If you were Racing Czar of NYRA...

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Suff

July is critical to Saratoga Prep races. I think it would degrade the Saratoga product.

That is why I have also said nothing is set in stone and the system would be tweaked to each jurisdiction's requirements. My post was just to give an example of things that could be done, not things that must be done.

My previous post in this thread that outlines the concept is a little more refined. Obviously, the whole concept is in flux at this point.

The bigger question is whether or not the concept is tenable.

Here is the link to the outline of the concept:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...0&postcount=14

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by highnote

That is why I have also said nothing is set in stone and the system would be tweaked to each jurisdiction's requirements. My post was just to give an example of things that could be done, not things that must be done.

My previous post in this thread that outlines the concept is a little more refined. Obviously, the whole concept is in flux at this point.

The bigger question is whether or not the concept is tenable.

Here is the link to the outline of the concept:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...0&postcount=14

As far as whether it is feasible, it's probably not unless the whole country followed the same guidelines and not just NYRA. You might get away with it just at Saratoga because of the prestige and purses, but if trainers who want things as is have the option of several other tracks not following your rules, then it wouldn't work. You're not going to demand trainers follow some exceptionally restrictive (in their view) guidelines to run at Aqueduct in January.

That's why comparisons with Hong Kong don't work---they've got a small (in number of tracks) government-run monopoly on not only horse racing but all gambling. When the government runs everything, you can dictate every last option. I do give you credit for trying to at least come up with a realistic way of implementing changes in medications. It would probably have to be nationwide phasing-in over a period of years though.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by highnote View Post
Take off the hot month of July in order to build up demand for SAR.

Take off the winter, February, to build up sanity!
A week off between Bel and Sar is good, I think.

5 days a week is a good idea.

A week off between Sar and Bel at the end.

Players will bet other tracks,but at least you can try to avoid 5 horse fields.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by castaway01

As far as whether it is feasible, it's probably not unless the whole country followed the same guidelines and not just NYRA.

...

You're not going to demand trainers follow some exceptionally restrictive (in their view) guidelines to run at Aqueduct in January.

That's why comparisons with Hong Kong don't work---they've got a small (in number of tracks)

This is NOT a nationwide system. A nationwide system is NOT necessary. Only ONE track is needed. Only ONE track is needed. Only ONE track is needed.

If you go back and read my post you will see that I said ONE track (others may follow) would create two divisions of racing. Division One would be the Open Division. Division Two would be the Handicap Division.

Division One would be the system that is currently in place now. Horses ship from track to track, entered in claiming, allowance, maiden, and stakes races. Nothing changes.

Division Two would be the new handicap division with 5 Classes of handicap races. Let's say Class 5 is the weakest with the lowest purses and Class 1 is the strongest with the highest purses. Owners would buy the best horses they can and they would be entered into a race in one of the classes depending on how the handicap rating the racing secretary or steward gave them. The weight each horse would carry depends on their handicap rating and the class entered.

Horses in Division Two are restricted to run only at the track where they are stabled. So they could not ship to another track unless the other track had a handicap division of its own and operated under the same rules and had the same video surveillance infrastructure in place to make sure no drugs were administered illegally, otherwise a handicap horse that leaves to race in another jurisdiction loses it eligibility to race in the handicap division at its current track.

Here is the outline again in case you missed it the first time:

Here is a brief outline with some ideas on how to increase handle on U.S. racing by increasing field size and eliminating race day drugs while increasing the number of live races staged per year, creating more opportunities for trainers, jockeys and owners, and helping breeders by increasing the demand for stallions that can produce durable, high-quality runners.

Notice there is no mention of reducing takeout. This is because horseplayers would be happy that someone is doing something for "Making the game better for the Bettor" (tm).

CONCEPT

Add a Hong Kong-styled handicap division.

Maintain a separate, but fixed size population of horses that compete ONLY in the handicap division.

Horses in the handicap division are stabled separately from horses in the OPEN division.

Handicap divison stables are under 24-7 video surveillance.

Only state-authorized vets are allowed to administer therapuetic drugs, post race.

No pre-race, race day drugs are allowed to be administered.

Horses must be drug tested prior to racing and must be clean before they can race.

