Where did all the horses go?

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by castaway01

I know you're being sincere, but if you're talking about a national centralized body, what possible reason would anyone have to believe that could do better than our current situation? Who is giving this "centralized body" control over all of these independently owned and operated entities? Who picks who runs this "centralized body"?

The two comparisons I keep seeing are the four major sports and Hong Kong. Well, I can own a major league team but I need at least most of the rest of the teams to have games and a league. There is no horse racing "league". The tracks are often separate entities even in the same state, and the participants are also owned by individuals. So that doesn't work.

And the second is Hong Kong. As Halvonhorseracing broke down well and as I and others have explained many times, Hong Kong owns all the gambling in the country and runs two tracks at a time. To picture how far away this is from our system, we'd have to give the federal government control of two tracks, shut down ALL of the others, and then give the feds control of EVERY state lottery and private casino in the country too. Do you think that group might be profitable? Well those are the resources Hong Kong horse racing has. Then some here bow before them and praise the "clean game" they run. Yeah, it's JUST like the American system, we'll just switch right over to a tiny, government-run horse racing industry.

I wish I had an answer. But these two aren't it.

I could literally rip this entire comment to shreds! It reeks of a closed mined individual with limited creativity and foresight. But why bother? I’m not going to pretend to have all the answers, but perhaps a few suggestions to improving an industry in dire need of a new direction.

Some people just don’t get it and are not willing to accept new ideas even in their infancy! Instead all that’s being done is misconstruing very basic concepts and comparing them to existing business platforms that in many cases would not even apply to a properly structured single regulating body that would oversee the entire horse racing industry in the U.S.

I’m certainly NOT calling for any direct U.S. government involvement, but rather a free enterprise regulating body. Yes, that’s one area where the HK model would certainly differ. But why shouldn’t it? Does anyone here really think that the Chinese government control of the HK Jockey Club would be the same as a corporate structured U.S. Jockey Club or Commission based on the concepts of free enterprise?

Anyone that implies that the current state of affairs with regards to the horse racing industry in the U.S. is fine and better left alone has got their head in the sand as far as I’m concerned.

[Greyfox]

Joe Friday: "Just the facts Mam."

The facts are:

Thoroughbred Foals By Year

1990 40,333
1991 38,151
1992 35,051
1993 33,822
1994 32,118
1995 31,884
1996 32,243
1997 32,119
1998 32,947
1999 33,844
2000 34,728
2001 34,721
2002 32,986
2003 33,976
2004 34,800
2005 35,050
2006 34,905
2007 34,358
2008 32,332
2009 29,612
2010 25,953
2011 22,644
2012 21,463
2013 21,405
2014 21,334
2015 20,850*
2016 20,850*

Source: http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=2

Fewer foals = Smaller fields

For whatever reasons, breeders have found it unrewarding to stay in the thoroughbred market.
The decline has been going on for almost 3 decades.
The downturn in the economy in 2009 accelerated the drop.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

Interesting thing is that alot of people complain about field size being the issue. Reality is that the number of starts per horse has declined dramatically.

1975: 68,210 races run, avg field size 8.82, avg starts per runner 10.23
1985: 75,687 races run, avg field size 9.03, avg starts per runner 8.28
1995: 68,248 races run, avg field size 8.20, avg starts per runner 7.73
2005: 57,495 races run, avg field size 8.17, avg starts per runner 6.45
2015: 42,219 races run, avg field size 7.18, avg starts per runner 6.18

Its not like the purse money isnt there. Purses have increased pretty steadily over the last couple decades despite a drastic decrease in races run. Barns just dont seem to be running as often. Function of trying to boost their % ITM? The lucrative stallion business might affect this but at the same time its not like that many horses are of that caliber to retire early for it. Add to that we on average run about 60% of all races at the claiming level.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

Joe Friday: "Just the facts Mam."

