1st Racing go F yourself

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by the little guy

How did I know that you almost only post in the political threads and what your politics would be?

One clown brings their political crap here and another soon follows. That's EXACTLY why it doesn't belong here.

Andy,

Virtually the entire reason CA racing is on the fast track to oblivion is the politics of the state. Right or wrong the costs are higher than elsewhere in the country (in part for political reasons) and there is no casino money supporting the purse structure (for political reasons).

If we can’t discuss why CA is failing, we certainly can’t fix it.

Who in their right mind is going to want to own and race horses in CA when the economics of the sport for owners are even worse in CA than elsewhere?

Most owners are going to lose more money than they can tolerate and get out. Others will see the bad environment and not get in or go somewhere else where it makes more sense like OP.

To get more handle you need large competitive fields and a competitive track take. You aren’t going to get the former unless you make it attractive to own and race horses there. That’s not going to happen unless the politics of the state change. Tinkering is not going to get it done. I don’t even think lowering the take a bit will add enough to the bottom line to matter.

My personal politics have nothing to do with my opinion. I personally think CA is correct to not use casino money for racing. I don’t think any state should be. There are better economic and societal uses for that money. I think racing should stand on its own and the best managed tracks should win market share and the rest close. None of that changes the realty of why CA racing is likely doomed longer term.

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

And a major point here-- we sustained this even for years after other markets declined. I remember the first time I went to see a race in New York, the 1986 Marlboro Cup. And I was shocked at the tiny crowd at Belmont Park-- because that sort of race would easily draw 50,000 at Santa Anita. NYRA's attendance for everything but the Belmont and Travers was terrible at that point (and even their Belmont crowds were much lower than what they draw now). California was flying high.

No - it wasn't 50K, and the comment after the attendance speaks somewhat to your point, but from a Russ Harris article in the Blood-Horse about 1986 Marlboro Cup day:

"Bettors in a crowd of 29,183, the largest of the meeting so far, had trouble deciding on a favorite."

I would hesitate to call 29K "tiny" - you could hide a lot of people in those cavernous stands and ample grounds!

More gleanings from the Harris article:

1986's Marlboro, which wound up with 7 entrants but scratched down to 5, didn't really feature any "big time" NY based horse that might have drawn more of a crowd. Turkoman was West Coast, Precisionist had shipped in for the Woodward and stayed on. One of the East Coast "big name" entrants, Ogygian - at that point 8-7-1-0 lifetime with 3 Gr Is - went in the $300K Pegasus at the Meadowlands the night before the Marlboro. (Santa Anita didn't deal with that kind of "local" competition for horses. ) Lady's Secret wasn't going to run if Precisionist did (and she didn't).

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by BarchCapper

No - it wasn't 50K, and the comment after the attendance speaks somewhat to your point, but from a Russ Harris article in the Blood-Horse about 1986 Marlboro Cup day:

"Bettors in a crowd of 29,183, the largest of the meeting so far, had trouble deciding on a favorite."

I would hesitate to call 29K "tiny" - you could hide a lot of people in those cavernous stands and ample grounds!

More gleanings from the Harris article:

1986's Marlboro, which wound up with 7 entrants but scratched down to 5, didn't really feature any "big time" NY based horse that might have drawn more of a crowd. Turkoman was West Coast, Precisionist had shipped in for the Woodward and stayed on. One of the East Coast "big name" entrants, Ogygian - at that point 8-7-1-0 lifetime with 3 Gr Is - went in the $300K Pegasus at the Meadowlands the night before the Marlboro. (Santa Anita didn't deal with that kind of "local" competition for horses. ) Lady's Secret wasn't going to run if Precisionist did (and she didn't).

I was there that day. It was crowded. He's a lawyer. Accuracy and honesty are optional.

[Sheffwed]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Andy,

Virtually the entire reason CA racing is on the fast track to oblivion is the politics of the state. Right or wrong the costs are higher than elsewhere in the country (in part for political reasons) and there is no casino money supporting the purse structure (for political reasons).

If we can’t discuss why CA is failing, we certainly can’t fix it.