Here is a link to a description of the handicapping system used in Hong Kong:

https://racing.hkjc.com/racing/engli...cap_policy.asp

This could be adapted and modified to what would work best in a particular U.S. racing jurisdiction.

IMPLEMENTATION

Start small to see if the concept is workable.

It is probably not prudent to gather 2,000 horses for a handicap division given the risk of failure.

It is better to start small and then iterate the model until it is proven to work or not work.

If it fails after many iterations then pivot in a new direction or stop altogether.

The goal is to get 14 horse fields in every race, or whatever the typical maximum number of runners are at a given track.

In order to do average 14 horses per race 16 horses would need to be entered per race which would allow for two early scratches to be filled.

If one handicap race were carded for each class per racing day and this was done one day per week then 80 handicap division horses per day would be needed. Since the goal is to race these horses every 4 to 6 weeks a 6 week supply of runners would be needed. That is 480 horses.

It could probably be done on an even smaller scale with fewer horses by running three classes per day one day per week. For example, race Classes 1, 2, and 3 in week one. Then race Classes 4, 5, and 1 in week two. Then race Classes 2, 3, and 4 in week three, etc. This would require only 48 horses per week or about 300 horses for the 6 week rotation. Truthfully, the track could shoot for 10 horses per race with 2 standby runners. So then all that would be needed are 36 horses per day -- or about 216 horses for a six week rotation. Of course, it could be done on an even smaller scale and the feedback generated would still be useful.

New infrastruture would be required.

The horses would be need to be stabled in an area reserved for handicap class horses.

The horses would need to be under 24-7 video surveillance.

A roster of state-authorized vets each would be assigned to X number of horses.

This could make it easier to trace where any corruption occured if there were drug positives.

A set of rules would need to be drafted.

For example, a horse in the handicap class must be stabled at the track and cannot ship to another jurisdiction to race, otherwise, it loses it's eligibility to race in the track's handicap division.

Maybe a contract would be necessary that requires the trainer or owner to agree to race the horse for X amount of time at the track before it can be removed, unless it is retired? Then once it is retired it is never again allowed to race in the handicap division if it comes out of retirement to race again.

An owner can only own X amount of handicap horses.

An owner can retire a horse and replace it with another.

[rastajenk]

I can't imagine many owners that would want to participate in such a scheme.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

I can't imagine many owners that would want to participate in such a scheme.

Can you give some reasons?

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by highnote

Can you give some reasons?

Good luck with that question.

Highnote, I’ve been tempted to post some ideas of my own to supplement yours. When this sort of topic came up in the past I developed an entire program for any racing jurisdiction smart enough to take advantage of replicating the Hong Kong model (even on smaller scale). Unlike you I decided not to post it because I realized that only those players involved with HK racing might appreciate what it could do for a local racing circuit. But more importantly what it would do for the players could be even more significant.

I see that from the responses you’re getting that I was right. I commend you for trying, but it’s comparatively obvious that many here seem to see the glass as being ½ empty. You’ve probably also noticed the general negativity on this board on a variety of topics. Well you know what they say, “Misery loves company”.

Well, I just wanted to commend you for at least trying and remaining optimistic about the future of local racing. I have my doubts that anything will change for the better until something dramatically impacts the cash cow that nourishes the local racing. In the meantime, I’ll continue to enjoy the HK racing product.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Nitro

Good luck with that question.

Highnote, I’ve been tempted to post some ideas of my own to supplement yours. When this sort of topic came up in the past I developed an entire program for any racing jurisdiction smart enough to take advantage of replicating the Hong Kong model (even on smaller scale). Unlike you I decided not to post it because I realized that only those players involved with HK racing might appreciate what it could do for a local racing circuit. But more importantly what it would do for the players could be even more significant.

I see that from the responses you’re getting that I was right. I commend you for trying, but it’s comparatively obvious that many here seem to see the glass as being ½ empty. You’ve probably also noticed the general negativity on this board on a variety of topics. Well you know what they say, “Misery loves company”.

Well, I just wanted to commend you for at least trying and remaining optimistic about the future of local racing. I have my doubts that anything will change for the better until something dramatically impacts the cash cow that nourishes the local racing. In the meantime, I’ll continue to enjoy the HK racing product.

