20 of the leading tracks announce plans to phase out race-day meds

[cj]

Originally Posted by bob60566

Thanks for the correction it is not NYRA That made that statement it was the director of Monmouth Park

NYRA is in support that is good news

Navarro said that?

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by highnote

Nothing wrong with making comparisons. You impriveva system by studying what works and what doesn't and then understanding why.

Who cares if the best US horse is faster than the best HK horse? It is irrelevant.

I want to bet on races with a high number of entrants.

Then go for it.

But it's absurd to compare a jurisdiction which has about 290,000 starts a year against one that has about 10,000.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Then go for it.

But it's absurd to compare a jurisdiction which has about 290,000 starts a year against one that has about 10,000.

Or one where the government runs all forms of gambling vs. one where they operate independently. It's apples to bowling balls, over and over.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Lasix has been at the forefront of debate for a long time on the U.S. racing scene, even prior to NY buckling under and allowing it.

So why the change in attitude now by the industry? An indirect response to the recent spate of breakdowns at SA?

/speculation_on
IMHO, it might be a desperate attempt to prolong the legality of the game. The trend seem to be to outlaw the sport. It may also be a sign of the continuing difficulties in making any money in racing for the owners, tracks and and trainers. Drugs, legal or illegal, can be expensive.
/speculation_off

[deelo]

Originally Posted by Parkview_Pirate

Lasix has been at the forefront of debate for a long time on the U.S. racing scene, even prior to NY buckling under and allowing it.

So why the change in attitude now by the industry? An indirect response to the recent spate of breakdowns at SA?

/speculation_on
IMHO, it might be a desperate attempt to prolong the legality of the game. The trend seem to be to outlaw the sport. It may also be a sign of the continuing difficulties in making any money in racing for the owners, tracks and and trainers. Drugs, legal or illegal, can be expensive.
/speculation_off

my speculation is that it's just a "hey look how proactive we are" to steer away from spending the money to re-surface tracks.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by deelo

my speculation is that it's just a "hey look how proactive we are" to steer away from spending the money to re-surface tracks.

It's not the surface, so there's no reason they should spend $5m to resurface the track.

But otherwise you're right. They're doing this because they have to for PR purposes. The governor is involved, the DA is investigating, PETA was making noise that was getting heard, and in case no one noticed, they recently held a referendum about dog racing in Florida and got the sport banned. Yes, it could happen to racing too.

[Nitro]

Originally Posted by highnote

Nothing wrong with making comparisons. You impriveva system by studying what works and what doesn't and then understanding why.
Who cares if the best US horse is faster than the best HK horse? It is irrelevant.
I want to bet on races with a high number of entrants.

This minority of skeptics that keeps clamoring about the huge differences between HK racing and N.A. racing doesn’t really have a clue as to how those differences affect the betting population. How could they know? They have no idea just how good the overall racing product in HK is. You can’t argue or rationalize any topic with ignorance.

As far as one group of horses being faster than another goes: I for one would think it wouldn’t be very fair to make that sort of comparison. That’s only because one group (from HK) is drug free and involved primarily in handicap type races carrying varied amounts of weight and the other group isn’t.
Not that it’s of any quantifiable significance, but if my recollection is correct a well-regarded CA sprinter named Stormy Liberal (who won 2 BC Turf Sprints) made an attempt at running in HK without much success.

Horse Form Records - STORMY LIBERAL
Race  Index : 258 
Date:  10/12/2017 
RC/Track/Course : ST / Turf / "A" 
Distance:  1200M (6F) 
Race Class:  G1
Trainer:  P Miller 
Jockey:  S de Sousa 
Win Odds:  84/1
Act. Wgt.: 126 
Declar. Horse Wgt.: 1087
Running Positions:  11 13 11
Finish Time:  1.10.17        

[deelo]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

It's not the surface, so there's no reason they should spend $5m to resurface the track.

But otherwise you're right. They're doing this because they have to for PR purposes. The governor is involved, the DA is investigating, PETA was making noise that was getting heard, and in case no one noticed, they recently held a referendum about dog racing in Florida and got the sport banned. Yes, it could happen to racing too.

respectfully, i'm not sure what you blame it on...but it was definitely the surface, no doubt.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Then go for it.

