, NY drew more. Also, please, lets not pretend Los Angeles is some hick town with tumbleweeds blowing through.

As I said, there were not actually 50,000 people at Belmont Park in 2001. (I wasn't there in 2005.) A lot of people bought tickets and didn't go due to weather and 9/11, and the seating sections were "reserved" but empty.

Look, part of your problem is that you really don't realize that the Breeders' Cup has all these numbers. It isn't exactly rocket science that they have been cool to New York for a long time (dating back well before the current problems with medication rules), and the reasons are pretty well known. They know that their average ticket price in New York is lower. They know that they have more no shows in New York. They know there are more weather problems in New York. They know they get less local media coverage in New York because nobody there cares about horse racing anymore. These are all things that are discussed in the Breeders' Cup offices, and if they were not the case, there would have been more Breeders' Cups in New York than there have been (it is, after all, one of the Big Four racing circuits in the entire country).

So you can assume that New York City racing is some giant Colossus that strides across the horse racing world, able to put on any big event it wishes to and crush anything that stands in its way, or you can look at the reality, which is that considering both the size of the local population and the championship quality of racing run especially at Belmont, New York City is basically the most apathetic city in America when it comes to major horse racing and Belmont and Aqueduct have underperformed for years because of it.

It doesn't make California paradise (though California is paradise for other reasons :) ), but it does weigh in the decisions of Breeders' Cup officials about staging its events there.

[dilanesp]

Pricing seems to be the same when comparing the 2003 (belmont) and 2005(SA) Cups. I fear that you're letting your hatred of NYRA cloud your judgement. Facts are facts, and they do not support your contention.

Cheapest grandstand ticket price at 2003 (Santa Anita): $75.

Cheapest grandstand ticket price at 2005 (2 years LATER, after a bit of inflation, in New York): $50.

Clubhouse seat in 2003 (Santa Anita): $150.

Clubhouse seat in 2005 (Belmont): $125.

Plus, the AVERAGE price of a grandstand seat at Santa Anita was about $125, because the only $75 seats were between the 3/16th and the 1/8th pole. Wherease MOST of the grandstand seats at Belmont were $65.

That's a BIG price cut, actually.

[dilanesp]

Anyone concerned with great racing is looking at the track, with his ass pointed towards the stands. Maybe your view was obstructed. OR maybe you look at the world through the wrong end.

This is a weird comment. Do you New York honks really not realize that when you draw 10,000 or so for a major horse race, that it's pathetic? Heck, the 25,000 to 45,000 or so that the Santa Anita Derby draws every year isn't really GREAT (it used to routinely draw 55,000). But 10,000 is shameful. You guys have all these great races and a city of 8 million people that doesn't give a hoot about them.

[jorcus99]

As I said, there were not actually 50,000 people at Belmont Park in 2001. (I wasn't there in 2005.) A lot of people bought tickets and didn't go due to weather and 9/11, and the seating sections were "reserved" but empty.

Look, part of your problem is that you really don't realize that the Breeders' Cup has all these numbers. It isn't exactly rocket science that they have been cool to New York for a long time (dating back well before the current problems with medication rules), and the reasons are pretty well known. They know that their average ticket price in New York is lower. They know that they have more no shows in New York. They know there are more weather problems in New York. They know they get less local media coverage in New York because nobody there cares about horse racing anymore. These are all things that are discussed in the Breeders' Cup offices, and if they were not the case, there would have been more Breeders' Cups in New York than there have been (it is, after all, one of the Big Four racing circuits in the entire country).

So you can assume that New York City racing is some giant Colossus that strides across the horse racing world, able to put on any big event it wishes to and crush anything that stands in its way, or you can look at the reality, which is that considering both the size of the local population and the championship quality of racing run especially at Belmont, New York City is basically the most apathetic city in America when it comes to major horse racing and Belmont and Aqueduct have underperformed for years because of it.

It doesn't make California paradise (though California is paradise for other reasons :) ), but it does weigh in the decisions of Breeders' Cup officials about staging its events there.

I am pretty sure there were 50k in 2001. At least for part of the day. It was very cold with the strong wind many like us took shelter inside or in the paddock. We moved around a lot that day to stay warm. You just could not sit in those seats all day an survive. There were a lot more people than in 95 That is for certain.

[tucker6]

Cheapest grandstand ticket price at 2003 (Santa Anita): $75.

Cheapest grandstand ticket price at 2005 (2 years LATER, after a bit of inflation, in New York): $50.

Clubhouse seat in 2003 (Santa Anita): $150.

Clubhouse seat in 2005 (Belmont): $125.

Plus, the AVERAGE price of a grandstand seat at Santa Anita was about $125, because the only $75 seats were between the 3/16th and the 1/8th pole. Wherease MOST of the grandstand seats at Belmont were $65.

That's a BIG price cut, actually.
It took you a whole day to cherry pick the data, eh? The fact remains that the data does not support your position, which is to trash NYRA at every turn.

As to your other post lamenting NYC not supporting horse racing, need I remind you that 99% of the American public does not support racing in any meaningful way outside the TC series. In large, urbanized areas, such as LA and NYC and Chicago, it's probably even less supported. So, your contention is a red herring.

[Tom]

This is a weird comment. Do you New York honks really not realize that when you draw 10,000 or so for a major horse race, that it's pathetic? Heck, the 25,000 to 45,000 or so that the Santa Anita Derby draws every year isn't really GREAT (it used to routinely draw 55,000). But 10,000 is shameful. You guys have all these great races and a city of 8 million people that doesn't give a hoot about them.

