In A Perfect World

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

I swear I was reading the post and thinking I would just check out to evaluate some evaluations more without a reply...

...but come on with that. I've seen that approach to many aspects of the game and it never seems to have the effect that is intended.

To jump in on your debate with Lambo about the big barns eating up the little barns, how do you think (for example) the small barns at Tampa felt a year ago when Ness and Midwest T Breds basically won ALL the races and all the money?

Do you think they felt that Ness' presence didnt matter one bit to them or do you think they would all say, to a man, that Ness being there and going on that epic run cost them wins and places and shows and they would have done better had Ness not been there winning all the cash?

[cj]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

in our country there are jump races that have no gambling at all, and they get an attendance of 50,000 people or more that spend $25 in admission to watch the show for the afternoon. that sport does not know of trainers that win @ 30%, they don't have owners that own 300 horses or trainers that train 20 horses. jumper's are alive and well in this country with or without gambling.

there are still plenty of bush racing going on in places like Ocala, Louisiana, South Carolina and Texas where there is no gambling and people show up for the afternoon of thoroughbred racing.

people want to be involved in horse racing, they just don't want any part of it the way it is structured today.

50,000? Really? Where is that?

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by cj

50,000? Really? Where is that?

http://www.fairhillraces.org/tickets.html

there is a phone number for them. you can call them tomorrow and ask them how many people show up. there are other places that do big numbers in North Carolina and Virginia.

[cj]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

http://www.fairhillraces.org/tickets.html

there is a phone number for them. you can call them tomorrow and ask them how many people show up. there are other places that do big numbers in North Carolina and Virginia.

I've been to Fair Hill, and it is a fun day. There were not 50,000 people there, or even close really. The only attendance figure I could find was for 2009 when there were 14,000.

I think the Camden Cup in South Carolina probably gets a much bigger crowd, but that is about it.

[maclr11]

So basically your argument is if you have to play the Yankees 18 times every season people wont spend money to try to beat them. Doesnt it feel better to beat the big guys then other little guys.
And so what if they are sending them out in sets, if thats a huge issue for little guys go get more horses problem solved.
Racing doesnt stand to benefit from what basically your describing as a salary cap. I can only spend 8 million on horses, that just diminshes racing. We want to encourage those with money to spend lots and invest in the game and move the game forward.
Who brings more to racing, one rich guy with 10 horses or two middle class guys with 2 horses each.

[rastajenk]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

....so, horseplayers will find a reason to complain about something no matter what.

This is the most accurate assertion in this entire thread. If everything on Mr. Meadow's wish list came to be, this would still be true.

[eurocapper]

I found an article with an explanation for why anti-bleeding medication is being used in the US but not needed on dirt surfaces in Japan.
http://thoroedge.wordpress.com/2011/...-not-in-japan/

If some medication is permitted, there may be a tendency to leniency on other medication (especially with state level jurisdiction).

[lamboguy]

Originally Posted by cj

I've been to Fair Hill, and it is a fun day. There were not 50,000 people there, or even close really. The only attendance figure I could find was for 2009 when there were 14,000.

I think the Camden Cup in South Carolina probably gets a much bigger crowd, but that is about it.

i have a good friend, she trains those things and her husband is a top steeplechase rider, she has told me countless times that she was at meets that had over 50,000 people there, her husband once went to Japan to ride and they had something close to 100,000 for that event. the people that go to those events don't even bet. they just simply enjoy the game and the make their day a fun event.

in thoroughbreds there was a day not to long ago where family's went to racetracks like Monmouth, Rockingham and Saratoga and never made a bet on a thoroughbred race and walked out of those places had the greatest time of their lives.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

To jump in on your debate with Lambo about the big barns eating up the little barns, how do you think (for example) the small barns at Tampa felt a year ago when Ness and Midwest T Breds basically won ALL the races and all the money?

Do you think they felt that Ness' presence didnt matter one bit to them or do you think they would all say, to a man, that Ness being there and going on that epic run cost them wins and places and shows and they would have done better had Ness not been there winning all the cash?

Before I answer any specifics, particularly the rhetorical questions, I'm here to understand why limiting owners is a good thing, pros and cons. So far, I've seen, in about ten posts, one example, two if you include that somehow Graham Motion will be rendered powerless at Fair Hill somehow, of how it MAY be a good thing. I've seen an example of how it may help, and frankly, I think that we've misidentified the problem as owners with more than a set number of horses, and the problem is dealing with large owners that have giant egos and want to win titles by dominance.

I can see kicking this idea around. I don't think it would rate as the "most important" part of any proposal, but that's why I'm intrigued and would like convincing.

