Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andymays
I wonder what the handle at Hollywood would be if the poeple that ran California racing and screwed it up over the last several years had done the right thing.
It seems like all of their energy goes into one upping one another and promoting their synthetic surfaces.
What if there energy had gone into getting some horses out here by raising purses with all the money they've flushed down the toilet?
It's too late now but if these guys had built a strong foundation years ago in California they could probably have weathered this storm and the handle would be 15 million with an average field size of 8.
These guys had to work real hard to screw up a good thing and the screwing up began when the first Indian Casino went up. They could have made a good deal back then when they had the upper hand. Now they're almost powerless to stop the slide.
|
It, the past few years, has been interesting to view from a distance. The energy expended by those who resisted synthetic surfaces from the beginning, those who have relentlessly pursued an effort to ensure that they fail, those who's every day seems to be consumed by efforts to undo, to reverse, to discourage others from wagering on synthetics, has certainly had a greater impact than those who quietly adapted to the change.
Just how good/bad the surface actually is, how many unfulfilled expectations of less maint. and greater consistency/safety that had been promised, ---- it doesn't really matter at this point. Those who resisted have won.
Might things have been different under the same set of conditions.... sure. Absent the ponderous anti-synthetic movement we might very well have had a different result. Synthetic surfaces are wagered on every day and there are actually some players making money betting them. Will Arlington and Keeneland endure the weight? Time will tell.
