Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
I fully remember Bob Baffert -- the trainer that you admire so much -- telling the media that the trainers have to be catered to in this game...because they are "fully invested" in this game...while the "gamblers" have OTHER gambling options to resort to if this game ceases to be "to their liking". I know that, by "gamblers", Baffert was referring to the bettors...but his comment could easily fit the OWNERS, as well.
As Dahoss so accurately stated...the elevated purses were supposed to play a certain role...but they brought about the OPPOSITE side-effect from the one that was initially predicted. Instead of the fields becoming fuller and more competitive...they became smaller, and more UNBETTABLE. Do we continue rewarding the connections, for not delivering on the promises that they initially made?
Align the purses in accordance to field size, I say...and try to do something to breathe some life into this game. Otherwise...we will ALL be looking for a "new, less-expensive hobby".
|
I think aligning purses and "take" to field size is a great idea, but to get to your other points.
Without owners being willing to buy horses and lose money on a net basis, there is no game. That's no different than without bettors making wagers, there is no game.
So you have to balance the two.
Also, it may be accurate to say that as purses have risen field sizes have fallen, but I believe this may be a case of "correlation" is not the same thing as "causation".
Fields are smaller for a few reasons I can think of and there may be more.
1. Crop sizes are WAY down and we haven't had a corresponding consolidation of tracks/races to match. You'd have to ask breeders why crop sizes are down, but I'm going to guess it's because there wasn't enough demand from owners to buy horses at appropriate prices because they were losing money and economic times were a little tougher.
2. Trainers are saying the horses aren't as sound (I wouldn't know).
3. Perhaps Lasix use is an issue (some think there is a longer recovery time)
4. Some trainers think greater spacing races leads to more "A" efforts (which may or may not be related to #2 and 3#).
To me, #4 is the most controversial. Even if some trainers get better results that way, no one has demonstrated to me that you make more money that way. My group likes running, buy we always defer to the trainer on what's best for the horse's health and well being.
I wouldn't change the Triple Crown. If it's hard to hold a horse together for 3 grueling races and trainers want to space more, I can see how that hurts the series. But when a horse actually pulls it off, it seems like it means more.
