Saratoga meet is set to open July 16th, 2020

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by RunForTheRoses

Why is everyone picking on him?

Because he is a lawyer.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Really? Is that something you do when your not practicing law, playing poker or betting the horses?

Do you have something against "Renaissance Men"?

[Redboard]

Article is a nothing burger. They aren't selling track tickets yet.

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

If many do show up to town, business is still going to be way down because some people will be leery about going to crowded restaurants, bars, motels/hotels, to the track, and for walks around the crowed streets of the town.

Maybe older people would be leery, but not young people. Besides takeout, patrons could be limited to outdoor tables and chairs. Reservations in advance. It's better than nothing.

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

The worst case scenario is that it could cause a small new outbreak in the area given that people will be coming from NYC and all over country. Based on what I've been reading there's almost no chance the virus caseload is down to zero by then absent some continued social distancing measures.

It's going to outbreak in every area of the country, eventually. Unless Saratoga Springs builds a wall around their town. But as long as the seniors and underlying condition people know that they have to shelter until there's a vaccine.

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

Obviously, either way it sucks for the town of Saratoga Springs, but I can't be the only one that has already written that meet off for this year after spending multiple weekends or even weeks there every single year. Business is going to be WAY down for the town no matter what, empty stands or not. They could just as easily run at Belmont empty for way less money and hassle and be safer.

I hope I'm wrong about the caseload by then and it all works out well, but I won't be there and I hope NYRA makes the right decision.

Sell 1000 tickets per day limited to the apron and picnic tables. Young people only. Facemasks required. All bets must be made by wifi.

As a senior, I wouldn't attend, but a sparsely populated Saratoga Springs with young people, might be safe. The only other option is shutting down the town until it's "safe." Which is probably going to be a couple years. Would it ever recover from that?

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Do you have something against "Renaissance Men"?

It was just my jealousy rearing it's ugly head.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Really? Is that something you do when your not practicing law, playing poker or betting the horses?

Based on the how inaccurate the real epidemiologists have been so far, should anybody be making long range restrictions on what people can or can't do?

I am relying on what the experts say. I am not an expert.

And no, the epidemiologists have not been "inaccurate". Their critics, in contrast, have been wildly so.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Redboard

Sell 1000 tickets per day

I have mentioned this already, but if someone seriously wants to conduct a race meeting with some spectators, at most tracks these are the sort of numbers we would be talking about. Maybe a gigantic facility like Belmont or Santa Anita might be able to have 3,000 or 4,000. All spread out, all over the facility.

I doubt it's worth it though. I still like Gulfstream's protocols, which seem to impose plenty of social distancing and allow races to be run. I just hope other health departments allow it.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I am relying on what the experts say. I am not an expert.

And no, the epidemiologists have not been "inaccurate". Their critics, in contrast, have been wildly so.

Point me to the accurate predictions.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Point me to the accurate predictions.

This article, from February 25, cites to a bunch of epidemiologists making accurate predictions, to just choose one example.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/25/healt...ses/index.html

Let's not get too far into this because PA doesn't want epidemiological discussions on the horse racing board. But yeah, the stuff the scientists said would happen has happened. And now that we are socially distancing, the curve is flattening, just like they said it would.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

This article, from February 25, cites to a bunch of epidemiologists making accurate predictions, to just choose one example.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/25/healt...ses/index.html

Let's not get too far into this because PA doesn't want epidemiological discussions on the horse racing board. But yeah, the stuff the scientists said would happen has happened. And now that we are socially distancing, the curve is flattening, just like they said it would.

What exactly was the accurate prediction? That the virus would spread? Let me go on record and predict that millions of Americans will come down with the flu and colds next winter.

[theiman]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Really? Is that something you do when your not practicing law, playing poker or betting the horses?

Based on the how inaccurate the real epidemiologists have been so far, should anybody be making long range restrictions on what people can or can't do?

I agree with you that long term restrictions should not be made regarding this situation. Making statements that there wont be public events, sports, concerts, etc until next year wasnt needed.

