O'neil headed to Dubai & Oaklawn

[Parson]

what would keep an owner from just getting on a plane to hot springs, or south florida or new orleans or ny or wherever????

that is what we do. when we run away from our local area and it is too far to drive. I just buy tickets to fly and fly back the next day or so. And my partners do the same as well as the other owners in our barn and the barns around ours

[cj]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

Do you think Californians would ban horse racing yet allow betting on the banned sport in what would be the most hypocritical move ever so they continue to collect the tax revenue?

I wouldn't even hazard a guess as to what is going to happen in that looney bin of a state.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Parson

what would keep an owner from just getting on a plane to hot springs, or south florida or new orleans or ny or wherever????

that is what we do. when we run away from our local area and it is too far to drive. I just buy tickets to fly and fly back the next day or so. And my partners do the same as well as the other owners in our barn and the barns around ours

Yep, especially when you are paying so much less in day rates, feed fees, legal meds, , etc while running for double the money.

[The_Turf_Monster]

Originally Posted by GMB@BP

Do you think Californians would ban horse racing yet allow betting on the banned sport in what would be the most hypocritical move ever so they continue to collect the tax revenue?

The rarely cited Dormant Commerce Clause says that yes, they'll be betting on horse racing

[rastajenk]

The last several posts in this thread illustrate my argument against the contraction that so many of you seem to pine for in the hope that it will create fuller fields and better betting opportunities at the surviving venues.

Racetracks serve (sometimes) overlapping regions in which many of the horse owners are comparatively small-time operations that enjoy seeing their runners run live and in person; or a ship to a neighboring region is a day trip that can be managed somewhat easily. I believe that describes not just a simple majority of owners, but a large majority. Most of the owners that I know would leave the game, taking with them their friends, family and other acquaintances that help support the game, before opting to send their property to far-away venues where they can rarely watch them in person without becoming jet-setters. Their investments will be about as exciting as a CD or an IRA.

Contraction is saying, with both hands in a well-known gesture, "F--- you, we don't need you" to a lot of people that have supported the game for a long time and continue to do so. When those people are gone, their horses aren't going to magically appear somewhere else in the same or different silks. Some will; most won't. I strongly believe that the notion that fuller fields elsewhere will result is a false premise.

I'm glad for Mr. Parson that he can enjoy his runners the way he does; I certainly know plenty of owners that can afford to do that. But I don't think that that is either the norm or even a laudable goal. Contraction does not postpone the death spiral; it speeds it up.

[castaway01]

As I've often wrote, we've already contracted. We'll half as many races this year as we did 25 years ago. Just because not every track closed but instead has shorter meets, fewer races in a day, etc., they still contracted. The problem is that the horse population has "contracted" as well so we're still stuck with small fields. It hasn't made the industry healthier or the racing any better.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

The rarely cited Dormant Commerce Clause says that yes, they'll be betting on horse racing

The dormant commerce clause doesn't have any application to legal gambling. Online poker players tried to make that same argument in the Russo case. They lost 7-0 in the Washington Supreme Court.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

The last several posts in this thread illustrate my argument against the contraction that so many of you seem to pine for in the hope that it will create fuller fields and better betting opportunities at the surviving venues.

Racetracks serve (sometimes) overlapping regions in which many of the horse owners are comparatively small-time operations that enjoy seeing their runners run live and in person; or a ship to a neighboring region is a day trip that can be managed somewhat easily. I believe that describes not just a simple majority of owners, but a large majority. Most of the owners that I know would leave the game, taking with them their friends, family and other acquaintances that help support the game, before opting to send their property to far-away venues where they can rarely watch them in person without becoming jet-setters. Their investments will be about as exciting as a CD or an IRA.

Contraction is saying, with both hands in a well-known gesture, "F--- you, we don't need you" to a lot of people that have supported the game for a long time and continue to do so. When those people are gone, their horses aren't going to magically appear somewhere else in the same or different silks. Some will; most won't. I strongly believe that the notion that fuller fields elsewhere will result is a false premise.