The facts are:

Thoroughbred Foals By Year

1990 40,333
1991 38,151
1992 35,051
1993 33,822
1994 32,118
1995 31,884
1996 32,243
1997 32,119
1998 32,947
1999 33,844
2000 34,728
2001 34,721
2002 32,986
2003 33,976
2004 34,800
2005 35,050
2006 34,905
2007 34,358
2008 32,332
2009 29,612
2010 25,953
2011 22,644
2012 21,463
2013 21,405
2014 21,334
2015 20,850*
2016 20,850*

Source: http://www.jockeyclub.com/default.asp?section=FB&area=2

Fewer foals = Smaller fields

For whatever reasons, breeders have found it unrewarding to stay in the thoroughbred market.
The decline has been going on for almost 3 decades.
The downturn in the economy in 2009 accelerated the drop.

Of those 21000 foals, how many actually start in a race....? I read here at PA that there is something like 60 tracks running in the US...is that correct...? Anyway, that is NOT enough starters by far to have decent products to bet on....

There should not have to be a runner shortage...many more horses can be bred and raised for racing...

Of those 21,000 foals, how many owners...? It just doesn't make sense for 10,000 owners to race 2 horses each....there simply must be some economy of scale being built into any future method....and the only entities that have the barns, land for training and stabling, and other related resources are the large breeders and the tracks....but they have always wanted to go at it alone, because it was profitable...breeders don't want to go further than selling foals and stud service, and race track owners don't want to breed and raise horses....

And the thousands of your "go at it on your own" owners can no longer foot the bill when things don't go the right way....many hidden costs get absorbed by owners who get into racing without understanding how truly expensive it can be just to own a few horses that race fairly infrequently...

Even D Wayne Lukas has put together owner clubs I suppose to make it more cost effective to own racehorses for more people...

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by Nitro

I could literally rip this entire comment to shreds! It reeks of a closed mined individual with limited creativity and foresight. But why bother? I’m not going to pretend to have all the answers, but perhaps a few suggestions to improving an industry in dire need of a new direction.

Some people just don’t get it and are not willing to accept new ideas even in their infancy! Instead all that’s being done is misconstruing very basic concepts and comparing them to existing business platforms that in many cases would not even apply to a properly structured single regulating body that would oversee the entire horse racing industry in the U.S.

I’m certainly NOT calling for any direct U.S. government involvement, but rather a free enterprise regulating body. Yes, that’s one area where the HK model would certainly differ. But why shouldn’t it? Does anyone here really think that the Chinese government control of the HK Jockey Club would be the same as a corporate structured U.S. Jockey Club or Commission based on the concepts of free enterprise?

Anyone that implies that the current state of affairs with regards to the horse racing industry in the U.S. is fine and better left alone has got their head in the sand as far as I’m concerned.

Except that he didn't say it's fine and better left alone. He just explained why it's kind of dumb to compare Hong Kong to here. I realize you get your panties in a bunch anytime someone mentions Hong Kong, but it's the truth.

I think we'd all like to see change. But the sad reality is the people in control don't seem to think like we do.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by menifee

I thought I explained this above. As with state racing commissions, there could be a federal racing commission. Congress could give control because they ultimately control legislation regarding simulcasting. The tracks could opt out, but then they could not take in wagers from other states. They would not survive. The executive branch could appoint the commission. There are 100s of federal commissions in the United States.

Racing is controlled by the government right now. It's just done at the state level. State legislatures/gaming commissions set minimums for racing days, takeout rates, rules, etc. What is the issue with consolidating that power into one nationalized commission? I'm a small government proponent, but there are 50 different state racing commission managing racing in the United States. Wouldn't it be more efficient and better for the customer and the horse if that power were consolidated?

All I can say is that the dictionary definition of desperation must be turning to the Congress to solve a problem, although it is an effective strategy for getting people to move off the dime.

It's pretty amazing to think of how many people would ardently support the tenth amendment - you know, the one that says any powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people - have no problem suggesting the federal horse racing commission. That's kind of a problem, eh.

