I'm boycotting because:
In my opinion, Keeneland isn't acting in the best interest of racing here.
Higher takeout in the name of bigger purses has been tried before. And it has failed rather badly.
Consider:
• In 2010, during the six months immediately following the takeout increase at Los Al: On track handle was down 27%. They've since cut dates and purses. And their handle today looks nothing like it did before their takeout increase.
• In 2011, nine months after the SB1072 takeout increase went into effect for California's thoroughbred tracks: There were not only purse cuts but Santa Anita announced they were 'reorganizing' and laying off one third of their staff.
The so called racing press didn't cover it.
But the local paper in Arcadia, CA where Santa Anita is located did.
Santa Anita cuts third of staff:
http://arcadiasbest.com/2011/10/sant...hird-of-staff/
Quote:
October 6, 2011 by Scott Hettrick
The first of what is said to be several phases of severe cutbacks at Santa Anita Park will result in layoffs of about a third of the approximately 300 employees at the track.
|
• In 2014, Churchill raised takeout for their Spring meet. Handle outside of the Derby was down a solid 25%. As direct result: Churchill announced a 20% purse cut for their 2014 Fall meet.
The so called racing press didn't cover it.
But Maggi Moss reported it here on her Twitter account:
In my opinion Keeneland is doubling down on the same bad idea.
Why would anyone in their right mind think the results will different this time?
I'm boycotting because I believe a boycott is the best way for players to convince not only Keeneland -- but all tracks everywhere -- that Higher Takeout in the name of Bigger Purses isn't the answer and only serves to compound the many already existing problems racing faces and needs to address.
I'm boycotting because I believe a boycott is the best way for players to convince Keeneland to reverse their decision.
-jp
.
