January 11, 2019
Those Who Know
By: Jonathan Stettin
Is a tip ever a tip at the racetrack? If you ask a hundred bettors, I think you might be surprised at the assortment of answers that you get. I’ll come back to that. Most of you who know me know I spent many years going to the racetrack every day, without missing a beat, first in New York, and then in Florida. I’m talking decades. I once broke up with a girlfriend, or I should say she broke up with me because I had to bail on her sister’s wedding. Yes, she was in the bridal party, and it was a big deal. That said her sister chose to get married on the first Saturday in May. I did not miss many days.
For several seasons at the Gulfstream meet my Dad and I sat with a dear friend of ours Joe T., may they both rest in peace. My Dad would always make Joe laugh hysterically when he would ask us if we liked any of the horses we had running with Peter Walder. My Dad, also Joe, would say, “those who know don’t say, and those who say don’t know.” They would laugh together, and Joe T. would wave his finger and say, "You are right." Of course, Joe was never cold-shouldered out of any horse we liked, and I spent years chasing pick 6’s with him, and generally I don’t do partners.
Those who know don’t say, and those who say don’t know. Interesting. Does anybody ever really know at the races. Sure, there are a number of times a year where I feel I know the outcome of a race, but there are intangibles, as A Raving Beauty showed early in the last Saratoga meet. You can know, but they still have to run the race.
Once I claimed a horse named Am Flippy from of all people The Chief, Allen Jerkens. She had run a big number on the rags at two, and Peter and I grabbed her for $62,500. Obviously, we had some good expectations for her. She did not train as well as we hoped, but we were limited as to where to run her back. We used to win at a killer rate off the claim back then, and she would have taken money wherever we ran. With limited options, we ran back in an allowance race.
I remember walking into the track that day and almost immediately being approached by a well-known race-tracker. The man asked me if I liked anything and I said not especially. He then said he had some good information on a horse. He said he knew the owner, and he was a big bettor who flew in from New York to bet and watch his horse run. I honestly had no interest, and frankly could care less. I do and did my own thing and go by only my opinion. Nonetheless, to be polite I asked who is the horse? Am Flippy he said. Yes, he gave me a tip on my own horse, and he didn’t even know it.
Those who know don’t say, and those who say don’t know. This guy obviously didn’t know but he absolutely said. Am Flippy didn’t win that race. She was one of the few horses we never did any good with. Claiming from The Chief, not such a good idea.
One time in what seems like a lifetime ago, a well-known rider who is now a pretty well-known trainer, told my brother Joe DiMaio and I that he loved his horse at Belmont and was going to win this race the next day. The horse ran badly, and we didn’t even ask him, he volunteered the “info.” The next day when I saw him, I asked what happened, he looked at me with a degree of sincerity and disappointment in his face and said I should have read the form. What? Those who know don’t say and those who say don’t know.
If you have spent a degree of time on the backside of the racetrack you learn fast it is different than the frontside. It is a world all its own. Generally speaking, trainers and riders (both exercise and jockeys) don’t like to share insight they may have into how horses are doing with just anyone. Bettors are often viewed as outsiders who don’t understand the backside, and there is really no upside for people on the backside to share what they may know about a horse. Often, they know of problems a horse may have that aren’t public knowledge and don’t appear in past performances. This information is good to have when you can get it, but you usually won’t.
Trainers have a tendency to talk about their horses like people talk about their kids. They may like their horse, and know he is training excellently, but can they rate and rank the competition as objectively as a sharp handicapper?
The most solid type of in the know information at the track, with the exception of knowing who will not win for one reason or another, is when a trainer cheats, and I don’t mean with illegal drugs, or doing anything illegal at all. I am referring to those scenarios where a trainer runs a horse worth 50K first time out for 20K knowing they will jog, and nobody will claim them. Sure, you can catch someone better in there, but for the tag as opposed to a Maiden Special Weight, you probably won’t. If you are fortunate to know about one of those, that would be a real “tip” or edge. Most of us likely won’t know until after the race when it becomes very visible.
