Hollywood Park Cancels This Thursday's (07/08)...

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

The racing secretary can make a determination on which horses can stay and which ones have to go.

Is there a backlog of horses and trainers eager to use those stalls?

I mean, it isn't as though you get to show up with any old number of horses you happen to have and you get to pick a barn or five. You get allotted stalls based upon an application. If you don't participate, you lose your right to those stalls to make room for those that will. While I hear a lot about how many horses haven't run at Holly, I don't hear anything about those horses being shown the door to make room for all the eager participants.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

Is there a backlog of horses and trainers eager to use those stalls?

I mean, it isn't as though you get to show up with any old number of horses you happen to have and you get to pick a barn or five. You get allotted stalls based upon an application. If you don't participate, you lose your right to those stalls to make room for those that will. While I hear a lot about how many horses haven't run at Holly, I don't hear anything about those horses being shown the door to make room for all the eager participants.

You don't hear anything about it because it doesn't happen. They just permit hundreds of horses to prep there without having any intention of racing.

Also, they wouldnt be kicking guys out to let 'eager' participants come in, they would just be asking them nicely to leave if they aren't really interested in actually racing their horses.

[Eddie W]

Hollywoodpark is going bye bye soon.....There going to blown it up soon
as soon as they get the ok......Same thing happen to bay mendows

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

You don't hear anything about it because it doesn't happen. They just permit hundreds of horses to prep there without having any intention of racing.

Also, they wouldnt be kicking guys out to let 'eager' participants come in, they would just be asking them nicely to leave if they aren't really interested in actually racing their horses.

So, if you've got a guy or gal with half a barn, say 12 head that haven't run or have run minimally - due to any number of reason - do you toss them if you haven't anyone else to fill those stalls? Maybe these horses run at some point, but if they are gone without a replacement, what is accomplished?

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

So, if you've got a guy or gal with half a barn, say 12 head that haven't run or have run minimally - due to any number of reason - do you toss them if you haven't anyone else to fill those stalls? Maybe these horses run at some point, but if they are gone without a replacement, what is accomplished?

You force them to run. If that person doesnt want to lose the stalls, they run their horses.

Nothing gets accomplished if the trainer just up and leaves. But, i would have to imagine that large barns of horses of trainers who have rooted families in the So Cal area are not interested in moving to a different state to be a trainer...they'll just listen to what they are told to do and run more often.

The person who wasn't going to run anyway won't be missed.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

You force them to run. If that person doesnt want to lose the stalls, they run their horses.

Nothing gets accomplished if the trainer just up and leaves. But, i would have to imagine that large barns of horses of trainers who have rooted families in the So Cal area are not interested in moving to a different state to be a trainer...they'll just listen to what they are told to do and run more often.

The person who wasn't going to run anyway won't be missed.

If only it was so utterly simple. Getting mad and taking stalls without someone to fill them might give the illusion of making a point or exerting some presence of authority, but it does nothing productive.

I don't claim to know the intracacies of Hollywood Park, but it sounds to me like either the wrong people were allotted the wrong number of stalls or they simply filled the barn area by giving anyone who applied almost anything that they asked for.

If you can't bring more horses to the backside midstream, you do the right thing - recruit more horses and increase your applications for the next meet. Then you have the leverage needed to rely on starts per stall quotas to make your point during the next round of allottments.

Taking stalls from people in a threatening manner just to make a point rarely, if ever, increases the population or participation. It generally just creates animosity, particularly if the primary reason for the low S.P.S. percentages are due to management failing to attract enough legitimate applicants and then allotting super liberally just to fill the barn area in the hope that that will translate into starters.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

If only it was so utterly simple. Getting mad and taking stalls without someone to fill them might give the illusion of making a point or exerting some presence of authority, but it does nothing productive.

I don't claim to know the intracacies of Hollywood Park, but it sounds to me like either the wrong people were allotted the wrong number of stalls or they simply filled the barn area by giving anyone who applied almost anything that they asked for.

