Major Hit Piece on Our Sport

[Blenheim]

Originally Posted by Steve R

What exactly is the "other side?" The uninvolved American public sees a thousand racing-related deaths a year, thousands more retired race horses sent to slaughter and a continual stream of news stories about drug use (equine and human) and cheating by jockeys and trainers. If the appeal is to the romance, excitement and history of the game, the public couldn't care less because horses are irrelevant to 99% of the people.

Perhaps the best way to present the game is to present it for what it actually is - gambling option that provides a unique kind of entertainment. Those who do find racing relevant have already made a conscious decision to either ignore or passively accept the game's realities.

And there actually is no debate. The stuff people find objectionable about racing is real and no amount of discussion will make the violence and/or corruption palatable to those who find those things offensive, which includes just about every non-racing fan.

I'll put it this way. Very few people give a crap about an American Pharoah, a Zenyatta or even a Secretariat. Take a random poll on the street and I would be surprised if more than a couple out of a hundred have even heard of Zenyatta. The game is simply no longer in the mainstream of American consciousness.

It'll be interesting to watch what happens to the sport in the immediate future. I have not doubt that horse racing will always be a part of the American cultural fabric.

Long live the sport . . .

[Mulerider]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

20,000 horses a year aren't getting that kind of treatment though unfortunately

Yes, I'm well aware.

[martini]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...=.97303dc5b7af

I find it a little opportunistic and disingenuous for Jenkins to lump many of racing's legitimate problems/eyesores together in one tidy article after the controversial KY Derby on Saturday. A lot of these things are not related, but she loads up on her ire for the sport and cranks out her list.

That being said, I don't think many would disagree with what she brings up. I think her tone is a bit unfortunate.

[Katewerk]

Originally Posted by Blenheim

It'll be interesting to watch what happens to the sport in the immediate future. I have not doubt that horse racing will always be a part of the American cultural fabric.

Long live the sport . . .

Consider the source: the newspaper industry in more trouble than the sport of horse racing, and for this very reason -- overt bias, agenda journalism (aka "hit pieces"), and fake news.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Katewerk

Consider the source: the newspaper industry in more trouble than the sport of horse racing, and for this very reason -- overt bias, agenda journalism (aka "hit pieces"), and fake news.

1) It's an opinion column, not a dissertation.
2) What is "fake" in the column? Show your work rather than spouting clichés.

[Katewerk]

Originally Posted by castaway01

1) It's an opinion column, not a dissertation.
2) What is "fake" in the column? Show your work rather than spouting clichés.

I wasn't critiquing the column. I was critiquing the newspaper/news industry.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Katewerk

I wasn't critiquing the column. I was critiquing the newspaper/news industry.

Maybe it takes a troubled industry to know one...

[MadVindication]

HBO wants to produce a hit piece to take advantage of an event being almost as divisive as the last season of Game of Thrones.

"Hey look over there"

[Ocala Mike]

Originally Posted by Valuist

The only credibility for the Post was when Beyer still wrote for them.

Well, I guess he still "contributes" to them. Here's his take on "Dqgate" https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...=.5686c026452d

[Tom]

We can't even get tracks to stop running over other tracks with post times.

People who run racing are NOT problems solvers.
They are a lot of things (), but problem solvers, not a chance.

How many years did it take them to agree on common saddle cloth colors?

Face it, racing is a dinosaur and it will NOT ever pull together for the good the game.

Teach your children how to play slots.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

Well, I guess he still "contributes" to them. Here's his take on "Dqgate" https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...=.5686c026452d

He was on ATR with Steve Byk Monday, first hour, too.

[cutchemist42]

Originally Posted by 46zilzal

CPMA in Canada is the ONLY governing body and part of the Department of Agriculture.

Yes but as I understand Canadian competition laws are different than Americas antitrust laws. I dont even know Australias laws but it might be the same there.

Its antitrust to have rival companies work together unless they are owned in a franchise model like the sport leagues in this continent, and even they barely skirt the legal/illegal line from various opinions I've read.

As an aside, but the 20,000 number being mentioned.....where is that from?

[Jeff P]

There are practical ways to get things done.

One recent example that comes to mind is a rules change adopted by the CHRB in 2017.

Drf.com | Steve Andersen | Apr 02, 2017
Santa Anita alters pick six rules when late surface switch occurs:
https://www.drf.com/news/santa-anita...-switch-occurs

ARCADIA, Calif.- Santa Anita recently received approval from the California Horse Racing Board to change the rules regarding pick six distributions in the event of a surface switch after the bet is underway.

The new rule takes effect on Thursday. In the event of a late surface switch, the 15 percent portion of the net pool typically dedicated to the single ticket jackpot provision of the pool will be redirected to the portion of the pool distributed to ticketholders with six winners, or into a carryover.

What you might not know from reading the drf.com article are the actual events that happened behind the scenes.

The process for getting the new rule in place took less than 30 days start to finish.