Play it by weeks or months, but not the next 8 months.

I think golf might be back sooner than most other events.

Stay well, and your family too.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by theiman

I agree with you that long term restrictions should not be made regarding this situation. Making statements that there wont be public events, sports, concerts, etc until next year wasnt needed.

Play it by weeks or months, but not the next 8 months.

I think golf might be back sooner than most other events.

Stay well, and your family too.

FWIW, part of the reason why you are seeing folks like Mayor Garcetti making flat statements about us not having sports events in 2020 is because there's plenty of people (and no, I am not talking about folks here, I am talking about people out in the country at large) who basically never viewed this seriously, never favored social distancing in the first place, and are looking for the first opportunity to tell the scientists (whom they never liked in the first place) to go pound sand while we "open up the country again".

In that environment, it becomes very important to dampen the public expectations. Because one of the things you know those "open up the country again" folks are going to do is point to any statements by anyone saying "we might have sports back in late June" and use that to demand that all restrictions be lifted in late June no matter what the epidemiological state of play is at that point.

So as a result, a lot of policymakers, at least here in California, are beginning to feel that they need to err on the side of realism rather than optimism.

Saying "oh yes, we're going to open Saratoga on schedule in July" may be a nice feel good story to the folks in Saratoga Springs, but it then creates a constituency that will expect, and perhaps demand, that Saratoga open on scehdule even if it's fundamentally dangerous to do so.

Whereas in LA, we're already starting to absorb the fact that there's not going to be any spectator sports this year. If something unexpected happens and they can modify that prediction, they can always do so, but it makes the waters much easier to navigate.

To get back on topic, if I were czar of horse racing, I'd be working very, very hard on a comprehensive plan for racing without spectators for the foreseeable future, including how to fairly split up the handle, eliminating rules like Minnesota's restrictions on in-state betting, and generating a uniform set of rules like Gulfstream's that will be rock solid at preventing the spread of the virus at horse racing venues. It should be possible to have lots of racing during social distancing rules, and with other gambling options circumscribed, the sport could make a LOT of money.

But I don't think it makes any sense to be trying to race with spectators. That's just unlikely to happen for a long time.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

FWIW, part of the reason why you are seeing folks like Mayor Garcetti making flat statements about us not having sports events in 2020 is because there's plenty of people (and no, I am not talking about folks here, I am talking about people out in the country at large) who basically never viewed this seriously, never favored social distancing in the first place, and are looking for the first opportunity to tell the scientists (whom they never liked in the first place) to go pound sand while we "open up the country again".

In that environment, it becomes very important to dampen the public expectations. Because one of the things you know those "open up the country again" folks are going to do is point to any statements by anyone saying "we might have sports back in late June" and use that to demand that all restrictions be lifted in late June no matter what the epidemiological state of play is at that point.

So as a result, a lot of policymakers, at least here in California, are beginning to feel that they need to err on the side of realism rather than optimism.

Saying "oh yes, we're going to open Saratoga on schedule in July" may be a nice feel good story to the folks in Saratoga Springs, but it then creates a constituency that will expect, and perhaps demand, that Saratoga open on scehdule even if it's fundamentally dangerous to do so.

Whereas in LA, we're already starting to absorb the fact that there's not going to be any spectator sports this year. If something unexpected happens and they can modify that prediction, they can always do so, but it makes the waters much easier to navigate.

To get back on topic, if I were czar of horse racing, I'd be working very, very hard on a comprehensive plan for racing without spectators for the foreseeable future, including how to fairly split up the handle, eliminating rules like Minnesota's restrictions on in-state betting, and generating a uniform set of rules like Gulfstream's that will be rock solid at preventing the spread of the virus at horse racing venues. It should be possible to have lots of racing during social distancing rules, and with other gambling options circumscribed, the sport could make a LOT of money.

But I don't think it makes any sense to be trying to race with spectators. That's just unlikely to happen for a long time.