Who in their right mind is going to want to own and race horses in CA when the economics of the sport for owners are even worse in CA than elsewhere?

Most owners are going to lose more money than they can tolerate and get out. Others will see the bad environment and not get in or go somewhere else where it makes more sense like OP.

To get more handle you need large competitive fields and a competitive track take. You aren’t going to get the former unless you make it attractive to own and race horses there. That’s not going to happen unless the politics of the state change. Tinkering is not going to get it done. I don’t even think lowering the take a bit will add enough to the bottom line to matter.

My personal politics have nothing to do with my opinion. I personally think CA is correct to not use casino money for racing. I don’t think any state should be. There are better economic and societal uses for that money. I think racing should stand on its own and the best managed tracks should win market share and the rest close. None of that changes the realty of why CA racing is likely doomed longer term.

it is hard to completely remove politics from racing's future

yes in NY state, the often derided Governor and State Comptroller DiNapoli (who is doing a great job, unlike many US states regardless of "red or blue," his pension fund has no shortfall and invests soundly and he is the sole trustee) are both supportive of racing's future

in CA, Newsom of course is a future Presidential possibility, whether you/we like him or not, so this will inform his thinking and the future of racing in the State accordingly

prices are indeed higher in California, this Editorial suggests profit seeking is the real reason, and you'd have to suspect that large companies with a vested interest are a bigger factor than one suspects (California's laws on CAFE standards for example would lessen demand for gasoline)

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/stor...ry-for-answers

Really wish the California state government wanted racing to succeed, and it wasn't a political issue

In Kentucky, the pension fund is a complete disaster and the governor is a Democrat recently reelected probably because of that as much as anything - I doubt he would have won anything if he didn't support racing, and of course racing is thriving in KY

I wish there was a national effort to grow more interest in our sport, this would put pressure on all politicians

This is political whether we like it or not

And I've said it before, if we think about what is best for horses in this increasingly modern world, there is a place for well run horse racing with minimum standards applied and I think most people would get behind that given the facts

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by BarchCapper

No - it wasn't 50K, and the comment after the attendance speaks somewhat to your point, but from a Russ Harris article in the Blood-Horse about 1986 Marlboro Cup day:

"Bettors in a crowd of 29,183, the largest of the meeting so far, had trouble deciding on a favorite."

I would hesitate to call 29K "tiny" - you could hide a lot of people in those cavernous stands and ample grounds!

More gleanings from the Harris article:

1986's Marlboro, which wound up with 7 entrants but scratched down to 5, didn't really feature any "big time" NY based horse that might have drawn more of a crowd. Turkoman was West Coast, Precisionist had shipped in for the Woodward and stayed on. One of the East Coast "big name" entrants, Ogygian - at that point 8-7-1-0 lifetime with 3 Gr Is - went in the $300K Pegasus at the Meadowlands the night before the Marlboro. (Santa Anita didn't deal with that kind of "local" competition for horses. ) Lady's Secret wasn't going to run if Precisionist did (and she didn't).

I made a mistake on the year. It was 1987. It was the one won by Java Gold. And there definitely were not 29,000 people there. The place was empty. And I think the next year they eliminated the race and lengthened the Woodward to 1 1/4 miles instead.

[MargieRose]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Andy,

Virtually the entire reason CA racing is on the fast track to oblivion is the politics of the state. Right or wrong the costs are higher than elsewhere in the country (in part for political reasons) and there is no casino money supporting the purse structure (for political reasons).

If we can’t discuss why CA is failing, we certainly can’t fix it.

Who in their right mind is going to want to own and race horses in CA when the economics of the sport for owners are even worse in CA than elsewhere?

Most owners are going to lose more money than they can tolerate and get out. Others will see the bad environment and not get in or go somewhere else where it makes more sense like OP.

To get more handle you need large competitive fields and a competitive track take. You aren’t going to get the former unless you make it attractive to own and race horses there. That’s not going to happen unless the politics of the state change. Tinkering is not going to get it done. I don’t even think lowering the take a bit will add enough to the bottom line to matter.