The problem with appointed commissions - we already know because that is what we already have - is that they are very often populated with people who know very little about how horse racing works, how therapeutic drugs are used, or how parimutuel wagering works. If the President appointed them, we might wind up with all the Trump relatives who didn't get appointments in the first round of doling out offices in the West Wing. A clear problem with state commissions is that none of them seem to care about the horseplayer. I'm not sure why a federal commission would be any different.

Of course, I've said that you can have government rulemaking bodies - as you said, that is very common - but you are never going to "make racing great again" until you do the most important thing that bogs it down - lower the take. And one of the keys to that might be to treat racing as you treat any business - you tax them on profits after expenses instead of extracting money as soon as I make a bet. Imagine other businesses having to function under those rules.

By the way, there aren't 50 different state racing commissions since there are only 31 states where racing occurs. 31 can give you a hodgepodge, but which of the critical rules in racing varies wildly from one state to another? Not drug/medication policy. Almost all the states adopt the RMTC controlled therapeutic substance recommendations. You don't need a federal commission to have a centralized inquiry/objection decision panel. You just need state compacts. Same with any other large inconsistency. Fix the state rule and you have consistency. I keep wondering what the federal commission is going to do so much better - or different - than a state commission. It might be cheaper than thirtysomething separate commissions, but let's not bet serious money the feds won't find a way to make the budget bigger than 31 commission budgets added together. The one thing a federal commission could do is what you mentioned - decide who gets racing days, when and how many. Of course, you'd have to amend state legislation that requires a minimum number of racing days - that's one of those things apparently reserved to the states after all - so the commission could come up with the perfect national schedule.

A federal commission is one of those ideas that really needs a lot of detail plastered onto it before we could pronounce it viable.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Nitro

Anyone that implies that the current state of affairs with regards to the horse racing industry in the U.S. is fine and better left alone has got their head in the sand as far as I’m concerned.

The one thing nobody is doing is suggesting racing doesn't need a serious look at how things are done. I suggested 10 ways to fix horseracing and posted in on this site. The only thing people are trying to tell you is that while there are reasons why Hong Kong has done so well, many of the underlying conditions (like owning a monopoly on gambling and not having any proximate competition for the gambling dollar) are not replicable here. And for the most part you've most gotten pissy with anyone who dares point that out to you, without putting much meat on the "how we copy Hong Kong" bone. Definitely is a touchy subject for you.

[jdhanover]

Originally Posted by MonmouthParkJoe

Interesting thing is that alot of people complain about field size being the issue. Reality is that the number of starts per horse has declined dramatically.

1975: 68,210 races run, avg field size 8.82, avg starts per runner 10.23
1985: 75,687 races run, avg field size 9.03, avg starts per runner 8.28
1995: 68,248 races run, avg field size 8.20, avg starts per runner 7.73
2005: 57,495 races run, avg field size 8.17, avg starts per runner 6.45
2015: 42,219 races run, avg field size 7.18, avg starts per runner 6.18

Its not like the purse money isnt there. Purses have increased pretty steadily over the last couple decades despite a drastic decrease in races run. Barns just dont seem to be running as often. Function of trying to boost their % ITM? The lucrative stallion business might affect this but at the same time its not like that many horses are of that caliber to retire early for it. Add to that we on average run about 60% of all races at the claiming level.

In addition to $ and cents, didn't the reproductive mare syndrome hit just as the economy tanked?

Horses are becoming more fragile over the years (IMO) - maybe due to inbreeding?
In the end there is excess capacity....too many tracks/races. I expect more consolidation in the next few years. Might not be a bad thing.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

as small as these fields are they will only get smaller with contraction. when you have to close up tracks all you have is a very unhealthy game that will eventually go kaput.

if you get rid of the smaller tracks you won't have any place to go with the horses that don't make the bigger circuits. if you have no place to go then people will stop buying horses, if they stop buying horses then the breeders will stop breeding them.

this is really a vicious circle that seems to be ending up in a death spiral .