Sometimes a horse will overcome an issue that was hindering them, knowing can be an edge, but will you? Probably not but things even out in the long run, as the competition can always be tougher.
Tips, or inside information, is not a prerequisite to success at the races. Can it help, maybe at times but remember, those who know don’t say, and those who say don’t know.
December 28, 2018
Are You Talking To Me?
By: Jonathan Stettin
I have always felt if you can’t say something better yourself, then use a good quote. Robert De Niro in Taxi Driver comes to mind for this one. It’s a classic film, and the quote is “you talkin' to me.” It’s a great scene and line, and I could not do it justice here. That said I think we can put the quote to some good use and it definitely fits. At least for me.
Right up front, I’ll say I am not going to call out anyone individually. No names. No networks or racetracks either. If you know who I am referring too that is great but no names.
I can sort of, but not really, give some major networks a pass for their coverage of our classic races. Sure it is terrible for true players and Racetrackers, but at least there are some casual once a year people watching those broadcasts. During the course of the year, however, the only people tuned in watching horse racing channels are bettors or horseman. I have to ask, who do they think they are talking to? “Are you talking to me?”
The other day on one of the racing networks the subject of the pick 6 came up and how some people prefer the $2 version as opposed to the 20 cent jackpot version. The analyst said, "well they could always play it for $2 if they prefer that." The other analyst agreed. Neither bothered to discuss the ramifications of that advice or solution or what is involved in it. Theoretically, you could do this, but the gripe is based more towards the jackpot format than the denomination although it is a factor. That part of it was ignored.
Another day an analyst was discussing a carryover in a multi race wager. The pool had climbed obviously in increments to just over 700K. The analyst said the pool goes up to 700K in one flash. That’s a deceptive statement geared towards someone who has no clue what’s going on. “You talkin to me?” Well, we’re the ones watching and listening so who are you talking to? They then go on to state once the pool hit a cool million that for 50 cents you are playing for a life-changing million dollars. Come on, seriously. You probably have about the same chance of hitting power ball as you do of hitting the only ticket on a 50 cent play in a multi race wager with a large carryover. You can’t be talking to me so who are you talking to?
For some reason, ADW’s and racetracks love to push and focus on multi race wagers. Pick 3’s 4’s and 5’s is all you hear. Very little about win, exactas, triples or superfectas. I guess they forgot those wagers generate more churn thus handle. All day long another multi race wager is starting. Are they talking to you?
This was a classic also. Truly an all time social media racing moment. A high profile guy attacks a tout for selling their picks. He points out anyone who picks winners doesn’t sell picks. He blasts all who sell picks and identifies touts as ones who charge. Hey, it’s their opinion, and they are entitled to it. Shortly thereafter this same industry person plugs a tout and their picks. Interesting. It gets better. This same person then offers to sell their picks because they are that good and offers a money back guarantee if no positive ROI is reached by playing. Well, we know how this book ends. No positive ROI and guarantee canceled. Nonetheless, the tout basher is, last I heard, a full-blown tout. Who are they talking to?
The other day an announcer called a $6,250 claimer who went out in 22,45 under pressure as not having gone that fast. What? "Are you talking to me?" Idiot, I singled the horse in a multi race wager, and I knew I was cooked turning for home, and he had opened about 5. Nailed of course. Not that fast.
What I am trying to illustrate here is part of a bigger picture. There are so many more examples of our industry just disconnecting with their core customer, the gambler. People following racing coverage don’t want to be spoken too like they don’t have a clue by people who make it sound like they don’t have a clue, and I don’t know maybe some of them don’t, but some do. Those that do should act accordingly in my opinion as it would make the coverage all the better for who matters, their gambler customers.
