Feinstein Wants Santa Anita Halted

[elhelmete]

Originally Posted by horsefan2019

Yep, I've gone to Santa Anita lately, and even though the crowds are down, the handle is still pretty steady. That means most of the money is coming in from out of state and even from out of the country thanks to betting via satellite TV and the internet.

Why not in-state but not on-track?

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Dog racing was probably more important to Florida's economy than horse racing is to California's, and the voters there dumped it anyway.

Actually, it wasn't. Not in the last 10 years or so. Handle had been dropping off precipitously in the last 10+ years...there wasn't going to be much revenue lost to the state by getting rid of dog racing.

Follow the money. It always wins.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by cutchemist42

You really do think it would survive a ballot question? In a state like California?

Continuing an activity simply because it employs people doesn't work in this day and age or else we'd still be clinging to coal like our life depended on it.

Humans have moved on from institutions even if it did have economic consequences.

I listed a whole bunch of other reasons in addition to employment.

It's all about the benjamins. And the people involved in the sport who have a LOT of benjamins...and a lot of influential friends in politics.

I remain unconvinced that racing is in danger of disappearing in California or anywhere else.

All the talk from any of the serious players (like Senators) has been "fix the problem." Not "eliminate racing." That kind of talk is coming from wackadoodle extremists who nobody pays serious attention to in the first place.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I listed a whole bunch of other reasons in addition to employment.

It's all about the benjamins. And the people involved in the sport who have a LOT of benjamins...and a lot of influential friends in politics.

I remain unconvinced that racing is in danger of disappearing in California or anywhere else.

All the talk from any of the serious players (like Senators) has been "fix the problem." Not "eliminate racing." That kind of talk is coming from wackadoodle extremists who nobody pays serious attention to in the first place.

I live here, talk to plenty of people, and 30 years ago my love of horse racing was treated as interesting and fun. It is now generally treated as "how can you support something so brutal?". Including by plenty of the sort of rich folks you imagine support the sport.

If it goes on the ballot, I am 95 percent certain a ban would pass. California is not Kentucky and this isn't the pasttime of either the billionaires of Silicon Valley or the beautiful people of Hollywood.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

I live here, talk to plenty of people, and 30 years ago my love of horse racing was treated as interesting and fun. It is now generally treated as "how can you support something so brutal?". Including by plenty of the sort of rich folks you imagine support the sport.

If it goes on the ballot, I am 95 percent certain a ban would pass. California is not Kentucky and this isn't the pasttime of either the billionaires of Silicon Valley or the beautiful people of Hollywood.

I imagine? OK then.

How about the rich folks who ACTUALLY support the sport. You talk to any of them? Or have I imagined it all, and there are actually ZERO powerful supporters of horse racing?

Help me with all my imagining please, oh oracle of all things SoCal racing.

[bob60566]

All the talk from any of the serious players (like Senators) has been "fix the problem.(qUOTE)

Why has it taken decades to fix the serious decline in horse racing.And they all have been discussed on this site in the last ten years.

Do not rock the boat were all still making money and giving away free tee shirts at the corgi races.

[Tom]

PETA has a serious misunderstanding that animal welfare is the same thing as animal rights. Not at all.

They are politically motivated do-gooders who need to feel good by being superior to everyone else.

Why are we worrying about SA racetrack? Why do we need California racing at all? Across the country, we see 4-5 horse fields daily. And a new track just opened over the weekend, - one that relies on a STOPWATCH to time races!

If we, as players, want to change anything, we need to target track to starve by not betting them, tracks like SA, GP, Arizona Whatever, and others who are not putting not a reliable product, but we never will.

Racing is not run by the brightest or the best, not even close. Many of their problems are self-inflicted at worst, just ignored at best.

Feinstein has her eye on a new problem to solve and it won't be long before others join her. I think federal regulation, because betting crosses state lines, is in the future, and not too far into it.
Racing has brought it on itself.

[alydar]

I would be very surprised if horse racing was banned in CA or any state. However, we should be realistic about the sport's economic impact and money interests. The actual amount of tax revenue that the state gains from racing is minimal, and as racing has declined in the state so has its economic significance. Let's face it, the land that Santa Anita and Del Mar occupies is extremely valuable and probably could be used for projects that potentially could have a much more significant economic impact on the state. The horse racing interest in the state may be powerful, but have much less influence now than in past years. Times are changing as we know and racing has not quick to respond, as we also know all too well.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I imagine? OK then.