I encourage you to post your ideas. I know that once a racetrack is threatened with bankruptcy they will try new ideas to keep their doors open. Facing the risk of losing one's job can be quite motivating.

As far as people saying it won't work, but not offering any good reason why, tells me they haven't really thought deeply about the issue.

I think my concept for a U.S. racetrack to create handicap division is actually pretty workable. It takes a while for new ideas to catch on and there is ALWAYS skepticism and naysayers.

UBER and LYFT are good examples of companies who bucked the system and did not listen to those who said it couldn't be done.

I came up with the concept of a betting exchange back around 1997, but it was way too radical for the U.S. market and it wasn't feasible for me to pick up and move to England. I was threatened with jail time if I tried to start one here in the U.S. That's how much others felt threatened with my idea. Betfair became a billion dollar company. 20 years later they finally are making inroads in the U.S.

Since I didn't want to go to jail, I started rallying people around the idea of creating a horseplayer's association. I remember many saying it couldn't be done. HANA is still working on behalf of horseplayers some 15 years later. Many said it couldn't be done, but those who believed made it happen.

I am publishing my concept of how to successfully bring a Hong Kong-style handicap division to the U.S. in the hopes that one visionary racetrack executive (oxymoron?) will take the idea and run with it. I have great confidence it would be successful.

What bettor doesn't like full fields? What trainer doesn't like more horses in their barn? What jockey doesn't like more opportunities to ride? What breeder doesn't want more opportunities for his stallion and broodmare? What vet doesn't want more horses to care for? What owner doesn't want more options for his horses to earn prize money?

It's a no brainer.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by highnote

I encourage you to post your ideas. I know that once a racetrack is threatened with bankruptcy they will try new ideas to keep their doors open. Facing the risk of losing one's job can be quite motivating.

As far as people saying it won't work, but not offering any good reason why, tells me they haven't really thought deeply about the issue.

I think my concept for a U.S. racetrack to create handicap division is actually pretty workable. It takes a while for new ideas to catch on and there is ALWAYS skepticism and naysayers.

UBER and LYFT are good examples of companies who bucked the system and did not listen to those who said it couldn't be done.

I came up with the concept of a betting exchange back around 1997, but it was way too radical for the U.S. market and it wasn't feasible for me to pick up and move to England. I was threatened with jail time if I tried to start one here in the U.S. That's how much others felt threatened with my idea. Betfair became a billion dollar company. 20 years later they finally are making inroads in the U.S.

Since I didn't want to go to jail, I started rallying people around the idea of creating a horseplayer's association. I remember many saying it couldn't be done. HANA is still working on behalf of horseplayers some 15 years later. Many said it couldn't be done, but those who believed made it happen.

I am publishing my concept of how to successfully bring a Hong Kong-style handicap division to the U.S. in the hopes that one visionary racetrack executive (oxymoron?) will take the idea and run with it. I have great confidence it would be successful.

What bettor doesn't like full fields? What trainer doesn't like more horses in their barn? What jockey doesn't like more opportunities to ride? What breeder doesn't want more opportunities for his stallion and broodmare? What vet doesn't want more horses to care for? What owner doesn't want more options for his horses to earn prize money?

It's a no brainer.

There's been about 100 logical reasons why it won't work, but you refuse to read or comprehend any of them. You're asking why the local McDonald's can turn into a 5-star restaurant by tomorrow morning but covering your ears when people say why it's unrealistic.

Thanks for inventing exchange wagering and HANA though, both great services to horse racing that have changed everything for the better.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by highnote

I came up with the concept of a betting exchange back around 1997, but it was way too radical for the U.S. market and it wasn't feasible for me to pick up and move to England. I was threatened with jail time if I tried to start one here in the U.S. That's how much others felt threatened with my idea. Betfair became a billion dollar company. 20 years later they finally are making inroads in the U.S.

Since I didn't want to go to jail, I started rallying people around the idea of creating a horseplayer's association. I remember many saying it couldn't be done. HANA is still working on behalf of horseplayers some 15 years later. Many said it couldn't be done, but those who believed made it happen.

I am publishing my concept of how to successfully bring a Hong Kong-style handicap division to the U.S. in the hopes that one visionary racetrack executive (oxymoron?) will take the idea and run with it. I have great confidence it would be successful.