December 27, 2018
Success or Failure
By: Jonathan Stettin
The Pegasus and the unique purse structure it carries with it have only been around a few years. Thus far, I have been to all the runnings, and I intend to go again this year. The race has received some criticism about the depth of quality in the fields, and the buy-in slot system of the purse. The cost of attending has also come under criticism. While I think the current purse system may at some point have to change, overall I have to call the race and concept a success.
Any big money race with a decent size field is good for the game. Racing is built around gambling and having to put up a nice chunk of cash to buy a slot in a race is a gamble on a whole different level for owner/investors. It allows for wheeling and dealing including sponsoring a horse and competing for the big prize. You can do this without actually having a horse of your own if you are willing to take a shot, buy a slot and then sell or share it with an owner who actually has a horse. Most who have tried this approach have lost some money thus far, but the race and concept are still in their very early stages or infancy.
One of the many goals of the race was to keep some of the top horses around a tad longer. I think most in the sport are in favor of that. The timing of the race allows horses to compete and still hurry off to make the breeding season. It worked for California Chrome, Gun Runner, and appears it will for Accelerate as well. City of Light is also scheduled to run giving us two Breeders’ Cup winners competing against each other. I find that tough to knock.
Despite the hefty purse the race never garnered much international interest. Being run on dirt in late January likely has a lot to do with that, but this year Mexican Triple Crown winner and champion Kukulcan is scheduled to run. The addition of a turf race to go with the dirt edition will be unveiled this year. If it continues, the Europeans and others will start looking at it as an option. Big money will bring big horses even with this unique structure. For the Stronach Group it is a win as long as it lasts, as they are hosting a major purse race and not footing the whole bill.
Gulfstream is a beautiful venue. Unfortunately, it is just too small to host a Breeders’ Cup although it would be an ideal location. The high prices of the Pegasus have kept crowd size very comfortable so far. You can pretty much wager late and move comfortably around the facility taking in the horses without being too cramped. This is good but they do have to figure out a way to get the every day two dollar bettors in the door also. Maybe free entry vouchers or something to regulate Gulfstream attendees. That would be a nice and welcomed thank you.
The Pegasus is the last race on the card laden with supporting stakes. It anchors the late pick 4,5, and of course the Rainbow Pick 6. Last year Gun Runner won as the favorite, but the multi-race wagers paid well. There will be a lot of great wagering opportunities on the card, and you can count on decent field sizes and generous pools.
In the inaugural running Arrogate in the midst of his powerful string of races beat California Chrome so in only two years the race has quickly developed a little history. With two Breeders’ Cup winners squaring off with a Mexican champ thrown in we should have an interesting running again.
Gulfstream is and has been a speed favoring racetrack. Because of that mile and an eighth horses can get the Pegasus distance of a mile and a quarter over it. That will help City of Light the Breeders’ Cup Mile winner against Classic winner Accelerate. He might not have as good a chance over some other racing strips.
Remaining cognizant the whole purse system may change, thus far I have to call the Pegasus a win or success for the sport. I am looking forward to another strong running. I think we will see one.
HIGH FIVE: Racing is finally going to digital tattooing. Better late than never. Luis Contreras a nice 1000 win milestone.
LOW FIVE: It is the Holidays. Everyone gets a pass. I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!
December 14, 2018
The Feature Race
Plus my take on the Horse of the Year debate and Santa Anita’s new wager
By: Jonathan Stettin
At the very least, on just about every weekend day of racing the “major” racetracks had a feature race. This was almost always a stake, often a graded stake, and was carded towards the end of the program. In New York, way back when, it was the seventh race of nine but later on moved to the eighth of nine, or customarily the next to last race. This gave the racing fans, and bettors alike, something to look forward to.
Horse racing is a fantastic sport to view live. It is exciting, competitive and features both phenomenal equine and human athletes. The top horses and riders who competed at these high level meets developed strong followings and people came not only to wager but to see them compete.
Along with a changing and evolving world, the Sport of Kings has changed. The history and traditions of the game are evaporating or being brushed aside. I’m all for change for the better. For the worse not so much.
