New York Entry Rule

[Oskar]

Foolish New York Entry Rule Hurting the Game


Bill Finley



More than anything else, harness racing needs to reinvigorate



interest among bettors, and yesterday's filly division of



the Zweig Memorial at Vernon Downs should have been



exactly the kind of race that horseplayers get excited about.



Though there was a standout in Check Me Out, there was



a large field with nine horses, including a few with an



upset chance. And even if the player concluded that



Check Me Out couldn't lose, the battle for second, third



and fourth was a puzzling one that should have made



exacta, trifecta and superfecta wagering appealing.



But thanks to an archaic rule that the New York State



Racing and Wagering Board stubbornly and foolishly



clings to, the filly version of the Zweig was turned into a



race that no one in their right mind possibly could have



wagered on. The handle figure on the race was not available



at this writing, but it was likely in the neighborhood of



a dollar forty-five.



A decent betting race with nine horses was turned into a



three-horse race for wagering purposes because



NYSRWB rules required that four horses owned in part by



Brittany Farms had to race as an entry as did three others



with common ownership. What was left was a race where



only win wagering was accepted and the Ray



Schnittker-trained entry topped by winner Check Me Out



paid $2.20.



Perhaps there was a time when such a rule was necessary



to protect bettors. When the betting pools were large



and the purses were modest, owners and trainers had an



incentive to fool around to cash a bet. Those days are



long, long gone.



The purse for this race was $150,000. A typical race at



Vernon might attract $20,000 in wagering. Thus the



NYSRWB is maintaining that someone might just play



games to win a few thousands bucks in a race where the



winner takes home $75,000. That is,quite obviously,



asinine.



Under the leadership of John Sabini, the New York State



Racing and Wagering Board has been proactive and has



worked overtime to clean up thoroughbred and standardbred



racing in the state. In that respect, it has been a



breath of fresh air. But its zeal to police the sport has



stood in the way of basic common sense when it comes to



entry rules.



With big purses and tiny betting pools at most New York



tracks, the harness game has never been more honest, at



least when it comes to attempted betting coups. Any and



all incentive to stiff a horse or play games in order to cash



a bet has been taken away by the huge disparity between



purses and the betting pools.



There shouldn't be any entries in any races. With the



harness game so desperate for betting customers, every



effort must be made to encourage people to bet and nothing



turns off the customers faster than a race with three



betting interests and win wagering only.



Getting rid of all entries might be too much to wish for.



OK, so how about a rule, as a first step, where there are



no entries in races worth $100,000 or more? In too many



instances, the NYSRWB is standing in the way of harness



racing being an attractive betting product, and that's bad



for the game



(harnessracingupdate.com)

[Oskar]

In the filly division of the Zweig, which carried a purse of 150K, On The Bright Side, Superstar Hanover and Valdonna Hanover—all trained by Jimmy Takter—were coupled with Personal Style—trained by Nifty Norman—to make the one. Ray Schnittker’s Check Me Out, Lima Playmate and Real Babe were tied to Gates Brunet’s Cowgirl Hanover to make the two. And Charlie Norris’s Win Missy B was the three.



The winning number two entry, led by Check Me Out, was sent off at 1/9, the one at 4/1 and the three at 6/1.

[pandy]

I totally agree with Finley. I see no reason why there should ever be any entries.

[Oskar]

In the Hambletonion Oaks at M1, Superstar Hanover and Personal Style raced as separate entries, as did Check Me Out and Real Babe.



In the Elegantimage at Mohawk, Personal Style, Valdonna, On The Bright Side and Superstar Hanover raced as separate entries.



New York is out of step.

[Pacingguy]

While Bill made good points, I think he missed the bigger picture. From View From the Racetrack Grandstand:

Houston, We Have a Problem....

Yesterday at Vernon Downs there was a great horse race. Nine horses competing for $150,000 in the Zweig Memorial Filly Trot. Not only did we have a full field, we had the star of harness racing, Check Me Out competing. What more could we ask for?

Make that a great race to watch, a horrible race to wager on. Nine horses with three wagering interests; win wagering only. Four horses from Brittany Farms made up one entry with three of them trained by Jimmy Takter. The other entry was three horses trained by Ray Schnittker and the fourth horse in the entry trained by someone else but as a result of common ownership, also coupled into the same entry. New York State Racing and Wagering Board rules mandated the coupling of these horses.

It wasn't just the Zweig Memorial Filly Trot. The consolation of the Zweig Memorial for colts also had a four horse entry due to multiple owners having shares of various horses. All year at the Meadowlands there were races with three or four horse entries in overnight series killing wagering on otherwise bettable races. Bill Finley in HRU discusses the problem with coupled entries and its impact on wagering, and I agree all entries should be eliminated but this is addressing the symptoms of a much bigger problem; not the cause.

Harness racing has an ownership problem which is not only impacting wagering, it is hurting breeders as well. Some people may call it gaming the system, others may call it good business sense. I would argue it is a combination of both, but let me be clear, the way the rules are makes it perfectly legitimate but at the same time further sends harness racing reeling. Why do we find ourselves in this situation?

First of all, there is the image problem harness racing has; wrongly or rightly the sport has a tarnished image and if you are someone looking for an investment, are you going to invest your money, especially in the upper echelons of the sport on a horse if you feel you are going to have to deal with possible integrity issues? Then we have the exposure issue. Thoroughbred racing has exposure in many more states than harness racing. If you want to attract owners, you need exposure to your potential market. Potential investors in states like Idaho, New Mexico, or Wyoming are familiar with thoroughbred racing but likely know little if anything about harness racing.

Then we have the problem of offering too much money in overnight races (racino states). With so much money being available in overnight races, why would someone even think of investing in a yearling and training when you can get a ready to race horse? This also reduces the pool of potential investors.

But let's say we get past these issues. Harness racing can talk all they want about what a great investment a standardbred is when compared to thoroughbred racing; costing less and greater earning possibilities proportionally with regards to the number of races a horse can start, yet you don't see many newcomers entering the market; especially at the yearling sales. Why is this the case?

Talking to breeders and owners you hear a common theme. Instead of one person or a couple of people jointly bidding on yearlings, you see individuals taking smaller portions of multiple yearlings to reduce their risk. In the stock market, it is called diversification. While the specific horses and percentages on an individual horse may vary, you tend to see the same people involved in partnerships deals.

In addition, we have anecdotal stories of individual agreeing not to bid against each other with the promise of being able to buy a small piece of the yearling they agree not to bid on. The result is two-fold; as a partnership they can bid more for a horse they really want as this risk is spread further out in the case of individuals agreeing not to bid on a horse, reduces to final price a successful bidder has to pay as serious competition in bidding has been reduced or eliminated. For the breeder, it means receiving less money for their blue chip prospects who help cover the expenses of the yearling sold at a loss. How do you expect to get new owners into the yearling market when the system is being legitimately gamed?

Ever wonder why certain trainers seems to have an embarrassment of riches? When these partnerships acquire horses, the lead person or group gets their say as to who trains the horses which means their trainer of choice gets the call which results in the large training outfits have an embarrassment of riches which means multiple horses are raced in the same races, resulting often in coupled entries and purse money earned concentrated with the usual cast of participants which means we find ourselves repeating the vicious cycle.

What can be done about this? In some ways hands are tied as the actions of these groups is perfectly legitimate. In the next entry, I will discuss some possible ideas to to address the larger issue.