But it's absurd to compare a jurisdiction which has about 290,000 starts a year against one that has about 10,000.

I do go for it.

NYRA has 290,000 starts per year? NYRA and SoCal don't have that many combined.

I'm still waiting to hear your solutions to improve racing in the U.S. that does not involve HK. What are you waiting for? Let's hear them!

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by highnote

I do go for it.

NYRA has 290,000 starts per year? NYRA and SoCal don't have that many combined.

I'm still waiting to hear your solutions to improve racing in the U.S. that does not involve HK. What are you waiting for? Let's hear them!

No, the whole US.

I could type for days about improving racing here. I don't really have the desire or time. Us being like Hong Kong, however, didn't come close to making the list.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

I could type for days about improving racing here. I don't really have the desire or time.

I thought so.

Funny that you have plenty of desire and time to type for days about your criticisms of those who offer solutions.

[iamt]

You do that your "solution" basically amounts to the idea that fuller fields will be good for racing, something that the industry has recognized for decades.



Nothing you have mentioned has addressed how to get more owners or increase their returns to make it more viable. Your whole handicap division does nothing but reduce returns to owners at a time when they are leaving the industry as a whole.


Hong Kong is a great market, and many of their practices are the best in the world but it is a unique market and looking at why t hey are successful you have to remember correlation is not causation.




The number one reason why Hong Kong can run drug free? Because they have no breeding industry. All horses are thoroughly vetted either at sales or while in full training before they can get in the country. Horses that aren't conformed pretty well perfectly aren't allowed in, issues from the scope will see horses rejected too.


It is much easier to race drug free when you have excluded the large number of horses that would be more likely to need drugs more. That isn't a possibility here so we can't operate under the same framework, although working towards fewer drugs in racing and training is an important step.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by iamt

Nothing you have mentioned has addressed how to get more owners or increase their returns to make it more viable. Your whole handicap division does nothing but reduce returns to owners at a time when they are leaving the industry as a whole.

Your points from your entire post are all good ones, but the one that stands out is the one I've quoted.

Let's take NYRA as an example. The purses are fairly high with the help of slot subsidies. The field sizes are relatively small compared to, say, Hong Kong.

This is great for AQU owners, trainers, and jockeys who all get a percentage of the purse. Fewer horses racing for bigger purses means it is easier to earn purse money because the purse is shared with fewer people.

For example, April 20, AQU, Race 1, Waiver Claiming:

There were 5 horses in the race. Here is how the purse was split:

$52,000 purse
1st 28,600
2nd 10,400
3rd 6,240
4th 3,120
5th 2,080

The owner gets $2,000 just for running last and the trainer and jocks get their cut of that. If this was a 14 horse field the owner of the runner that finished last would get nothing, but the trainer would still get her day rate and the jock would get her fee.

There was a claiming race with a purse of $38,000 on the same AQU card and the 7th place finisher got $570. That's not bad and a lot better than nothing.

If I was an owner in NY I would want fewer horses entered because that makes it easier to win purse money. In fact, our trainer at MNR would sometimes get asked to run a horse in a race to fill a field. She did it because she knew that even if she finished last she would pick up a $500 check.

The lowest class handicap race in HK has a purse of about $88,000. The first race at HK on Apr 24 has a purse of about 88,000 and they pay 3.5% to the 5th place finisher. There are 12 horses entered. That means the owners that finish 6 through 12 get nothing, but they still have to pay the entry fee, and the trainer's and jock's rates. There is a lot more risk for the owners.

So from an ownership standpoint NY is probably less competitive than HK.

From a horseplayers standpoint, HK, with its steady diet of competitive handicap races with full fields, still offers a more desirable betting product and an overall better entertainment product, in my opinion.

Now I know some people here like betting on fields of 5 or 6 horses. I don't. To each his own.

Basically, it is socialism for horse owners who race at NYRA tracks. It's a good deal for them, but it's not totally a competitive, capitalist, free-market.

