'Out of business': Why is racing losing so many trainers?

[Andy Asaro]

https://www.horseracingnation.com/ne...y_trainers_123

Excerpt:

Other countries, particularly Japan, have horse limits in place that distribute horses more evenly among trainers. But those nations are subject to more stringent government regulations. In the U.S., any change would have to come from within the industry – and across a patchwork of state racing authorities that must be open to common reform.

“I think it’s going to have to be on the racetracks to slow down the mega-stables,” Bradley said. “If you’re the kind of person who wants that many horses, then good for you. I’m not saying anything bad about the mega-stables, but that’s what hurts us. I think, until then, things are going to keep going south.”

[airford1]

I dont think we can save the sport without new owners and we will not get many new owners if they have less than a 10% CHANCE to make a profit. Sport of Kings and there doesn't seem to be enough of those so I guess they will have to increase the take out.

[The_Turf_Monster]

Go sit at an auction and spend $40k+ on a horse, let it hang out until the end of its 2 year old year, only be able to run in a few states where you might be able to turn a profit or even break even, and try to rationalize not giving it to a recognizable trainer. You simply can’t. You’re pushing almost 6 figures to take a 2 year old from auction to the starting gate that can do anything other than run in claiming races on a C rate circuit, you’re not going fishing for an unproven trainer at those costs

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by The_Turf_Monster

Go sit at an auction and spend $40k+ on a horse, let it hang out until the end of its 2 year old year, only be able to run in a few states where you might be able to turn a profit or even break even, and try to rationalize not giving it to a recognizable trainer. You simply can’t. You’re pushing almost 6 figures to take a 2 year old from auction to the starting gate that can do anything other than run in claiming races on a C rate circuit, you’re not going fishing for an unproven trainer at those costs

The economics of the sport are terrible on a lot of levels.

[mountainman]

Horsemen just aren't willing to lose. They want walk-overs and network behind the scenes with other outfits to keep live runners from colliding. Jock's agents act as liasons and air-traffic controllers in this pursuit. Nobody invested wants two dominant str/alw, for instance, runners to actually slug it out. Not when it's easily arranged to take turns with each beating short, overmatched fields by a pole-at 2/5 odds.

And if two monsters DO hit the overnite in the same race, one of them is likely to get scratched.

Perhaps even more insidiously, barns now vet pace-scenarios and won't show up if the flow looks unfavorable.

And this consiracy to create non-competitive events applies not only to stakes or alw races. I've seen insiders go to UNBELIEVEABLE lengths to arrange virtual walk-overs in cheap condition races. And this ever-increasing insistence on requiring perfect situations for sharp horses has resulted in an epidemic of scratches that is, or soon will be, THE biggest problem facing thoroughbred racing

[davew]

Don't some owners get into the business knowing they will lose money?

The horse ownership expenses offset some other business profits they make.

[cj]

Originally Posted by davew

Don't some owners get into the business knowing they will lose money?

The horse ownership expenses offset some other business profits they make.

I could be mistaken, but I thought those incentives were taken away many years ago.

[Onesome]

Originally Posted by mountainman

Horsemen just aren't willing to lose. They want walk-overs and network behind the scenes with other outfits to keep live runners from colliding. Jock's agents act as liasons and air-traffic controllers in this pursuit. Nobody invested wants two dominant str/alw, for instance, runners to actually slug it out. Not when it's easily arranged to take turns with each beating short, overmatched fields by a pole-at 2/5 odds.

And if two monsters DO hit the overnite in the same race, one of them is likely to get scratched.

Perhaps even more insidiously, barns now vet pace-scenarios and won't show up if the flow looks unfavorable.

And this consiracy to create non-competitive events applies not only to stakes or alw races. I've seen insiders go to UNBELIEVEABLE lengths to arrange virtual walk-overs in cheap condition races. And this ever-increasing insistence on requiring perfect situations for sharp horses has resulted in an epidemic of scratches that is, or soon will be, THE biggest problem facing thoroughbred racing

And tracks don't care because they don't care about racing anymore, just as long as they do enough to justify their casino license.

[airford1]

Originally Posted by cj

I could be mistaken, but I thought those incentives were taken away many years ago.

In California the write offs from Horse racing were under scrutiny back in the 80's.
IRS looks at it as more of a Hobby and not a Business. Hard to keep out of the audit file.

[GMB@BP]

Just out of curiosity what is considered a large stable? 10 horses, 30 horses, 50, etc?

[green80]

Originally Posted by airford1

I dont think we can save the sport without new owners and we will not get many new owners if they have less than a 10% CHANCE to make a profit. Sport of Kings and there doesn't seem to be enough of those so I guess they will have to increase the take out.

I think less than 10% is a little high

[46zilzal]

In Canada we used to have dozens and dozens of partnership of "gentleman" farmers who would rather lose a bit having fun versus just giving that money to the government.

Loop holes began to close in the 80's (tax write offs) and along with ih the extinction of the friendly gentleman partnerships