And, as I recall...you briefly flirted with the idea of purchasing your own racetrack...so you could implement your business philosophy on local ground. How is that coming along?

[Tom]

I should own Finger Lakes - I've been making "payments" to them for 50 years!

[Thomas Roulston]

My proposed changes for NYRA:

1. Bring back the summer meeting at Aqueduct, last held in 1976. Otherwise, converting the Inner Dirt Track to a turf course ends up having made no sense whatsoever. In addition, with two pre-Saratoga meets instead of one, the Stewards can afford to allow more soft-turf races to remain on the grass, leading to fewer off-the-turf races and the 4- and 5-horse fields that inevitably run in them.

2. Add the following rule to the "Star System": If the official track condition for a carded Dirt race is muddy or sloppy, any horse who runs will receive an additional Dirt star. This will reduce scratches in muddy and sloppy dirt races as well.

3. Go back to March 1 as opening day at Aqueduct, with the Paumunok Handicap as the featured race, and the regularly-scheduled racing day of the week before the winter solstice (December 21) as the last day, with the Display Handicap as the featured race (and bring back the Gallant Fox Handicap as well as the Display Handicap). This is how NYRA did things in the early '70s.

4. Roll back the shortening of all stakes races since the 1970s. That means, for example, the return of the Jockey Club Gold Cup to 2 miles, the Woodward to 1 1/2 miles, the Coaching Club American Oaks to 1 1/2 miles, and the Dwyer to 1 1/4 miles. Also, bring back the Marlboro Cup - under a new, politically correct name - to be run at 1 1/4 miles, after the Whitney and before the Woodward.

5. Run more distances - examples, 6 1/2 furlongs and 7 1/2 furlongs on the Widener Turf Course and 1 3/16 miles and 1 5/16 miles on the Inner Turf Course at Belmont, and 7 1/2 furlongs on the Inner Turf Course at Aqueduct (the run to the first turn is longer, and the turn is less tight, than 7 1/2 furlongs on turf at the Fair Grounds, which has been run for decades). Plus bring back the Wilson Mile Chute at Saratoga.

6. Increase maximum field sizes to 16 in most non-2-year-old races in which the run to the first turn is at least 1,320 feet (a quarter of a mile). Races run on narrower courses (such as the Inner Turf Course at Saratoga) or on courses with tight turns (such as the Inner Turf Course at Aqueduct) would have lower limits. 16-stall gates, like the ones that are used in the UAE and Dubai, shall be purchased. A four-horse also-eligible list will be maintained for races with 16-horse maximum field sizes.

7. Race six days a week at Saratoga, five days a week at both Belmont meets and the summer meet at Aqueduct, and four days a week at both the pre-Belmont and post-Belmont meets at Aqueduct, and nine races a day except on special days like Memorial Day, Belmont Stakes Day, and 4th of July.

8. Implement a staggered purse distribution format: The higher you finish, the more you get paid. In a 10-horse field, for example, this might mean 55% to 1st, 20% to 2nd, 10% to 3rd, 5% to 4th, 2.5% to 5th, 2.1% to 6th, 1.8% to 7th, 1.5% to 8th, 1.2% to 9th, and 0.9% to 10th. And cut the jockeys in on this: Besides the $110, $125, or $140 jockeys currently get for finishing 5th or worse, 2% of what the owner receives is added.

9. Reduce minimum field sizes for both WPS and exotic bets. Place betting should be allowed in three-horse fields, and show betting should be allowed in four-horse fields (New Jersey has done both for decades, and it is hardly bankrupting them). For exacta wagering, three horses should be the minimum; for trifectas, four; for superfectas, five; and for Super High Fives, six. Finally, create a new 1-Cent Six-Pack wager requiring the bettor to pick the first six finishers, in exact order. A minimum of eight horses must go postward for this new wager, at least seven of whom must actually start.

10. Both Lasix and Bute remain legal, but weight penalties would be imposed on the use of either, with a double penalty for using both. No Lasix or Bute for first-time starters, regardless of age.

[Afleet]

Originally Posted by Tom

I should own Finger Lakes - I've been making "payments" to them for 50 years!

can I get a clubhouse suite if I mention your name?