Today the feature races, for the most part, have been combined into what we now call super Saturdays. I was middle of the road on this concept as it developed. I was initially against moving the Metropolitan Mile from Memorial Day to Belmont Stakes Saturday. I’ll admit on the first Saturday they ran it that way I loved the card and thought I saw the light. I was wrong.
While these super days are great when we run them, they leave a sour wake for days and even weeks to follow. The Sunday feature, often a stake, is now usually an optional claiming race if we are lucky. For example, last Sunday three major tracks ran the following feature races:
Aqueduct, a starter allowance race for horses who previously ran for a claiming price of $16,000.
Gulfstream Park- Claiming $16,000 and have never won three races.
Los Alamitos- California breds which have never won three races other than maiden, claiming, or starter, or which have never won two races or a claiming price of $20,000.
Obviously, racing secretaries have to get creative to fill races. Back in the day conditioned allowance races would fill without all these innovations to the condition book. Today we have to accept these newer types of races, but do we really have to cram the stakes into the big days and leave a void for up to weeks following? Is this the way to get people coming to the races, or have tracks folded their hands? Many may not mind the lack of a stake most days. However, I think history shows the interest and excitement they generate, and that spacing out as opposed to cramming it in looks more like a recipe for growth. The competition and athletes are our strengths, we need to show them off more not less, and stakes do that.
So there is a horse of the year debate. I think the Eclipse awards have lost luster and significance due to some shall we say, weak voting. Nonetheless, people are talking and voicing their opinions. It comes down to Justify and Accelerate. I found it on the border of silly when Bob Baffert and John Sadler were interviewed about whom they thought deserved it. Seriously. Bob likes Justify, and John likes Accelerate. What a surprise. Did we really have to ask that?
I am with Bob on this one. John Sadler brought out a great point in that Accelerate was good enough to get him his first Breeders’ Cup in over 40 tries, but that isn’t enough. Accelerate had a great year, a championship year for sure. I’m not arguing who I think would handle who on the racetrack. That’s a different discussion and will always be subjective. The Triple Crown is one of the toughest things in all sports to accomplish, not just the Sport of Kings but all of sports. Add doing so without racing at two, which broke a very old streak that goes back to Apollo, and you have to give the nod to Justify. Historically, there are so few Triple Crown winners for a very good reason. Sadler did a fantastic job and plotted a great course, and they executed beautifully. They just did it in a Triple Crown year. History is history. Sure Justify retired sooner than we would have liked. He still won the Triple Crown. It was but a few years back when all the talk was to change the sequence, it is too hard. We won’t see another one. It is hard indeed. Horse of the Year hard.
Santa Anita has come up with a new Roulette wager. Kudos for trying but this sounds like a silly bet to me. Apparently, they will group horses into three color categories, red, black, and green. You bet a separate win pool on the color and thus the horses in that group, and if one of those wins so do you. We’ll see I guess.
December 10, 2018
Nobody is Listening
By: Jonathan Stettin
We have all heard that old silly question about if a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound? That is what the recently concluded Global Symposium on Racing reminds me of. Salud to Pat Cummings, Steve Byk, and some others for accurately pointing out some of the issues plaguing the Sport of Kings but all due respect given, identifying the problems has never been the issue. Dealing with and eradicating them has. I don’t see where having even a thousand symposiums will help if nobody is listening — nobody who calls any shots anyway.
Several issues are hurting the game that can literally be fixed by post time today if we had the right shot callers. For example, how difficult is it to stagger post times between racetracks? It is not hard, I assure you but you need people who care enough about their customer to do something more than check the direct deposit of their paychecks. Unfortunately, we have way too many of those just galloping out to the finish not even knowing where the finish may be. Remember objects in the mirror may be closer than you think. Although I did not attend the symposium, I did follow what was discussed as best I could and also tried to gauge who was listening, and more importantly who was responding. It would appear nobody is listening.
