Keeneland apparently raising takeout

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by Charli125

That wasn't an insult, it was a suggestion to better yourself. Nowhere in my post did I say anything about only wanting positive responses, or not wanting negative responses. On the contrary, they're expected.

I was simply explaining that HANA can't do the heavy lifting here. It's a personal/business decision that each horseplayer needs to make. Even if they do make that decision, I don't think it'll do much good as per the 2nd part of his post that I quoted.

It's easy to blame HANA, and I fully expect it as I do every year when I publish the track ratings. At the end of the day though, the HANA board members handle alone isn't going to move the needle.

I've got a few suggestions on how to better yourself but I'll be nice for now.

Why can't HANA do the heavy lifting? What else are you doing? What exactly is HANA doing for horseplayers right now? You guys gave Santa Anita a pass on the non reporting of geldings, among other things. Now your #3 rated track shits on you and horseplayers everywhere and the organization dedicated to giving us a voice is silent.

So I'll ask again, what exactly are you doing for us?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

I've got a few suggestions on how to better yourself but I'll be nice for now.

Why can't HANA do the heavy lifting? What else are you doing? What exactly is HANA doing for horseplayers right now? You guys gave Santa Anita a pass on the non reporting of geldings, among other things. Now your #3 rated track shits on you and horseplayers everywhere and the organization dedicated to giving us a voice is silent.

So I'll ask again, what exactly are you doing for us?

If they aren't doing enough for us...I say we cut their pay.

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

If they aren't doing enough for us...I say we cut their pay.

Yeah because no one in HANA benefits financially from racing.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

Yeah because no one in HANA benefits financially from racing.

Come on...you can't get seriously mad at a group of people who take up a cause in their spare time...without drawing a paycheck. If we want people to "do things for us"...then we should offer to PAY them for their effort.

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Come on...you can't get seriously mad at a group of people who take up a cause in their spare time...without drawing a paycheck. If we want people to "do things for us"...then we should offer to PAY them for their effort.

Im not mad at all. I asked what are they doing for us? What's wrong with asking that?

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

Im not mad at all. I asked what are they doing for us? What's wrong with asking that?

You sounded a bit mad to me...that's why I responded as I did. I'm glad to see that I was wrong.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by GregReinhart

http://blog.horseplayersassociation....gnal-fees.html

Thanks Greg!

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Charli125

I'm not sure what more we could've done...

There is tons of stuff that could be done, but it takes a lot of time and effort.

Most people don't have the time. And those who do, don't want to put forth the effort. It also takes money.

This is where people like the Koch brothers and George Soros come into play. They fund certain groups in order to force change.

As I wrote earlier, if HANA is serious then the place to start is by reading Saul Alinsky's book, "Rules for Radicals".

[Charli125]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

I've got a few suggestions on how to better yourself but I'll be nice for now.

Why can't HANA do the heavy lifting? What else are you doing? What exactly is HANA doing for horseplayers right now? You guys gave Santa Anita a pass on the non reporting of geldings, among other things. Now your #3 rated track shits on you and horseplayers everywhere and the organization dedicated to giving us a voice is silent.

So I'll ask again, what exactly are you doing for us?

Either you don't get what I've said or you're just trying to be difficult. Either way, enjoy your evening.

[Quesmark]

Originally Posted by AndyC

By focusing on 1 or 2 races you are essentially accepting the rate increase. By not betting any of the races you are drawing a line in the sand.

Originally Posted by jay68802

Trying to keep a boycott going for a whole meet is unsustainable, and it can not be measured. By focusing on 1 or 2 races, or maybe 1 weekend, the effect on handle should be noticed, and the same point is made.

The opposite of a boycott could be done too by just betting into the Keeneland 15% takeout Pick 5 pool only.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

There is a difference between buying a Big Mac...and buying McDonald's STOCK. When I invest my money in McDonald's stock...then I am no longer just a "customer". I enter into a "business association" with McDonald's, when I buy their stock. Whether I hold the McDonald's shares for a day, or for a DECADE, I have a BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP going on with them...and I expect to profit sometime in the future, if their stock performs to my expectations.

You become an owner of McDonald's not a business associate

Originally Posted by thaskalos

At the racetrack...I am a "customer" of the TRACK...but I am not a customer of the owners and the trainers of the horses that I bet on. I take my money to the betting window, and I exchange it for a piece of paper which affords me the opportunity to exchange that piece of paper for a PROFIT...if the horses that I wager on perform to my expectations. It doesn't matter if the race lasts only 1 minute and 10 seconds....for that 1 minute and 10 seconds, the horse connections and I are in a "business relationship". I have put up my money to augment the purse of the race...and they have entered their horses, so they could try and take down the purse, with my money in it. And, for a minute and 10 seconds...we are in a business partnership, with a common goal. To make a PROFIT.

The horse connections and you are never in a business relationship. The track has merely brokered a bet for you. You didn't put money to augment the purse anymore than I bought a Big Mac to help paint their restaurant. You put up your money to gamble, pure and simple. What the track does with the brokerage fee is irrelevant just like what McDonald's does with the profit off of a Big Mac.

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I am a customer of the track...and the owners and the trainers of the horses are customers of the track, as well. A stock exchange has buyers and sellers...and BOTH, the buyers AND the sellers, are considered to be "customers" of the exchange. I am a customer of the track...and a "business associate" of the owners and the trainers of the horses. They have what I want...and I have what THEY want. And, this game allows us to form a "partnership" of sorts...even if this "partnership" lasts less than two minutes at a time.

With that thinking I am a business associate of every supplier where I buy goods and services. A common goal of trying to make a profit does not make you a business associate.