What you really want is to run off Midwest Thoroughbreds and anybody that tries too hard. I kind of thought so, that was basically the first line in my opening inquiries. You have a unique problem there, because if it were just that simple at fixing what the underlying complaint that small barns can't make money, you could just claim those fantastic horses and get way nicer horses from Midwest than those that they brought.

I mean, that's the point - you can't beat him. You can't even HAVE those horses and beat the horses that you have now that can't outrun the horse in his barn? They take them from you and they get faster. You claim the one that outruns you and can't get a check. Right? We're getting there... so getting new horses may not help. You could hire Ness, especially now that he'll have openings with Midwest possibly being limited, but I'm thinking that most people don't seem to think that this Ness is actually SO MUCH better than every other trainer in town.

It sounds like you think you might have a bigger problem to address. I think you want to fix a much more specific problem that would be vastly better addressed with that focus than with some admittedly very typical sounding stylization of policy to address a problem that simply sounds easy and gives the illusion of fixing a problem. And the problem that you address is somewhere in everybody's list in the most rudimentary way.

On to your rhetorical questions, since I promised. I run at the home of the original supertrainers. This is Mullins land. Been through him, Mills, Bennett, Chambers, Silva - all the 30 to 40% guys. I'm literally trying to imagine how this limit would have changed anything. Unless we want to just deal with moving a hypothetical, alleged "undesirable" from one jurisdiction to another, as near as I can tell this is just a matter of saying something that is easy to say - assuming you were willing to take massive leaps of faith in its enforcability and that the downside won't vastly outweigh the upside of essentially evicting someone you don't want there - without actually identifying what it is that you want to change and what is the best way to do it. Maybe this is that method, so convince me. You start with implementation and governning/regulatory bodies and actual accounting methods for determining ownership. Once I get the gist of all of the groundwork that will be laid out before actual enactment, I can then begin to decide if this is likely to be easier or more effecting at removing these hypothetical, alleged "undesirables". Assuming they are still the problem.

[therussmeister]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

I mean, that's the point - you can't beat him. You can't even HAVE those horses and beat the horses that you have now that can't outrun the horse in his barn? They take them from you and they get faster. You claim the one that outruns you and can't get a check.

I can't help but notice that there is an owner that may be trying to do just that. Ridenjac Racing, trainer Dennis Ward, ran two horses at Tampa Wednesday that were claimed from Midwest last race. Except they got two checks - a win and a place.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by therussmeister

I can't help but notice that there is an owner that may be trying to do just that. Ridenjac Racing, trainer Dennis Ward, ran two horses at Tampa Wednesday that were claimed from Midwest last race. Except they got two checks - a win and a place.

Good job. That's the best way to fix the problem of not being able to outrun someone with what you have. Getting better horses is always good. And Dennis Ward can make money with them even. So either we have another problem by Stillriledup's concerns, or we have a beneficial solution to how you make money that didn't involve this very vague ownership limit.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this - I don't see it as pointless.

First off, sir, i'm as concerned as anyone abt the future of our declining sport and open to being sold on progressive ideas. But i exist and work in the real, FAR from "perfect" world, in which contraction on the scale proposed (or just wistfully envisioned?) by meadows would be nearly possible to implement and not the panacea some forsee.

State-bred programs, in particular, would be a drag on the brave new world of super-tracks and high class horses. Sure, better studs and mares might be reshuffled to certain jurisdictions, but does it honestly stand to reason that bigger purses would DISCOURAGE certain undesirable breeders?

Survival of the swiftest makes sense in THEORY, and it might SEEM that the assembly line of slow, state-bred runners would eventually shut down for lack of funding, but that's not how the industry works in the real world. I've dealt with hordes of breeders and horsemen vowed to target restricted purse money, and however bleak their records, they NEVER lose enthusiasm or seem to run out of money. The big horse is ALWAYS just around the corner, and they will somehow keep trying to breed him until they are 6 feet under.

And breeders have power, political savy, and a loud voice.They are tuff, selfish, well-organized and relentless about getting their way. I've known them to PLOT to fill races with inferior horses and PURPOSEFULLY dilute the product.

In summary, while it's not politically correct of me to poke holes in player-centric proposals, unlike most forum paticipants, i make my living in the industry and have seen how things actually work behind the scenes. And i've probably dealt with more horsemen than any other forum participant. I know how they think, i know how they roll, and the bad ones are not going away simply because the bar gets raised.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by cj

Nobody can afford a breeding operation with no results forever.

Just hide and watch them. Those people are nothing if not resilient.

[mountainman]

Originally Posted by cj

I don't care if a 2% trainer is out of a job. That is the way life works.

2% trainers care even less about you. And they have more clout. That's how the industry works.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Originally Posted by mountainman

2% trainers care even less about you. And they have more clout. That's how the industry works.

What 2% trainers have clout?