Per the San Diego Union this AM, Gavin Newsom wrote a letter to President Trump on March 18th saying that 25.5 million Californians would be infected within 8 weeks. I am sure that Newsom was sincere in his beliefs based on the expert opinions of the epidemiologists. Six weeks down the road from that letter we are experiencing a completely different situation than was predicted. What this should have taught us is that 1) the epidemiologists were very wrong and that 2) we shouldn't be making long-term plans based on unreliable predictions.

The err is not on the side of realism it is on the side of fear. Shutting down what people can do has consequences healthwise that may exceed any damage done by Covid 19. To "dampen down" public expectations is not at all needed. Quite the opposite should be done.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Per the San Diego Union this AM, Gavin Newsom wrote a letter to President Trump on March 18th saying that 25.5 million Californians would be infected within 8 weeks. I am sure that Newsom was sincere in his beliefs based on the expert opinions of the epidemiologists. Six weeks down the road from that letter we are experiencing a completely different situation than was predicted. What this should have taught us is that 1) the epidemiologists were very wrong and that 2) we shouldn't be making long-term plans based on unreliable predictions.

The err is not on the side of realism it is on the side of fear. Shutting down what people can do has consequences healthwise that may exceed any damage done by Covid 19. To "dampen down" public expectations is not at all needed. Quite the opposite should be done.

You just engaged in the bait and switch that everyone on the denial side does.

Had we NOT shut down the state, yes, we were looking at 25 million infections. But Newsom took decisive action.

Also, bear in mind that infection statistics are horribly understated. How can you be so confident about the low level of infection in California? You do realize you can't get a test here until you show symptoms.

At any rate, to get back on topic, the fact that lots of people agree with you and think they know everything and people who study epidemics for a living are just not as smart, is exactly why stuff like these Saratoga statements are so bad. Policymakers have to have epidemiologists' back. Because America is full of people who think they know more than scientists.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

You just engaged in the bait and switch that everyone on the denial side does.

Had we NOT shut down the state, yes, we were looking at 25 million infections. But Newsom took decisive action.

Also, bear in mind that infection statistics are horribly understated. How can you be so confident about the low level of infection in California? You do realize you can't get a test here until you show symptoms.

At any rate, to get back on topic, the fact that lots of people agree with you and think they know everything and people who study epidemics for a living are just not as smart, is exactly why stuff like these Saratoga statements are so bad. Policymakers have to have epidemiologists' back. Because America is full of people who think they know more than scientists.

No bait and switch, just facts. Newsom acted correctly based on the incorrect information he had. Garcetti is a fool to think he knows what will happen.

If infection stats are horribly understated, that would be a good thing. It would mean that most people are not affected by the worst that the virus has to offer. It also means that there is quite a bit of immunity in California.

I am sure there are a lot of smart people who study epidemics. Nobody is claiming they aren't smart. I am claiming that their predictions have been way off the mark suggesting that the science isn't what you would call exact.

America is full of smart people who have sacrificed way more than they should have for science predictions that were far from correct.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

No bait and switch, just facts. Newsom acted correctly based on the incorrect information he had. Garcetti is a fool to think he knows what will happen.

If infection stats are horribly understated, that would be a good thing. It would mean that most people are not affected by the worst that the virus has to offer. It also means that there is quite a bit of immunity in California.

I am sure there are a lot of smart people who study epidemics. Nobody is claiming they aren't smart. I am claiming that their predictions have been way off the mark suggesting that the science isn't what you would call exact.

America is full of smart people who have sacrificed way more than they should have for science predictions that were far from correct.

The fact that the science doesn't meet your overly strict definition of "exact" is not an argument for inaction. Indeed, if we did have exact science we might be able to make the decisions you are calling for.

Scientists have accurately told us that this would spread around the world and kill huge numbers of people. They are also telling us that there is considerable doubt that we can rely on herd immunity without a resulting bloodbath.

Politicians who look at that picture and say "I'm listening to the scientists, no large gatherings for a long time" are going to save lives.

Again, what racing needs to do is figure out how to make Gulfstream's model work at more tracks.