Quote:
Originally Posted by thaskalos
Fine...but you said earlier that it is easy to say 'somebody should pay for that, but it shouldn't be me'. All this "new money" has come into this sport via the racinos that the racetracks are now operating...and no move has yet been made to "improve the product" in any way. If something is to be done for the horse-slaughter problem, who should initiate it...and who should pay for it?
I pointed to the breakage and to the uncashed tickets, because these are funds that are WRONGFULLY taken away from the bettors...and you were quick to point out to me that these monies are taken away from the players "legally". Who pays to help with the horse-slaughter problem then? Should the takeout go up a few more points...so the problem could be aleviated without the racing industry having to directly pay for it?
|
If I were to institute my example of limiting the breeding you would need to purchase a license to breed a thoroughbred. Most of that money would go to the 'rescue program' (overhead and salaries would be paid - remainder to the rescue program).
Any remaining money needed to cover the expenses would be taken from the money wagered. Takeouts would increase (possibly dramatically).
You might claim that the increased takeout is 'taking money from the horseplayer' - but just like any transaction, when you provide the money in exchange for something it is no longer your money. You have no say in how it should be spent.
You can claim that breakage and uncashed tickets are 'wrongfully' taken from the horseplayer - but if it were to be returned I could just as easily claim the money was being 'wrongfully' distributed to the horse players.