I'm glad for Mr. Parson that he can enjoy his runners the way he does; I certainly know plenty of owners that can afford to do that. But I don't think that that is either the norm or even a laudable goal. Contraction does not postpone the death spiral; it speeds it up.

The problem with this analysis is it doesn't stop the inevitability of contraction. Contraction is an inevitable result of legal interstate simulcasting.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Parson

what would keep an owner from just getting on a plane to hot springs, or south florida or new orleans or ny or wherever????

It depends on the quality of the horses you own.

Right now I have a piece of 2 active NY Breds (we just retired another one to a nice farm where he'll be well cared for). We recently ran one at AQU in an off the turf race where I though he had a decent chance to pick up a check but very little chance to win. I was all set to go the race until it came off the turf (which he prefers). I was too lazy to make a 30 minute drive to AQU to watch a 40k Maiden Claiming Statebred race I didn't think he could win. If I was running graded stakes horses, I'm sure I'd do come traveling from time to time. (I should have gone to AQU because he won).

[rastajenk]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

The problem with this analysis is it doesn't stop the inevitability of contraction. Contraction is an inevitable result of legal interstate simulcasting.

I don't disagree with that. It's just that it shouldn't be wished for as some kind of beneficial goal.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by castaway01

As I've often wrote, we've already contracted. We'll half as many races this year as we did 25 years ago. Just because not every track closed but instead has shorter meets, fewer races in a day, etc., they still contracted. The problem is that the horse population has "contracted" as well so we're still stuck with small fields. It hasn't made the industry healthier or the racing any better.

Not sure how many economies the size of California have contracted, thats a whole different level of contraction.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

I don't disagree with that. It's just that it shouldn't be wished for as some kind of beneficial goal.

oh, its like this regional glee fest with some, even industry types. Doesn't make any sense but that is just a sign of todays society.

[Parson]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

The last several posts in this thread illustrate my argument against the contraction that so many of you seem to pine for in the hope that it will create fuller fields and better betting opportunities at the surviving venues.

Racetracks serve (sometimes) overlapping regions in which many of the horse owners are comparatively small-time operations that enjoy seeing their runners run live and in person; or a ship to a neighboring region is a day trip that can be managed somewhat easily. I believe that describes not just a simple majority of owners, but a large majority. Most of the owners that I know would leave the game, taking with them their friends, family and other acquaintances that help support the game, before opting to send their property to far-away venues where they can rarely watch them in person without becoming jet-setters. Their investments will be about as exciting as a CD or an IRA.

Contraction is saying, with both hands in a well-known gesture, "F--- you, we don't need you" to a lot of people that have supported the game for a long time and continue to do so. When those people are gone, their horses aren't going to magically appear somewhere else in the same or different silks. Some will; most won't. I strongly believe that the notion that fuller fields elsewhere will result is a false premise.

I'm glad for Mr. Parson that he can enjoy his runners the way he does; I certainly know plenty of owners that can afford to do that. But I don't think that that is either the norm or even a laudable goal. Contraction does not postpone the death spiral; it speeds it up.

After I go back and read my earlier post, I realize that it may seem quite arrogant. I assure you that was not my intent. This game, as far as being an owner, is not for those with shallow pockets. I know what my day rate is from my trainer, I know what my vet bills are, as well as the occaisional ferrier and the transport if we run out of our area or as the meets close to ship south.

I live in KY which has a long history of racing and the throughbred along with saddlebreds are some of our best agriculture crops. I can only vouch for what I know and that is based on my area. I have no experience owning and racing in some of the smaller venues.

So I guess my point is if you can afford 3-4K a month to own a horse in training at your local track, then snapping off a few hundred for air fare should not be a problem. If it is, my guess is those owners are the ones that others that make their living in this business prefer not to have. That means they cannot pay their bills or if they do, they are constantly late.

I know the reason we do not run in California is the cost. My day rate from a west coast trainer, the last time i checked several years ago, was 65% more than my current KY trainer. We did ship to Saratoga to run a couple of times, but the day rate the best I can remember was similar in cost to the west coase.

