Discussion on H.R. 3084

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I did a blog on the two letters in the TDN supporting the Thoroughbred Horseracing Integrity Act of 2015. My opinion - it's an unnecessary piece of legislation that is an attempt to end run racing commissions and in the end winds up costing horseplayers a lot more money. Is whatever problem it purports to solve worth the price we'll all have to pay?

http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=3064

[Stillriledup]

None of this should ever fall onto the bettors, all this Lasix or testing stuff is something that doesn't concern bettors, all we care about is the odds we receive on the gamble and trying to pick a winner in the next race we bet.

All this is stuff that the participants should worry about, it doesn't concern me in the least, the drug cheats and whatnut is just part of the handicapping process, if I sniff out a cheat, ill factor that into my analysis.

[MonmouthParkJoe]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

None of this should ever fall onto the bettors, all this Lasix or testing stuff is something that doesn't concern bettors, all we care about is the odds we receive on the gamble and trying to pick a winner in the next race we bet.

All this is stuff that the participants should worry about, it doesn't concern me in the least, the drug cheats and whatnut is just part of the handicapping process, if I sniff out a cheat, ill factor that into my analysis.

Couldnt agree more

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Stillriledup

None of this should ever fall onto the bettors, all this Lasix or testing stuff is something that doesn't concern bettors, all we care about is the odds we receive on the gamble and trying to pick a winner in the next race we bet.

All this is stuff that the participants should worry about, it doesn't concern me in the least, the drug cheats and whatnut is just part of the handicapping process, if I sniff out a cheat, ill factor that into my analysis.

One of the main points in the article is that the anti-Lasix forces believe the federal drug oversight authority is the right way to "clean up racing." Based on the proposed legislation ultimately the bettor will pay for it. If that doesn't bother you because you can sniff out the drug cheats, you're entirely missing a critical point. The pissing match going on between ARCI and the Jockey Club may decide whether racing has to raise the take even more than it already is. So even if you don't care about Lasix, you ought to care about how the battle ultimately impacts your bottom line.

[chadk66]

I have really mixed emotions on this whole drug testing issue. On one hand I think many of the states are too easy on this and don't have high enough standards. Therefore the Feds should probably step up with uniformity and consistency. Equal punishments across the board, etc. But then there is the "States Rights" issue that comes into play. If one doesn't like what's going on in a state you can race in another. I'm really not sure what the best answer is.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by chadk66

I have really mixed emotions on this whole drug testing issue. On one hand I think many of the states are too easy on this and don't have high enough standards. Therefore the Feds should probably step up with uniformity and consistency. Equal punishments across the board, etc. But then there is the "States Rights" issue that comes into play. If one doesn't like what's going on in a state you can race in another. I'm really not sure what the best answer is.

It's a legitimate point. I think I'm more focused on the idea that the THADA is not well constituted in the bill - half the membership knows nothing about horseracing, they will likely be using the same testing labs as the states are currently using so that doesn't change, and the whole thing costs us more money and we have no guarantee it is solving the real problem. It's just hard to convince me this isn't just an effort by the jockey club, WHOA, PETA and other animal rights group to kill Lasix by finding dealing with one friendly group instead of 39 that won't give them the time of day. If you want to ban Lasix, get all the stakeholders together and work out an agreement that everyone can live with. Not a great way to run the business in my opinion.

[Stillriledup]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

One of the main points in the article is that the anti-Lasix forces believe the federal drug oversight authority is the right way to "clean up racing." Based on the proposed legislation ultimately the bettor will pay for it. If that doesn't bother you because you can sniff out the drug cheats, you're entirely missing a critical point. The pissing match going on between ARCI and the Jockey Club may decide whether racing has to raise the take even more than it already is. So even if you don't care about Lasix, you ought to care about how the battle ultimately impacts your bottom line.

I care and that's why I'm saying (or implying) that it's BS to get the customers to pay for it. I would also prefer clean racing, but I'd rather not 'foot the bill' to clean up the sport.

[chadk66]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

It's a legitimate point. I think I'm more focused on the idea that the THADA is not well constituted in the bill - half the membership knows nothing about horseracing, they will likely be using the same testing labs as the states are currently using so that doesn't change, and the whole thing costs us more money and we have no guarantee it is solving the real problem. It's just hard to convince me this isn't just an effort by the jockey club, WHOA, PETA and other animal rights group to kill Lasix by finding dealing with one friendly group instead of 39 that won't give them the time of day. If you want to ban Lasix, get all the stakeholders together and work out an agreement that everyone can live with. Not a great way to run the business in my opinion.

very valid points

[Tom]

Why should the players pay to find the horsemen who cannot be trusted?
Every owner should be forced to pay to test his own horse in every single race.

The bettors are not the ones cheating here.

[BIG49010]

How about on track labs that draw before the race, test during the race, and if you cheat DQ the horse after the race before the payouts!

In a modern world shouldn't this be possible?

[chadk66]

can't get results quite that fast

[Ruffian1]

Maryland's lab is located under the Laurel grandstand.

Was in use for my 3 decades roughly.

[Stillriledup]

Racing is the only business that I can think of that doesn't lower their prices if nobody is buying the product. It's like they would rather go out of business than give you a discount

[Jeff P]

I know this requires something called vision and a little out of the box thinking...

But if you really do want to raise money to fund this - or generate an increase in money so desperately needed by racing for anything for that matter... a modern secure tote system fast enough to render odds updates in something approaching real time, horse retirement, disabled jockey's fund, improvements to the backside, etc:

You need to lower the takeout not raise it.

All of the industry's paid for economic research (Thalheimer, Cummings, Ali, and others) says that takeout has an elasticity value of approximately -2.30.

That means every 1.00% change that you make in takeout rate causes handle to move approximately 2.30%.

Currently as I type this North America has a blended takeout rate of between 21% and 22%.

If you lower that by 3% from say 21.5% to 20.855% (a 3% drop) across the entire distribution chain: Handle across the entire distribution chain will go up 6.9% from $10.67 billion to $11.41 billion. (An annual increase in handle of $736.23 million.)

Multiply that by the new blended takeout rate of 0.20855 and it works out to an annual increase in revenue of $153.54 million across the entire distribution chain.

Do the opposite and "fund" this by raising takeout by the same 3% and everyone across the entire distribution chain suffers because you generate a similar percentage movement in handle and revenue - but in the opposite of the intended direction.


-jp

.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

. If you want to ban Lasix, get all the stakeholders together and work out an agreement that everyone can live with. Not a great way to run the business in my opinion.

what agreement can be reached. Trainers use LASIX because it enhances a horses performance and will stop most bleeding issues. kills two birds with one stone

can't see any trainer who uses LASIX to ban it.

only way is the feds.
Allan