Originally Posted by thaskalos

You are a serious, life-long horseplayer...and I have to EXPLAIN this to you? You equate "serious horseplaying", with "buying a Big Mac from McDonald's"?

Yes, they are both customers of a business. I really don't know anyone who takes your position but you are certainly free to call yourself a business associate of the horsemen if that's the role you believe you are in.

[Jeff P]

Originally Posted by Dahoss9698

I've got a few suggestions on how to better yourself but I'll be nice for now.

Why can't HANA do the heavy lifting? What else are you doing? What exactly is HANA doing for horseplayers right now? You guys gave Santa Anita a pass on the non reporting of geldings, among other things. Now your #3 rated track shits on you and horseplayers everywhere and the organization dedicated to giving us a voice is silent.

So I'll ask again, what exactly are you doing for us?

#1. The bolded part of the above quote is FLAT OUT WRONG.

The CHRB is currently seeking a rules change whereby failure to report a horse as gelded within a timely manner would result in the horse being a mandatory scratch along with a significant dollar fine for the trainer who failed to report.

This was an agenda item at the last public CHRB meeting. The CHRB put it on the agenda and is moving forward with it as a direct result of input from HANA.


#2. Also, we (HANA) were wrongly vilified for not voting to boycott earlier this year after an incident when the last race came off the turf at Golden Gate which resulted in an all for that race for purposes of Golden Gate's single jackpot pick6.

We voted not to boycott because we already had a verbal commitment in place from both the CHRB and Santa Anita Track Management to get their version of the bad RCI rule they were using changed.

You can read the long version about the story behind the rules change on the HANA Blog here:
http://blog.horseplayersassociation....es-change.html


Here's the short version:

As soon as I saw a post by CJ (here on paceadvantage) about the last race coming off the turf and how that meant an ALL in the last race -- I realized Santa Anita was using a bad rule.

So I picked up the phone and called the CHRB, explained how it was a bad rule, and asked "What's the fastest way to get a bad rule changed?"

The CHRB told me that I needed to get track management at Santa Anita on board in seeking a rules change.

So I (first emailed) and then shortly afterwards had a phone conversation with track management at Santa Anita -- and on that conversation explained how they were using a bad rule -- and sold them on the idea of joining HANA in seeking a rules change.

It took many phone calls -- and I couldn't really talk about it with anyone while all of the back and forth was going on out of fear someone with "pull" would get it derailed if they found out HANA was behind it --

But long story short:

It took about 3 weeks start to finish to get the rules change effected.

And we at HANA were responsible for getting the rule changed.


Look, sometimes you can get more done with a 10 minute phone call than you can any other way.

So not everything we do is public.

And sometimes the reason they take your calls in the first place is because they know you're not afraid to boycott if that's truly what enough players think you should do.



-jp

.

[Dahoss9698]

Jeff the gelding thing has happened again since the initial time, right? They were given a pass.

The only way for real change is to play hardball and IMO you guys aren't interested in doing that.

[Dahoss9698]

Originally Posted by Charli125

Either you don't get what I've said or you're just trying to be difficult. Either way, enjoy your evening.

Nice deflection. Good luck putting together your track ratings.

[Andy Asaro]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

#1. The bolded part of the above quote is FLAT OUT WRONG.

The CHRB is currently seeking a rules change whereby failure to report a horse as gelded within a timely manner would result in the horse being a mandatory scratch along with a significant dollar fine for the trainer who failed to report.

This was an agenda item at the last public CHRB meeting. The CHRB put it on the agenda and is moving forward with it as a direct result of input from HANA.


#2. Also, we (HANA) were wrongly vilified for not voting to boycott earlier this year after an incident when the last race came off the turf at Golden Gate which resulted in an all for that race for purposes of Golden Gate's single jackpot pick6.

We voted not to boycott because we already had a verbal commitment in place from both the CHRB and Santa Anita Track Management to get their version of the bad RCI rule they were using changed.

You can read the long version about the story behind the rules change on the HANA Blog here:
http://blog.horseplayersassociation....es-change.html


Here's the short version:

As soon as I saw a post by CJ (here on paceadvantage) about the last race coming off the turf and how that meant an ALL in the last race -- I realized Santa Anita was using a bad rule.

So I picked up the phone and called the CHRB, explained how it was a bad rule, and asked "What's the fastest way to get a bad rule changed?"

The CHRB told me that I needed to get track management at Santa Anita on board in seeking a rules change.

So I (first emailed) and then shortly afterwards had a phone conversation with track management at Santa Anita -- and on that conversation explained how they were using a bad rule -- and sold them on the idea of joining HANA in seeking a rules change.

It took many phone calls -- and I couldn't really talk about it with anyone while all of the back and forth was going on out of fear someone with "pull" would get it derailed if they found out HANA was behind it --

But long story short:

It took about 3 weeks start to finish to get the rules change effected.

And we at HANA were responsible for getting the rule changed.


Look, sometimes you can get more done with a 10 minute phone call than you can any other way.

So not everything we do is public.

And sometimes the reason they take your calls in the first place is because they know you're not afraid to boycott if that's truly what enough players think you should do.



-jp

.

1/2 truths. Not stepping up in Ca was a huge mistake. You're dancing to avoid the Keeneland disaster. You've been mailing it in the last two years and anyone who wants to look at the Blog can tell that or look at the thread about boycotting. You gave me a song and dance and fail to mention that I made the same contacts most of which were before you did. Don't make rthe mistake of bullshitting people to divert blame. You lied to me. You were in the boycott balls to the wall and out the next day. If you're not interested in stepping up then step down.

It's all in this thread. http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...boycott&page=2