My personal politics have nothing to do with my opinion. I personally think CA is correct to not use casino money for racing. I don’t think any state should be. There are better economic and societal uses for that money. I think racing should stand on its own and the best managed tracks should win market share and the rest close. None of that changes the realty of why CA racing is likely doomed longer term.

I was hoping to see your response, Classhandicapper. IMO, spot on!

[Andy Asaro]

Hearing payroll cutting has begun at Santa Anita.

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I made a mistake on the year. It was 1987. It was the one won by Java Gold. And there definitely were not 29,000 people there. The place was empty. And I think the next year they eliminated the race and lengthened the Woodward to 1 1/4 miles instead.

Only 22,296 per a UPI article. Still not "empty". Though again, I won't argue that at Belmont, that could potentially feel empty.

[jimmyb]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

IMO CA racing is close to done.

Both the politics and economics are worse than in most places around the country.

The far left leaning parts of the country don't want racing and the CA tracks can't compete with tracks elsewhere that get revenue from casinos (the sustainability of which is an entirely different conversation).

On top of the uncompetitive purses that make it tough for owners and trainers, the costs are higher.

How is anyone supposed to survive?

Then we still have to consider the land value and the kind of profits a property could generate if it was used for something that actually made economic and societal sense.

This going to be another industry driven out of business in CA. IMO we are debating the when not if. I give it 10 years, but that's just a wild guess. I could easily be wildly optimistic.

I think at one time CA put an actress in charge of racing. Clown show

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I made a mistake on the year. It was 1987. It was the one won by Java Gold. And there definitely were not 29,000 people there. The place was empty. And I think the next year they eliminated the race and lengthened the Woodward to 1 1/4 miles instead.

There were 22,296 people there that day.

At the rate you're going, it will eventually be a dark day of simulcasting at Finger Lakes on a Thursday in February.

I rest my case your honor.

[BarchCapper]

Originally Posted by the little guy

There were 22,296 people there that day.

At the rate you're going, it will eventually be a dark day of simulcasting at Finger Lakes on a Thursday in February.

I rest my case your honor.

Don't speak too soon! We will not be able to dispute a claim that there was "no one" at the 1988 Marlboro Cup.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

Hearing payroll cutting has begun at Santa Anita.

As sad as seeing this happen to SA is for all of us, you can't expect someone to bleed red ink on a property that by one estimate I read yesterday could be worth an amount that starts with a "B". The clock is ticking.

[horsefan2019]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

As sad as seeing this happen to SA is for all of us, you can't expect someone to bleed red ink on a property that by one estimate I read yesterday could be worth an amount that starts with a "B". The clock is ticking.

Track is vacant most of the time. Frankly I'm surprised they haven't sold parts of the parking lot already. I know they tried to get a mall development built some 15 years ago but that didn't go over too well with the Santa Anita mall and they had it killed.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by BarchCapper

Only 22,296 per a UPI article. Still not "empty". Though again, I won't argue that at Belmont, that could potentially feel empty.

There was NOT 22,000 people there. It was empty.

That figure just tells me that even back in the day racetracks fudged crowd counts.

(BTW this whining over NYRA getting a slightly less tiny crowd is kind of orthogonal to the point that the same race at Santa Anita would draw 50,000 in those days. NYRA had driven away its live customer base while Santa Anita still had it, which was the point of my story.)

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

There was NOT 22,000 people there. It was empty.

That figure just tells me that even back in the day racetracks fudged crowd counts.

(BTW this whining over NYRA getting a slightly less tiny crowd is kind of orthogonal to the point that the same race at Santa Anita would draw 50,000 in those days. NYRA had driven away its live customer base while Santa Anita still had it, which was the point of my story.)

The much bigger question is whether New York State's $455m loan to rebuild Belmont and related facilities does anything for attendance. From what I gather, the projections are rather rosy.

It obviously makes sense from a cost savings perspective relative to the old and much too large facility. It will also be a beautiful facility. But if you build it, will they come? If they don't and the loan looks shaky, the days of NYS being pro horse racing could be over. The public won't stand for it any more.