40 years ago there were 25k people at a race track on a weekday afternoon and that was with a population 1/3 rd of what it is today. with all source marketing now in racing you have about 1/3rd the amount of people interested in the game.

I don't think there will ever be any kind of forced contraction in the business. Tracks will though their management( or lack thereof) close ( contract) themselves.
Unless there is a tectonic shift in the over all business model of horse racing, closure of tracks is an inevitability.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

Except that he didn't say it's fine and better left alone. He just explained why it's kind of dumb to compare Hong Kong to here. I realize you get your panties in a bunch anytime someone mentions Hong Kong, but it's the truth.

I think we'd all like to see change. But the sad reality is the people in control don't seem to think like we do.

Where did I mention that HE said that? Why not try comprehending the written word before stick your foot in your mouth. (Or perhaps on your keyboard)

Of course it’s “dumb” to compare HK racing to what’s going on in the States.
THAT’s the POINT!
The idea which apparently went right over your head is to use the HK model to improve our local game. What’s really dumb is how blind some can be when the obvious is staring them right in the face.

BTW, why would I get upset about anyone mentioning HK? When in fact, I’m usually the one who brings it up to begin with? Why because I’ve been playing there for the last 4 years and thoroughly enjoy every minute of it. It makes most of the current state-side racing programs and all their indiscretions look like minor league. Topics of course that your average bettor could really care less about.

You’re right, it is all about making positive changes and perhaps the people in control need to either recognize it and accept that reality, or get out of the way of those who would like to restore this game to its proper status.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

for every 1 good horse there is probably something like 300 bad ones. the bad ones got to go somewhere and not to the killers.

That notion is predicated on the idea that large more successful tracks will not entertain the idea of carding one or two additional races per day to accommodate at least some of the 'less expensive' stock.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by thespaah

That notion is predicated on the idea that large more successful tracks will not entertain the idea of carding one or two additional races per day to accommodate at least some of the 'less expensive' stock.

There will be a contraction in the numbers being bred as well. There will still be horses at the bottom, but they'll be better bred horses at the bottom.

[jdhanover]

I think there will still be the lower level 'smaller' tracks....just not as many of them

On a given day you can have tracks like Arapahoe, Fairmont, Turf Paradise, Mountaineer, Penn Nat'l, all running etc....consolidation simply takes a couple of those out. Then the 'bottom' horse are concentrated at fewer tracks. And thus bigger fields.

[menifee]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

All I can say is that the dictionary definition of desperation must be turning to the Congress to solve a problem, although it is an effective strategy for getting people to move off the dime.

It's pretty amazing to think of how many people would ardently support the tenth amendment - you know, the one that says any powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people - have no problem suggesting the federal horse racing commission. That's kind of a problem, eh.

The problem with appointed commissions - we already know because that is what we already have - is that they are very often populated with people who know very little about how horse racing works, how therapeutic drugs are used, or how parimutuel wagering works. If the President appointed them, we might wind up with all the Trump relatives who didn't get appointments in the first round of doling out offices in the West Wing. A clear problem with state commissions is that none of them seem to care about the horseplayer. I'm not sure why a federal commission would be any different.

Of course, I've said that you can have government rulemaking bodies - as you said, that is very common - but you are never going to "make racing great again" until you do the most important thing that bogs it down - lower the take. And one of the keys to that might be to treat racing as you treat any business - you tax them on profits after expenses instead of extracting money as soon as I make a bet. Imagine other businesses having to function under those rules.

By the way, there aren't 50 different state racing commissions since there are only 31 states where racing occurs. 31 can give you a hodgepodge, but which of the critical rules in racing varies wildly from one state to another? Not drug/medication policy. Almost all the states adopt the RMTC controlled therapeutic substance recommendations. You don't need a federal commission to have a centralized inquiry/objection decision panel. You just need state compacts. Same with any other large inconsistency. Fix the state rule and you have consistency. I keep wondering what the federal commission is going to do so much better - or different - than a state commission. It might be cheaper than thirtysomething separate commissions, but let's not bet serious money the feds won't find a way to make the budget bigger than 31 commission budgets added together. The one thing a federal commission could do is what you mentioned - decide who gets racing days, when and how many. Of course, you'd have to amend state legislation that requires a minimum number of racing days - that's one of those things apparently reserved to the states after all - so the commission could come up with the perfect national schedule.