Being based in KY we can run the Ky circuit. We can also ship to IND, AP, WO, LRL, MTH during the spring and summer months. So far only ones we have shipped to have been for stakes opportunities at WO and AP. CDI gets upset when you ship to another venue when you have been stabled on their property. Not so much with our IND breds or stakes horses. I understand Stronach does the same as well as other tracks. They do not want you shipping your claimers and allowance horses to other venues. I understand that.

Getting off point a bit, but the whole point is this is not a money business for most owners I know. If they are making money this year, chances are they lose next year. I know for me, racing is a family affair. When my kids were younger and it was not cool to hang out with Mom and Dad, it was always cool to go to the track for breezes or races. As for my wife and I, the turf clubs at the tracks we raced, I found were always very hospitable and food and atmoshpere was enjoyable. And in the winter, when we have horses in LA, AR, and FL, those race days make for a nice break and escape from the KY weather as well as a break from mine and her normal stressful work days. Trust me the 500-1k in airfare to New Orleans or Miami is money well spent.

[rastajenk]

Likewise, I did not intend to pick on you because you can watch your horses in different venues. On the contrary, I think your contributions to this message board are some of the more insightful, useful, and reasonable ones out there.

I just like to advocate for the small-timers, because a lot of them started out as bettors and got into it more intensively, and because there are so many of them. I'm familiar with the Belterra-Indiana-Turfway crowd, which includes more than a few from Louisville; I would be willing to bet, Preacher, you and I have some common acquaintances.

I know Kentucky isn't going to shut down racing soon; this thread isn't even about contraction. There were a few posts about long-distance ownership, and that was enough for me to air one of my pet peeves with a commonly held position, because local ownership is crucial to our survival. Nothing personal was ever intended. If you ever run one of yours in my area, I would be happy to buy the first several rounds of your favorite libation.

[GMB@BP]

Originally Posted by Parson

After I go back and read my earlier post, I realize that it may seem quite arrogant. I assure you that was not my intent. This game, as far as being an owner, is not for those with shallow pockets. I know what my day rate is from my trainer, I know what my vet bills are, as well as the occaisional ferrier and the transport if we run out of our area or as the meets close to ship south.

I live in KY which has a long history of racing and the throughbred along with saddlebreds are some of our best agriculture crops. I can only vouch for what I know and that is based on my area. I have no experience owning and racing in some of the smaller venues.

So I guess my point is if you can afford 3-4K a month to own a horse in training at your local track, then snapping off a few hundred for air fare should not be a problem. If it is, my guess is those owners are the ones that others that make their living in this business prefer not to have. That means they cannot pay their bills or if they do, they are constantly late.

I know the reason we do not run in California is the cost. My day rate from a west coast trainer, the last time i checked several years ago, was 65% more than my current KY trainer. We did ship to Saratoga to run a couple of times, but the day rate the best I can remember was similar in cost to the west coase.

Being based in KY we can run the Ky circuit. We can also ship to IND, AP, WO, LRL, MTH during the spring and summer months. So far only ones we have shipped to have been for stakes opportunities at WO and AP. CDI gets upset when you ship to another venue when you have been stabled on their property. Not so much with our IND breds or stakes horses. I understand Stronach does the same as well as other tracks. They do not want you shipping your claimers and allowance horses to other venues. I understand that.

Getting off point a bit, but the whole point is this is not a money business for most owners I know. If they are making money this year, chances are they lose next year. I know for me, racing is a family affair. When my kids were younger and it was not cool to hang out with Mom and Dad, it was always cool to go to the track for breezes or races. As for my wife and I, the turf clubs at the tracks we raced, I found were always very hospitable and food and atmoshpere was enjoyable. And in the winter, when we have horses in LA, AR, and FL, those race days make for a nice break and escape from the KY weather as well as a break from mine and her normal stressful work days. Trust me the 500-1k in airfare to New Orleans or Miami is money well spent.

Do you go see your horses work out, go in person to visit them at the barn? I could not imagine paying the money on a daily basis and only having the option to get on a plane once a month or so just to go see them run. I get it, Sheikh Mohamed can, I could not.