Quote:
Originally Posted by thespaah
BINGO!....Fewer foals means fewer runners.
And here we go with the contraction argument.
There are two diametrically opposed camps in this vein. Those that see the inevitability of fewer racing facilities and those who oppose this notion based on their perception of having fewer wagering opportunities.
The bottom line here is with 38% fewer registered foals than just ten years ago, one would have to think there should be a proportionate number of races carded. 38% fewer races.
Those wanting the same number of wagering opps want the same sized bucket of water. However, there is less water in the bucket. Who cares if the bucket is the same size? It is the amount of water in the bucket that matters.
In order to have a full bucket, the size of the bucket must shrink.
|
If you looked in the same book of stats, you'd see that there are almost exactly half as many races in a year as there were in 1990. In the United States, the number of races was 74,000, now it's 37,000. There's also been a 25% decline in just the last 10 years. So this already happened. The number of races a year is steadily and rapidly declining, yet field size has not gone up.
In this case the math is pretty simple. There are fewer foals and fewer races. The horses that do run, run less often in a year than they used to---also in the fact book (was 11 starts a horse 50 years ago, 8 starts a horse 25 years ago, now it's 6 starts). So, fields are still smaller.