|
Let's see here...the Plonk article points out that contraction has been happening since 1989, with one third fewer races being contested now compared to 20 years ago.
Contraction is supposed to be good, but racing has spiralled with a downward vector during those 20 years.
So we are to believe more contraction is needed? That the contraction that has been occurring hasn't been managed properly, but that future contraction will? Is that what we're being asked to believe?
What other sport hates its fellow fans and participants more than racing? Could golf say, "You public course dirtbags, you're outta here. We need to strengthen the tournament game, so we're sacrificing the publinx gang." How long would major league baseball last if the minor leagues dried up and blew away?
But more to the point, when are the benefits of the contraction of the last 20 years supposed to kick in? Where are the successes of contraction that can be held up as examples of a new business model, harbingers of things to come, glimpses of a rosier future? Not seeing anything other than hazy dreams of superstarstudded weekends one right after another; hopeandchange, equine style.
Horseplayerbets mentioned something that I have said here before on these types of threads. The connections of these cheap horses that everybody loves to hate on are the ones that bring new money to the track. You can't tell 35, 40 percent or more of your fan base to get lost, and expect growth. The premise is not only flawed, it's illogical.
|