If you can't bring more horses to the backside midstream, you do the right thing - recruit more horses and increase your applications for the next meet. Then you have the leverage needed to rely on starts per stall quotas to make your point during the next round of allottments.

Taking stalls from people in a threatening manner just to make a point rarely, if ever, increases the population or participation. It generally just creates animosity, particularly if the primary reason for the low S.P.S. percentages are due to management failing to attract enough legitimate applicants and then allotting super liberally just to fill the barn area in the hope that that will translate into starters.

I agree. They need to find some way to get the horses who are on the grounds to actually enter to run in races. Why trainers are not running is only something they could answer.

[Hanover1]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

If only it was so utterly simple. Getting mad and taking stalls without someone to fill them might give the illusion of making a point or exerting some presence of authority, but it does nothing productive.

I don't claim to know the intracacies of Hollywood Park, but it sounds to me like either the wrong people were allotted the wrong number of stalls or they simply filled the barn area by giving anyone who applied almost anything that they asked for.

If you can't bring more horses to the backside midstream, you do the right thing - recruit more horses and increase your applications for the next meet. Then you have the leverage needed to rely on starts per stall quotas to make your point during the next round of allottments.

Taking stalls from people in a threatening manner just to make a point rarely, if ever, increases the population or participation. It generally just creates animosity, particularly if the primary reason for the low S.P.S. percentages are due to management failing to attract enough legitimate applicants and then allotting super liberally just to fill the barn area in the hope that that will translate into starters.

Been following along here, and I agree with you all the way....However despite your rational thinking here, it seems its just easier to blame the horsemen and demand reprise against them rather than examining the issues behind the poor turnout of late...every post on the subject here hints of this. I wish I had the inclinations you have, to explain it all as you have....thumbs up. However I am part of the problem since I have a trainers license......

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

... They need to find some way to get the horses who are on the grounds to actually enter to run in races...

No. They need to get horses on the grounds that will enter. That is my point.

Again, I'm not entirely buying this notion that management is shocked by the number of those which have not started or have underperformed. Maybe another forum member has a sense of whether or not they had enough applications to be scrutinous in allottments. If they did, then management did a poor job allotting. If they didn't, then they either did a poor job recruiting and attracting... or perhaps its just a sign of the times where horse populations are simply depleted nearly everywhere.

With the expenses related to training on the track, it makes little to no sense to keep race ready stock idle, particularly when you can beat three horses and be part of the trifecta in a large percentage of the races carded.

I just think you are taking a very surface level view of the situation and overlooking the cause in trying to resolve the effect.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

And where do you suggest the owners and trainers keep their stock that is in training or layed up due to injury?

That is not the problem of racetracks. If a trainer that has stock that he or she does not intend on sending to post, that trainer has no business having that horse on the grounds.
Racetrack stall space should not resemble summertime public school lunch programs.
Botttom line, no enter, no stalls.
Can't bring 'em to the races, send them to a training farm and pay for stall space.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

And the young stock that are in training but have yet to make a start?

if it is the intention of the trainer to race those youngsters, by all means , yes, he should get stalls for them.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by johnhannibalsmith

So, if you've got a guy or gal with half a barn, say 12 head that haven't run or have run minimally - due to any number of reason - do you toss them if you haven't anyone else to fill those stalls? Maybe these horses run at some point, but if they are gone without a replacement, what is accomplished?

Ok, good question. I think the idea that trainers believe they should be entitled to stall space should be examined and if found to be true, ended immediately.
Tracks cannot do business with a certain pecentage of stock on their grounds that will not be there for the racing secretary to use at his disposal.
The Secretary's responsibility is two fold. He is to write races that are competitve and write races that will fill.
If the secretary has full stalls and is writing competitive events, the only factor to look at is the trainers.
Racetrack managements should take over the sport. Right now it seems horsemen's organizations are running the show. That situation is proving to be a mistake as horsemen seem to have far too much clout.

