Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schwartz
The system is archaic. Taking a 1980s-era system to an early Y2k system does not qualify as progress.
In fact, the entire game itself is archaic in so many ways.
There are so many people who believe that horse racing has an integrity level on par with WWF.
We live in an age where integrity COULD and SHOULD be as close to perfect as possible. "Improvement" is just not enough if the industry expects to survive.
What do I mean by "close to perfect?" Cheating demands a stiff penalty.- 1st offense 5 years
- 2nd offense lifetime
Should every bettor on every wager not have the expectation that the game's integrity is solid?
While Pete Rose's penalty was probably too severe, the message was sent pretty clearly. |
1980s era? You are being far too generous. It's a mish mash of 1960s, 1980s and modern era equipment - and THAT might even be too generous (depending on the track).
The sport suffers from many of the same issues that other sports and gambling suffers from, and there are steps in place to try to combat that.
Lance Armstrong won multiple Tour de Frances before his doping was uncovered. Card counters, players or referees influencing game outcomes and other systems of 'cheating' are not as uncommon as they should be, and may never be.
Tracks do what they can, when they can for the most part. They do want a fair game. They do listen to reasonable complaints. Not everybody accepts that and I've seen numerous comments of 'the tracks hate us' or similar used.
Some people are nearly impossible to satisfy. They want their Oompa Loompa and they want it NOW!