This is why I question why there is still a high take out in NY. Why do owners get to enjoy a socialist system, but horseplayers have to deal with a competitive, capitalist marketplace? The truth is horseplayers don't have to. They can bet in capitalist markets that are more horseplayer friendly. HK comes to mind.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by highnote

Your points from your entire post are all good ones, but the one that stands out is the one I've quoted.

Let's take NYRA as an example. The purses are fairly high with the help of slot subsidies. The field sizes are relatively small compared to, say, Hong Kong.

This is great for AQU owners, trainers, and jockeys who all get a percentage of the purse. Fewer horses racing for bigger purses means it is easier to earn purse money because the purse is shared with fewer people.

For example, April 20, AQU, Race 1, Waiver Claiming:

There were 5 horses in the race. Here is how the purse was split:

$52,000 purse
1st 28,600
2nd 10,400
3rd 6,240
4th 3,120
5th 2,080

The owner gets $2,000 just for running last and the trainer and jocks get their cut of that. If this was a 14 horse field the owner of the runner that finished last would get nothing, but the trainer would still get her day rate and the jock would get her fee.

There was a claiming race with a purse of $38,000 on the same AQU card and the 7th place finisher got $570. That's not bad and a lot better than nothing.

If I was an owner in NY I would want fewer horses entered because that makes it easier to win purse money. In fact, our trainer at MNR would sometimes get asked to run a horse in a race to fill a field. She did it because she knew that even if she finished last she would pick up a $500 check.

The lowest class handicap race in HK has a purse of about $88,000. The first race at HK on Apr 24 has a purse of about 88,000 and they pay 3.5% to the 5th place finisher. There are 12 horses entered. That means the owners that finish 6 through 12 get nothing, but they still have to pay the entry fee, and the trainer's and jock's rates. There is a lot more risk for the owners.

So from an ownership standpoint NY is probably less competitive than HK.

From a horseplayers standpoint, HK, with its steady diet of competitive handicap races with full fields, still offers a more desirable betting product and an overall better entertainment product, in my opinion.

Now I know some people here like betting on fields of 5 or 6 horses. I don't. To each his own.

Basically, it is socialism for horse owners who race at NYRA tracks. It's a good deal for them, but it's not totally a competitive, capitalist, free-market.

This is why I question why there is still a high take out in NY. Why do owners get to enjoy a socialist system, but horseplayers have to deal with a competitive, capitalist marketplace? The truth is horseplayers don't have to. They can bet in capitalist markets that are more horseplayer friendly. HK comes to mind.

Yes, I would definitely call the Hong Kong system where the government runs everything and lets no outsiders in "capitalist"....lol. Great knowledge of the capitalism and socialism there...

You're not offering solutions, you're offering awful analogies that don't apply, and you refuse to ever address how two systems that aren't anything alike are supposed to match. You're too afraid to actually deal in reality. Repeatedly typing "14-horse fields are great"---absolutely no one has disagreed with you, but you never explain what that has to do with real life. Hong Kong is a government-controlled monopoly. America is not. You can't make one system fit the other.

[highnote]

Originally Posted by castaway01

Yes, I would definitely call the Hong Kong system where the government runs everything and lets no outsiders in "capitalist"....lol. Great knowledge of the capitalism and socialism there...

You're not offering solutions, you're offering awful analogies that don't apply, and you refuse to ever address how two systems that aren't anything alike are supposed to match. You're too afraid to actually deal in reality. Repeatedly typing "14-horse fields are great"---absolutely no one has disagreed with you, but you never explain what that has to do with real life. Hong Kong is a government-controlled monopoly. America is not. You can't make one system fit the other.

I gave plenty of ideas you just don't like them. That's ok. I have already moved on. The U.S. racing industry will survive without me. NYRA is doing just fine. Big purses. Small fields. Owners must be happy to be able to pick up a check every race. That's great for them. It's not great for bettors, but as we heard from Stronach, horseplayers are not stakeholders in his world. He's the owner of the track so he can do whatever he wants. NYRA runs their tracks they way they want. And that is how it should be.