[DJofSD]

Racetrack stall space should not resemble summertime public school lunch programs.

As far as I'm concerned, it already is a give away. Exactly how much does the track charge for these stalls?

[rwwupl]

Something to consider...

Not sure of the policy of Hollywood Park,...but the policy of California (general)used to be that all horses allocated subsidized stall space would be certified by the Trainer that all of his horses to be "race ready"

...There was a limit of say 38 stalls to any one trainer, which was abandoned.
The big name Trainers got as many stalls that they asked for...Doug "O" had 260, 3 years ago, now only 60 because of current personal situation. Trainers do not like to run different owners horses in the same barn against each other because it is awkward to explain to them why the other one won and your horse did not.

It is no secret that many barns will not run if they do not anticipate a check,so they like short fields... it is sort of a reward program early on the race card to keep slow horses competing and loyal trainers in hay money to stay around and fill races.

Customers do not like short fields.

Of course,the over all responsibility to put on a race card that is suitable to draw customers is sacrificed for todays dollar. That is not surprising.

But... as long as there are purses to run for...you will find a man with a horse there to run for it, and I assure you someone will want to bet on it.

The answer is there, somewhere, and it will be found.

Keep the faith. The people love horse racing.

rwwupl

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by rwwupl

...There was a limit of say 38 stalls to any one trainer, which was abandoned.
The big name Trainers got as many stalls that they asked for...Doug "O" had 260, 3 years ago,...

Roger-

I've never had a barn bigger than what I could effectively do basically by myself, but I can't say that I ever really endorsed a policy that put a cold, hard limit on stall allottments.

But, I have always been miffed by the way the management at some (probably many or even most) tracks really caters to large barns in other ways. I've been on both sides of the fence, so I do understand why it happens in some cases, but it is a double-edged sword often with rotten byproducts.

I made a racket years ago that a certain track wouldn't be happy until six barns had all of the horses on the backside. And those barns wouldn't be happy until that happened either. And then they could all just run against one another. Of course, that wouldn't happen because most of these same guys won't even enter unless the race is written for them and then filled with crap so that they are 3-5.

And so it went as one small barn after another was pushed out, one owner after another went by the wayside, or in a best case scenario, transferred over to one of the massive barns with a 29% win rate.

Some of the contributing factors can't be laid specifically at the feet of the tracks, but the climate that developed and then snowballed in some ways are seeimngly a result of practices that were allowed to foster for some time without intervention. This transition essentially squeezed out smaller players due to insurance expenses, disparities in veterinary resources, and other escalating overhead that became impossible to overcome for those not necessarily looking to become wealthy, but at a minimum hoping to operate a responsible business that tried to generate at least minimally more revenue than losses.

I'm obviously short-cutting many of the details to keep this post manageable and I run the risk of drawing faulty conclusions without finite data to back it up - but it does seem that during a relatively short period of time, the balance of available stock shifted to a smaller overall number of actual trainers and owners.

Maybe I'm right and maybe I'm wrong and I don't think that this is the lone factor in explaining some of the problems that we encounter today, or even necessarily a major problem. However, Roger, I don't want to ignore your position on maximum allottments because even though I don't like the idea of "capping" a man or woman's success, I do believe that perhaps unintentionally, they have done just that when considering some smaller outfits that comprised the meat and potatoes of any given card or meet.

In the same breath, the byproduct is concentration to the point that as you pointed out in one case of "same trainer, different owner", you not only quell participation from that angle, but you've lost your "fillers" - the folks that don't aspire to lead the standings, but can still eke out a living doing what they love to do with a small string of horses, just happy and proud to run and get a check.

I'm rambling or maybe pseudo-ranting, which I try not to do, but I'm not really afraid to pose an opinion and take a bit of shit for faulty assumptions based upon experience rather than fact. In fact, I appreciate it so rather than hit "preview" and then decide to just not post at all, I'll reluctantly tap that submit button...