[Tom]

Sure, but I warn you, our Clubhouse Suit is a grandstand bench with a cushion.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Thomas Roulston

My proposed changes for NYRA:

1. Bring back the summer meeting at Aqueduct, last held in 1976. Otherwise, converting the Inner Dirt Track to a turf course ends up having made no sense whatsoever. In addition, with two pre-Saratoga meets instead of one, the Stewards can afford to allow more soft-turf races to remain on the grass, leading to fewer off-the-turf races and the 4- and 5-horse fields that inevitably run in them.

2. Add the following rule to the "Star System": If the official track condition for a carded Dirt race is muddy or sloppy, any horse who runs will receive an additional Dirt star. This will reduce scratches in muddy and sloppy dirt races as well.

3. Go back to March 1 as opening day at Aqueduct, with the Paumunok Handicap as the featured race, and the regularly-scheduled racing day of the week before the winter solstice (December 21) as the last day, with the Display Handicap as the featured race (and bring back the Gallant Fox Handicap as well as the Display Handicap). This is how NYRA did things in the early '70s.

4. Roll back the shortening of all stakes races since the 1970s. That means, for example, the return of the Jockey Club Gold Cup to 2 miles, the Woodward to 1 1/2 miles, the Coaching Club American Oaks to 1 1/2 miles, and the Dwyer to 1 1/4 miles. Also, bring back the Marlboro Cup - under a new, politically correct name - to be run at 1 1/4 miles, after the Whitney and before the Woodward.

5. Run more distances - examples, 6 1/2 furlongs and 7 1/2 furlongs on the Widener Turf Course and 1 3/16 miles and 1 5/16 miles on the Inner Turf Course at Belmont, and 7 1/2 furlongs on the Inner Turf Course at Aqueduct (the run to the first turn is longer, and the turn is less tight, than 7 1/2 furlongs on turf at the Fair Grounds, which has been run for decades). Plus bring back the Wilson Mile Chute at Saratoga.

6. Increase maximum field sizes to 16 in most non-2-year-old races in which the run to the first turn is at least 1,320 feet (a quarter of a mile). Races run on narrower courses (such as the Inner Turf Course at Saratoga) or on courses with tight turns (such as the Inner Turf Course at Aqueduct) would have lower limits. 16-stall gates, like the ones that are used in the UAE and Dubai, shall be purchased. A four-horse also-eligible list will be maintained for races with 16-horse maximum field sizes.

7. Race six days a week at Saratoga, five days a week at both Belmont meets and the summer meet at Aqueduct, and four days a week at both the pre-Belmont and post-Belmont meets at Aqueduct, and nine races a day except on special days like Memorial Day, Belmont Stakes Day, and 4th of July.

8. Implement a staggered purse distribution format: The higher you finish, the more you get paid. In a 10-horse field, for example, this might mean 55% to 1st, 20% to 2nd, 10% to 3rd, 5% to 4th, 2.5% to 5th, 2.1% to 6th, 1.8% to 7th, 1.5% to 8th, 1.2% to 9th, and 0.9% to 10th. And cut the jockeys in on this: Besides the $110, $125, or $140 jockeys currently get for finishing 5th or worse, 2% of what the owner receives is added.

9. Reduce minimum field sizes for both WPS and exotic bets. Place betting should be allowed in three-horse fields, and show betting should be allowed in four-horse fields (New Jersey has done both for decades, and it is hardly bankrupting them). For exacta wagering, three horses should be the minimum; for trifectas, four; for superfectas, five; and for Super High Fives, six. Finally, create a new 1-Cent Six-Pack wager requiring the bettor to pick the first six finishers, in exact order. A minimum of eight horses must go postward for this new wager, at least seven of whom must actually start.

10. Both Lasix and Bute remain legal, but weight penalties would be imposed on the use of either, with a double penalty for using both. No Lasix or Bute for first-time starters, regardless of age.

Excellent post! Well thought out! There are so many good suggestions that I need to go back and read it again.

I would like to see no Lasix or Bute ever. NYRA was one of the last tracks to give in to race day use of Lasix. That was a mistake. I know why they did it. They were losing runners to other tracks with liberal drug policies. NYRA should be a leader, not a follower.