A federal commission is one of those ideas that really needs a lot of detail plastered onto it before we could pronounce it viable.

You make some fair points. Let me address them.

There are 50 different sets of rule making bodies in the states when it comes to horse racing. Some are active - some are not. They may not be racing commissions per se. Some are gambling commissions, some are racing commissions, some might be legislative committees, some may fall under the purview of the state police. Someone has to be in control within each individual state because it is gambling. It has to be regulated somehow. Some states have multiple commissions (e.g., Alabama). Some states have dormant commissions, but they are there.

I get the point about the RMTC and I understand the ARCI's model rules of racing. I have read the model rules. They are ok. As I stated before, the industry has gotten better about uniformity by crafting model rules which have been adopted by the commissions. But state compacts and model rules, won't touch the main problem with racing.

You have actors (mainly the tracks acting in their own self-interest) who do not care about the customer or the sport. Normally, I would not have a problem with actors acting in their own economic interest, but it is a detriment to the sport and the horse. It becomes exaggerated and a real problem when most of these tracks do not want to be in the horse racing business anyway and simply want to be in the casino business. Does anyone really think Churchill and Hollywood really want to be in the racing business? Why is Kee a great experiences for its customers? Because the nonprofit that controls that track actually wants to be in the racing business.

How could a federal commission with a strong commissioner be different and be a positive force? Well for example, it could solve problems that state commissions could never resolve. Right now we have a horse shortage. 50 state commissions are not going to coordinate on scheduling to ensure that we don't have 3 horse fields running daily. NYRA and the New York State Gaming Commission are not going to tell the NY horsemen that 6 months of racing at Aqueduct is unnecessary and a terrible product. A federal commissioner could simply not provide the days for racing. Look at the Belmont card on Friday compared to the Aqueduct cards that have been run over the past few months? Which is better for the long term health of the game?

A federal commission could regulate that tracks running the same condition within a certain distance to each other (the Mountain and MVR) should not be racing at the same time. Do you think the Ohio Racing Commission and the West Virginia Racing Commission will ever coordinate on something like that?

Does it really make sense for 50 state legislatures through their commissions to set racing policy? In 2017, people in Texas and other states cannot bet with an ADW? How does that help the industry? The industry needs a policy on ADW's. We have nothing.

In no way do I think a federal commission with a powerful commissioner would be a panacea, but I do think it would ensure the viability of the sport.

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by Nitro

Where did I mention that HE said that? Why not try comprehending the written word before stick your foot in your mouth. (Or perhaps on your keyboard)

Of course it’s “dumb” to compare HK racing to what’s going on in the States.
THAT’s the POINT!
The idea which apparently went right over your head is to use the HK model to improve our local game. What’s really dumb is how blind some can be when the obvious is staring them right in the face.

BTW, why would I get upset about anyone mentioning HK? When in fact, I’m usually the one who brings it up to begin with? Why because I’ve been playing there for the last 4 years and thoroughly enjoy every minute of it. It makes most of the current state-side racing programs and all their indiscretions look like minor league. Topics of course that your average bettor could really care less about.

You’re right, it is all about making positive changes and perhaps the people in control need to either recognize it and accept that reality, or get out of the way of those who would like to restore this game to its proper status.

Your post was directed to him, no? You went off on another tangent and ended it with that. Who else would you have been talking to?

We get it...you love Hong Kong. But as Halvey said, that model here cannot work. And you just keep saying use it to improve our game without really saying how to use a model that cannot work will be able to improve our game.

So basically you've talked in circles.