Sad times for the great race place.

[CheckMark]

Originally Posted by Bustin Stones

If you look at a map of tracks closed since 2000, you'll notice a concentration on the west coast. BTW every single track in Michigan is gone. I imagine the movement is related to cultural differences.

Here is a very cool website that shows tracks (then and now):
http://www.horseracing-tracks.com/

California specific:
http://www.horseracing-tracks.com/tr...al/menuCa.html

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by the little guy

I think that's flawed thinking. Slots prolonged life for some tracks to the detriment of others. There is an argument that if slots never entered the landscape anywhere, the older dynamic would have been stronger. Places like NY ( which was 20 years behind many jurisdictions in getting slots ) and Maryland would have held strong when tracks like Delaware ( already closed before slots ) and Pennsylvania tracks possibly disappeared. Monmouth would have remained strong in the summer, and even the Meadowlands thoroughbreds could have continued to at least some extent. Places like Arlington and Churchill would have maintained their status without Midwest tracks that existed pretty much only because of slots. Maybe even Suffolk would have continued.

That's not even mentioning what slot tracks likely did to CA, but I'm not particularly familiar with the West Coast slot tracks and how they have affected things out there. Bottom line is that, for better or worse, slot money changed the map but what was good for some wasn't necessarily good for others or possibly even the game as a whole. Hard to know for sure.

I have a hard time believing that tracks in DE,WVA,Oh,LA,PA,IA ,Ok and others would still be running. Maybe a few but I doubt it. We’ll see if they ever lose their slot subsidies if they remain open.

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by CheckMark

Here is a very cool website that shows tracks (then and now):
http://www.horseracing-tracks.com/

California specific:
http://www.horseracing-tracks.com/tr...al/menuCa.html

I’ve enjoyed that website for a good while. I loved looking at the betting and attendance trends of Bowie, Tropical Park and Garden State in the 60s and 70s.

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

It's ridiculous that California doesn't collapse down to one circuit. We could easily do it and that was what we used to have 55 years ago.

It seems like ship and win has been less effective this meet. I could be wrong but I remember them having a few more shippers.

[ubercapper]

Originally Posted by the little guy

I think that's flawed thinking. Slots prolonged life for some tracks to the detriment of others. There is an argument that if slots never entered the landscape anywhere, the older dynamic would have been stronger. Places like NY ( which was 20 years behind many jurisdictions in getting slots ) and Maryland would have held strong when tracks like Delaware ( already closed before slots ) and Pennsylvania tracks possibly disappeared. Monmouth would have remained strong in the summer, and even the Meadowlands thoroughbreds could have continued to at least some extent. Places like Arlington and Churchill would have maintained their status without Midwest tracks that existed pretty much only because of slots. Maybe even Suffolk would have continued.

That's not even mentioning what slot tracks likely did to CA, but I'm not particularly familiar with the West Coast slot tracks and how they have affected things out there. Bottom line is that, for better or worse, slot money changed the map but what was good for some wasn't necessarily good for others or possibly even the game as a whole. Hard to know for sure.

Though not slots per-se, Kentucky tracks have HHR and its been very good for creating a thriving year round circuit.

The tracks, and horse racing proponents in the legislature, knew the moral opposition to Casinos was too strong to ever get them, so they consciously decided to control HHR themselves (no casino management companies). I believe Oaklawn did the same thing, and we see the results right now.

Turfway-Keeneland-Churchill-Ellis Park-Kentucky Downs have purse supplements (which show no sign of declining) equal to, or greater than, the base purse. Example TP maiden $33K base, $29 KTDF from HHR) for a total of 62K.

This structure might have been difficult to replicate in other places, but if it could be we might not see the declines we're seeing.

[the little guy]

Originally Posted by ronsmac

I have a hard time believing that tracks in DE,WVA,Oh,LA,PA,IA ,Ok and others would still be running. Maybe a few but I doubt it. We’ll see if they ever lose their slot subsidies if they remain open.

That's what I said. Feel free to read it again.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by the little guy

I think that's flawed thinking. Slots prolonged life for some tracks to the detriment of others. There is an argument that if slots never entered the landscape anywhere, the older dynamic would have been stronger. Places like NY ( which was 20 years behind many jurisdictions in getting slots ) and Maryland would have held strong when tracks like Delaware ( already closed before slots ) and Pennsylvania tracks possibly disappeared. Monmouth would have remained strong in the summer, and even the Meadowlands thoroughbreds could have continued to at least some extent. Places like Arlington and Churchill would have maintained their status without Midwest tracks that existed pretty much only because of slots. Maybe even Suffolk would have continued.

That's not even mentioning what slot tracks likely did to CA, but I'm not particularly familiar with the West Coast slot tracks and how they have affected things out there. Bottom line is that, for better or worse, slot money changed the map but what was good for some wasn't necessarily good for others or possibly even the game as a whole. Hard to know for sure.

It's not often I agree with everything TLG says, but imo he's right here.

I'm going to add that when slots first started proliferating I was opposed to them because I thought what was going to benefit some tracks/horsemen in the short term was going to hurt the industry in the long term. But it was somewhere between difficult and impossible to turn down the money once the ball started rolling and the genie was out of the bottle.

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by the little guy

That's what I said. Feel free to read it again.

I stopped at flawed but ok.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

It's ridiculous that California doesn't collapse down to one circuit. We could easily do it and that was what we used to have 55 years ago.

What makes this so easy to do?

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by CheckMark

Here is a very cool website that shows tracks (then and now):
http://www.horseracing-tracks.com/

California specific:
http://www.horseracing-tracks.com/tr...al/menuCa.html

Thanks for the links. California only has 4 tracks on the fair circuit now?

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Thanks for the links. California only has 4 tracks on the fair circuit now?

The best thing about CA racing is the fair circuit. When I retired a few years back I was planning a long vacation just to take in the fairs and wine country. Then Covid ruined everything.

If they end "mule" racing I may stop betting CA racing altogether.

[CheckMark]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The best thing about CA racing is the fair circuit. When I retired a few years back I was planning a long vacation just to take in the fairs and wine country. Then Covid ruined everything.

If they end "mule" racing I may stop betting CA racing altogether.

That would be a good idea to put all the fair tracks together and have a "meet" for the summer (July or August)

Probably sounds dumb but I would push for it

[cj]

Originally Posted by CheckMark

That would be a good idea to put all the fair tracks together and have a "meet" for the summer (July or August)

Probably sounds dumb but I would push for it

That is exactly what the fair circuit was lol.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

What makes this so easy to do?

The CHRB can do it by Fiat. Heck, the LEGISLATURE could even do it. Just pass a law saying only one thoroughbred track can run in the state at any one time. Then the CHRB would have to divide up the dates in a sensible fashion and would.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

The CHRB can do it by Fiat. Heck, the LEGISLATURE could even do it. Just pass a law saying only one thoroughbred track can run in the state at any one time. Then the CHRB would have to divide up the dates in a sensible fashion and would.

So now we have 2 major league tracks with Santa Anita and Del Mar, a AA track in Golden Gate and all the rest A league tracks. Your assumption is that by running 1 track at a time all of the tracks would become major league tracks. If they don't then you would see a mass exodus of good horses to places where there is an abundance of races with higher purses.



Golden Gate is 384 miles from Santa Anita. Trainers and workers would have to commit to moving their households each year to accommodate such a schedule. Those with a family life need not apply.



Of course, it could be done, but I don't think CA racing would flourish if it was done.