One of the obstacles not related to blatant mismanagement and a lack of caring about and knowing your customer is racetrack ownership and governing bodies. Racetracks are owned for the most part by different entities and operate in different states. This enables multiple jurisdictions and sets of laws and rules that govern the game. It is difficult to get people on the same page, especially when they have different goals and interests. Somehow all the racetracks must be brought under the same umbrella to see meaningful changes.
Today, we have racetracks scrambling to posture themselves to the reality of having to find other revenue sources to survive. Slots or “racinos” are the low hanging fruit. Sports bettors are also a focus. Looking past that what do you think happens when tracks tap into those streams to the point where they support a diluted weakening product. Everyone has read that book and knows the ending.
D. Wayne Lukas made a statement recently validating what many of us know. Far too many people in the game don’t know, or worse don’t even care who butters their bread. Wayne stated that racing is not fueled by gambling. That is just plain wrong. Without betting they would run for blue ribbons. How long do you think that would last?
Racing has operated for years like they were the only game in town, and in some cases they were. Not so today. The gambler has many options. Many of those options are games of skill and not chance. Poker, blackjack, chess, backgammon, and others are as much, if not more, games of skill than horse racing and are played for big money with a far more equal and controlled playing field. There are many other options as well. Craps, roulette, slots, and of course sports to name a few. More and more bettors are literally being driven to these options by the very racetracks they have frequented. Shun your gambler customers enough they will go elsewhere.
Look at it like this. The game cannot survive without the bettor, but the bettor can indeed survive and continue to bet without the game. It is simple really. Who needs who more?
Wayne’s comment is consistent with what seems to be the thought process of most of the racetrack management, with a few welcome exceptions. Oaklawn Park despite their growing casino operation applauds the bettor and racing alike. Keeneland does it, and so do a select few other venues. The problem is more and more focus strictly on the off-track handle and other revenue sources and cringe at the thought the gambler is their core customer and driving force of the sport. Once, or rather, if these tracks are successful in transitioning to multiple option gambling houses, things will become much worse for both the horse and horseplayers.
If you think the added revenue will go towards improving the game, I’d suggest looking at past performances. This is horse racing and you are a bettor so you will have to buy them.
November 26, 2018
An end of the year look at the Sport of Kings from Past the Wire
By: Jonathan Stettin
As the end of the year approaches, you’d think racing fans and bettors would be focused on the positives we’ve seen on the racetrack the past 11 months. We’ve definitely had our share of performances that would be considered outstanding in any era. Enable takes the Arc and Breeders’ Cup Turf. Justify takes the coveted Triple Crown. Accelerate has a championship caliber older horse year. Monomoy Girl almost runs the table capped by a win verse older in the Breeders’ Cup Distaff. Obviously, the game can still produce. Maybe not on a Wednesday afternoon but all in all we have had some good racing.
While some are appreciative and focused on these performances, the majority of fans, as reflected by my observations primarily on social media and when I go to the track and talk to people, is consumed with negativity. Most of it is well founded and unfortunately, it invades the space of the equine stars and achievements this game was built on.
Let’s start with something I have been talking about and writing about for about for four years now. Stewards and their lack of accountability to bettors, owners, and trainers. Stewards make decisions that affect our money. We have no input in those decisions and they are made at times without even the courtesy of an explanation. Case in point this past weekend at Churchill Downs. We all saw the double disqualification resulting in a large carryover in the jackpot pick 6 wager. Right or wrong call is not the issue for me. That’s way too subjective and we will come back to that. The issue at least for me is twofold. First, it is not a consistent call with other similar occurrences. We have all seen horses stay up for more of a foul and come down for less of a foul. That’s a problem. Second, there is no clear-cut reasoning and explanation provided to the people whose bank accounts were affected. No accountability whatsoever. No review process. No appeal or at least true appeal process. Nothing. Just take it on the chin. That doesn’t work for me and it shouldn’t for you either.