And believe it or not, that process actually started right here on Paceadvantage!

I wrote about it on the HANA Blog here --

Anatomy of a Rules Change:
http://blog.horseplayersassociation....es-change.html

On March 05, 2016 the last race at Santa Anita came off the turf and was made an ALL per the rule they were using for the single jackpot P6.

A poster named CJ summed it perfectly with posts #1, #6, and #10 on this thread at Paceadvantage.com:

Post #1:

"Last race comes off turf because jockeys say it is dangerous. First, they didn't tell anyone until after the 7th even though there were no intervening turf races.

But the real problem is in the P6 rules. Santa Anita pays out 70% to those that hit all 6, 15% to consos, and carries over 15% if there isn't a single winning ticket. But they made the last race an all, so there is NO CHANCE of a single winning ticket. Yet they are just carrying over the 15% anyway, essentially stealing it from bettors.

It is published beforehand, so buyer beware. That still doesn't make it right. These jackpot bets open up way too many cans of worms for me."

Post #6:

"The right thing to do would be pay out all the money that was bet yesterday in this situation, not every day."

Upon reading CJ's posts in the above linked to thread - I did the unthinkable.

I picked up the phone and contacted the CHRB. I directed them to CJ's thread - and explained to them why players believe the current rule is a bad rule.

Then I asked: "What's the best way to get a bad rule changed?"

My contact at the CHRB advised me that the first step would be to get Santa Anita involved. He explained it to me like this:

"Jeff, if you can get Santa Anita on board in asking for a rules change - at that point I think the CHRB would be willing to go to bat for you."

So from there I contacted track management at Santa Anita by email. I directed them to CJ's thread and explained why I thought the current rule was a bad rule - and that I thought it could be turned into a better rule by following CJ's suggestion:

Post #10:

"I'd write the rule so that if any race comes off the turf, resulting in an "all", the entire amount bet that day is paid out. Of course any carryover from prior days wouldn't be included in that."

Track management at Santa Anita got back to me right away and we had a phone conversation. They told me they were open to getting the rule changed and that they would be getting in touch with the CHRB to figure out how the rule should be reworded and to discuss the path of least resistance for effecting a rules change.

Fyi, the path of least resistance the CHRB used for effecting this particular rules change was something of an eye opener to me.

It turns out that a lot of states, including California, have statutes on the books that allow their racing commissions, when they think taking action would be in the best interest for racing in their state, to adopt existing rules from other racing jurisdictions.

And that's exactly what the CHRB did. They didn't try to reinvent the wheel.

They took an existing RCI rule that other states were already using to handle pick six distributions when surface switches happen after the bet is underway --

And because it was in the best interest for racing in their state:

They adopted it.


Again, there are practical ways to get things done.

Imo, antitrust law isn't what's stopping us.

Imo, the real obstacle seems to be lack of vision and lack of effort when it comes to being proactive.




-jp

.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

It would be nice to dismiss this as just some WaPo sensationalism, but there are more than just "grains" of truth in what she writes. Unfortunately, I think the whole Kentucky Derby incident moves racing further down in the public's eye, unless you are a firm believer in the old adage that bad publicity is better than no publicity at all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...=.97303dc5b7af

in this piece , there is one sentence that has more than a ring of truth.
More like the decibel level of the Westminster Chimes of Big Ben in London.
"Thoroughbred is in the midst of a moral sickness: Its leaders have lacked the will to organize and implement basic best practices".
To that I add their lack of foresight to better market the sport.
In my opinion there are guilty parties all around.
The horsemen shoulder the blame over their utter disdain for the wagering public and their insatiable desire to eschew all others and control every aspect of racing operations and rule making. What has fueled this arrogant approach is that tracks no longer have to depend upon wagering handle as the sole source for purse revenue. As long as the tracks can nurse at the teat that is casino dollars, the horsemen say they don't need the bettors. Hence the disdainful view of the wagering public.
Track managements shoulder the blame for sagging attendance by refusing to market the sport to younger people.
High volume players , especially those that wager on track have to share the blame because they have shown a disdain for the casual bettor, the so called two dollar player. I have read commentary on here from those who hate tracks like Saratoga and Keeneland because those tracks bring in large crowds and the bigger volume players see those fans as 'getting in their way'...As if to say, "what the hell are YOU doing here?".
Finally, the blame goes on the casual fan or the semi frequent bettor who used to go tot the track a a few times per month. They have pulled their support with far fewer track visits.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by castaway01

It certainly tears the sport apart, though I'm not sure why you think the DQ has anything to do with it---she says they got that right by the rules---it's just a springboard to discuss all of the other things wrong with the sport that we constantly have discussed here. None of this is new; the question is what racing is going to do to resolve any of it.

"what is racing going to do about it?"...Most likely....nothing.
The powers that be will look with blinkers on(pun intended) at the attendance and handle figures of Derby day and convince themselves that everything is just fine.