Racing now known as a burn pit.
 

https://nypost.com/2023/02/26/time-t...cing-burn-pit/



https://www.nysfocus.com/2023/02/22/...ciation-study/

With all due respect to the esteemed research reporter, Sam Mellins, who graduated from the University of Chicago with a BA/History, could we please see reporting from someone whose last reporting gig was outside of North Dakota - you know, that hot-spot of horse racing?

hate to change the subject from burn pit or not, but in the NY Post article on a side bar there'a a link to a story titled "Six woman brawl breaks out at horse racing event"--check this shit out!

And here I was thinking
 

The NY Post is the burn pit in question here

I think they charge $3 a paper, no one buys newspapers anymore,
how do they stay in business

(Trick question)

That's cheap!...Wall Street Journal is $5 a copy on the street.

I've had WSJ home delivered for many years...Best newspaper, no question.

The editorial was absurd.

hey RR hows that tramco co. doing they have some kind of a robotic butcher i think wilkinson gave it to me gl sir :pound:

He didn't know that "racetrack" is one word and in the dictionary. Doesn't he use a grammar/spell checker?

Also, he didn't mention that the financial support comes from the casinos, doesn't it?

Actually, race track might be the more "correct" way...

Take The Race Track Industry Program at University of Arizona for example:

https://cals.arizona.edu/news/race-t...DU0Ni42MC4wLjA.

:-)

Better story!
https://nypost.com/2022/11/02/female...-in-australia/

I didn't realize that the Australian women were so attractive...:ThmbUp:

Bottom line is all of that is irrelevant (imo). Facts are facts. He made a pretty good case in the NY Focus piece (and I have never even heard of NY Focus) that the nearly half billion dollar investment is at the least very best questionable. Given that this is the best horse racing forum (imo) with a lot of New Yorkers posting that there would some solid counter arguments to his point. All I am seeing is a lot of shooting the messenger and nobody saying he is wrong because of reasons A, B, C........

Maybe I misread...but they're focusing on attendance in terms of making money for the state?

Did they forget about handle? Again, I kinda skimmed the piece...so I might have missed something important.

I believe they are focused on revenue to the state period.

I believe this sentence here is the general gist of their point.

Today, the industry is a shell of its former self, kept afloat by enormous state subsidies. Attendance is down to roughly 2 million, and New York barely gets $10 million a year from taxes on betting — a sliver of the nearly $200 million in public money the state showers on the industry annually.


If anyone has a counter, they can start with that sentence there. I personally have no idea what the state subsidies are that he is speaking of and honestly am not that interested. Politicians do what politicians do.

But as I have said before, if you don't fix the game the subsidies will eventually run dry and when they do what the does the game have? This article is perhaps a sign that these days are maybe approaching and that over time politicians will not be as free to help the racing industry as they have been. But time will tell. I am just looking for an intelligent counter.

I think addressing the points of this article are pretty vital to the survival of this game. No?

I'm just making sure the article isn't a total fail from the start by using attendance as the be-all end-all metric.