Do you know that there is more to NY than NYC?
I am too far away to hear any of the honks (I assume you mean car horns and not people) in Western NY, close to Finger Lakes, where 45,000 is our annual attencence! :D

Hose racing is not the only game in town anymore - get used to it.

[PaceAdvantage]

dilanesp, Churchill absolutely dwarfs all other venues when it comes to Breeders' Cup attendance. Why isn't it your position that it should be held there permanently? You seem to be keying in on attendance as your number one metric...therefore, Churchill should be your number one host site.

My quick gorilla math says they AVERAGE over 70,000 every time they host, way more than NYRA or SoCal...

[lamboguy]

This is a weird comment. Do you New York honks really not realize that when you draw 10,000 or so for a major horse race, that it's pathetic? Heck, the 25,000 to 45,000 or so that the Santa Anita Derby draws every year isn't really GREAT (it used to routinely draw 55,000). But 10,000 is shameful. You guys have all these great races and a city of 8 million people that doesn't give a hoot about them.
last week at Cantaberry Downs for Minnesota Bred Stake Day, the attendance was 17,000 for a bunch of slow horses which i though was pretty good, however the on track handle was only $400,000. it was about $1.3 million on the light side from the way i look at things. i was there once and thought they do an excellent job with their facility and being customer friendly.

that place proves to me why horse racing needs a commission in the very worst way. the game needs to get the government out of it as much as possible and rule itself.

[rgustafson]

last week at Cantaberry Downs for Minnesota Bred Stake Day, the attendance was 17,000 for a bunch of slow horses which i though was pretty good, however the on track handle was only $400,000. it was about $1.3 million on the light side from the way i look at things. i was there once and thought they do an excellent job with their facility and being customer friendly.

that place proves to me why horse racing needs a commission in the very worst way. the game needs to get the government out of it as much as possible and rule itself.

I've been to Canterbury since day one. They can get the people out there, but they cant make them bet. One of the lowest per capita wagering in the country I would guess. The average patron spends more on beer and food than they do betting.:)

[cj]

I've been to Canterbury since day one. They can get the people out there, but they cant make them bet. One of the lowest per capita wagering in the country I would guess. The average patron spends more on beer and food than they do betting.:)

I actually went to Remington last night for the first time in over a year. There were tons of people there for racing. RP is actually one of the few racinos where the racing still appears to be the showcase event. I doubt they list attendance, but there had to be 10,000 at the track including many families.

Still, nobody bets. The pools are miniscule.

[tucker6]

I actually went to Remington last night for the first time in over a year. There were tons of people there for racing. RP is actually one of the few racinos where the racing still appears to be the showcase event. I doubt they list attendance, but there had to be 10,000 at the track including many families.

Still, nobody bets. The pools are miniscule.
Excuse me guys, but this is a NYRA sucks thread. Please stay on topic. ;)

[gm10]

I actually went to Remington last night for the first time in over a year. There were tons of people there for racing. RP is actually one of the few racinos where the racing still appears to be the showcase event. I doubt they list attendance, but there had to be 10,000 at the track including many families.

Still, nobody bets. The pools are miniscule.

My guess is that they pay little to no entrance fees. Over here it would be between 25 and 50 dollars per head (except the little ones). Multiply that by 10,000 or 20,000 and you get a decent number.

Maybe 25 dollars is outrageously expensive, or maybe that's just how much it costs. In any case, it's not stopping the people from coming, so it seems priced the right way.

[cj]

My guess is that they pay little to no entrance fees. Over here it would be between 25 and 50 dollars per head (except the little ones). Multiply that by 10,000 or 20,000 and you get a decent number.

Maybe 25 dollars is outrageously expensive, or maybe that's just how much it costs. In any case, it's not stopping the people from coming, so it seems priced the right way.

If you think people are going to pay $25 to go to Remington, you are nuts. There is no entrance fee. Racing is not going to survive here on admission costs. That is hilarious.

[gm10]

If you think people are going to pay $25 to go to Remington, you are nuts. There is no entrance fee. Racing is not going to survive here on admission costs. That is hilarious.

I'm glad you're amused, but that's not what I said.

[cj]

I'm glad you're amused, but that's not what I said.

What were you trying to say? People are never going to pay that much to come to a place like Remington, so what is the point?

Do people pay that much to go to a run of the mill race meet? I seem to remember paying about 8 Euro for the Arc, so I doubt it.

[gm10]

What were you trying to say? People are never going to pay that much to come to a place like Remington, so what is the point?

Do people pay that much to go to a run of the mill race meet? I seem to remember paying about 8 Euro for the Arc, so I doubt it.

I was trying to say that tracks can diversify their revenue.

I don't live in France, but over here, yes, you will pay 20 pounds, and it will be busy unless it's a Monday or Tuesday or a very bad weather day. There are a few exceptions, but that is the rule in my experience.

[cj]

I was trying to say that tracks can diversify their revenue.

I don't live in France, but over here, yes, you will pay 20 pounds, and it will be busy unless it's a Monday or Tuesday or a very bad weather day. There are a few exceptions, but that is the rule in my experience.

When we move our tracks to Europe, I guess we can try that. But, it isn't working here. Judging by the purses in England, I don't think is working particularly well there either.

[Tom]

FL has free parking and free admissions.
We get our money's worth.