How about the rich folks who ACTUALLY support the sport. You talk to any of them? Or have I imagined it all, and there are actually ZERO powerful supporters of horse racing?

Help me with all my imagining please, oh oracle of all things SoCal racing.

There aren't zero. But the ones that exist have less power than you think.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by alydar

I would be very surprised if horse racing was banned in CA or any state. However, we should be realistic about the sport's economic impact and money interests. The actual amount of tax revenue that the state gains from racing is minimal, and as racing has declined in the state so has its economic significance. Let's face it, the land that Santa Anita and Del Mar occupies is extremely valuable and probably could be used for projects that potentially could have a much more significant economic impact on the state. The horse racing interest in the state may be powerful, but have much less influence now than in past years. Times are changing as we know and racing has not quick to respond, as we also know all too well.

This hits the nail on the head.

That's one of many reasons why I'm a big proponent of consolidation. If there were fewer tracks, more of the overall handle pie would go to each of the remaining tracks. They would become more profitable as a result. Then they could justify their existence based on the economics. Now, every politician and developer is looking at the land and thinking about all the things that could done there that would generate more money for the state.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by bob60566

All the talk from any of the serious players (like Senators) has been "fix the problem.(qUOTE)

Why has it taken decades to fix the serious decline in horse racing.And they all have been discussed on this site in the last ten years.

Do not rock the boat were all still making money and giving away free tee shirts at the corgi races.

To be fair, while racing has done plenty of "don't rock the boat and let's collect that slot money", I think most people in the industry would like to solve the breakdown issue. There's some "these horses were bred to run and wouldn't exist without racing, plus there have always been breakdowns" (both of which are 100% accurate, just no longer sufficient as explanations to the general public) but it's more that there is no "snap your fingers" solution to the breakdown issue. Causes include unsound horses running when they shouldn't, the weakening of the breed in general, sometimes the track condition, and other factors all mixed together.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

This hits the nail on the head.

That's one of many reasons why I'm a big proponent of consolidation. If there were fewer tracks, more of the overall handle pie would go to each of the remaining tracks. They would become more profitable as a result. Then they could justify their existence based on the economics. Now, every politician and developer is looking at the land and thinking about all the things that could done there that would generate more money for the state.

As long as Churchill exists and operates as a racetrack, the sport will survive in America. It doesn't need California, although we help.

Part of what is going on here is that people don't realize the power of the initiative process. Of course few politicians are going to support the destruction of ANY job creating enterprise in any state. But voters don't particularly care about arguments of the economic benefit of a sport, if they perceive an animal welfare problem. If the voters really want to kill the sport, it really wouldn't matter if the sport had tens of thousands of powerful patrons (and it really doesn't anymore in California). What matters is very few voters go to the track anymore.

[bob60566]

Originally Posted by castaway01

To be fair, while racing has done plenty of "don't rock the boat and let's collect that slot money", I think most people in the industry would like to solve the breakdown issue. There's some "these horses were bred to run and wouldn't exist without racing, plus there have always been breakdowns" (both of which are 100% accurate, just no longer sufficient as explanations to the general public) but it's more that there is no "snap your fingers" solution to the breakdown issue. Causes include unsound horses running when they shouldn't, the weakening of the breed in general, sometimes the track condition, and other factors all mixed together.

Can someone explain why these issues cannot be resolved, Or do we get the stakeholders involved as is the norm and form a committee to solve decade old concerns.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

I listed a whole bunch of other reasons in addition to employment.

It's all about the benjamins. And the people involved in the sport who have a LOT of benjamins...and a lot of influential friends in politics.

I remain unconvinced that racing is in danger of disappearing in California or anywhere else.

All the talk from any of the serious players (like Senators) has been "fix the problem." Not "eliminate racing." That kind of talk is coming from wackadoodle extremists who nobody pays serious attention to in the first place.

Having lived in CA for over 50 years I will say that it is near impossible to predict the actions taken by this state based upon the actions of the other 49 states. Rational arguments are met with emotional outcries and disregarded altogether.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

Having lived in CA for over 50 years I will say that it is near impossible to predict the actions taken by this state based upon the actions of the other 49 states. Rational arguments are met with emotional outcries and disregarded altogether.

Yep. Our intiative process is highly unpredictable and can swing way left or way right, depending on the issue.