An underlying problem to these types of calls is perception, and we already have enough of a problem with that. We all know history repeats. If history has taught us anything it is where there can be corruption there likely will be corruption. Does anything corrupt more than money? I don’t know. Maybe sex. Maybe power. Perhaps something else, but money is on any worthwhile top ten list of corruption factors. There was a decent amount of money at stake based on that iffy call. The first two finishers both of whom would have triggered the pool being paid out were disqualified. The third finisher who was declared the official winner carried the pool over, which generated a whole new day of revenue fueled by jackpot chasing. Perception. This is why a clear transparent explanation immediately following the call was an absolute necessity. No ands, ifs, or buts. I have yet to see one of it was provided.
Now I don’t believe, nor am I suggesting, the carryover came into play in this decision. I’d like to think that was no factor at all. However, we know anything is possible and if some years ago I told you people were betting pick 6’s after three or four races had been run even on days like the Breeders’ Cup you’d have probably called me crazy. If you care about your customer, which like it or not is the bettor, or gambler, provide them what you owe them. A clear, understandable transparent explanation of what you decided because it affects their money as much as your employers. You owe them that, every single one of them.
The steward problem is ongoing with no real end in sight. The Thoroughbred Idea Foundation, which I think is a benefit and great concept, tried to bring some light on this issue. I think they missed the boat. I suspect, but admittedly have not confirmed, the majority of their feedback and “ideas” come from industry people and not necessarily bettors. Too many people in this game lose sight of who stops the horses from running for blue ribbons which would end the sport. Too many people forget the customer is the bettor. The gambler. The bettors and owners are the only two groups putting money in the game while everyone else takes it out. The owners have a small voice sporting an agenda which benefit them. The bettors have no voice. None. Most of the people who decide what they want, or what’s best for them probably don’t bet or are maybe two dollar bettors. A long-term recipe for failure.
The Thoroughbred Idea Foundation proposes going from one system governing stewards decisions to another they think will make things easier, clearer and fairer. Respectfully, I disagree. Currently, the US and Canada use the category 2 system to adjudicate races. The Thoroughbred Idea Foundation suggests switching to category 1. Sounds like an old Chinese restaurant menu to me.
Category 2, our current system:
Rules provide that if the interferer is guilty of causing interference and such interference has affected the result of the race, then the interferer is placed behind the sufferer irrespective of whether the sufferer would have finished in front of the interferer had the incident(s) not occurred.
Category 1 which they propose switching to:
If in the opinion of the Staging Authority’s relevant judicial body, a horse or its rider causes interference and finishes in front of the horse interfered with but irrespective of the incident(s) the sufferer would not have finished ahead of the horse causing the interference, the judge’s placings will remain unaltered.
While the proposed change would likely cut down on disqualifications it would not change perception when results are changed, and more importantly, it would not get rid of subjectivity amongst stewards, and that is where the problem lies most times. We can argue whether a horse would have finished better if not for an incident all day long. We can debate about a placing being affected forever. These talks have led nowhere and caused the current dissension. We can’t agree on what if’s. We can agree on what constitutes a foul and what doesn’t.
There was a time in racing when a foul was a foul, and it resulted in a disqualification. Too many people started arguing but it didn’t affect the outcome, and that led to the subjective rules being implemented almost across the board. This put discretion into the hands of stewards with no accountability. It sounded great but doesn’t really work, does it? Today, herding out of the gate is practically allowed if not confined. Back before the subjective rules were put in place you came down if you fouled another horse out of the gate even if you won by 10. When the inquiry light went on, and you saw the head on you knew what was coming. Today, it is anyone’s guess and would remain anyone’s guess under the Foundations proposed change. Guess what, there was also way less herding back then.
Basically, there are two solutions fair to bettors. One is to have a clearly defined set of rules for s racetracks that explain precisely what constitutes a foul. If you commit one, you are down. Simple as that. All fouls affect outcomes or have the potential too. It’s just too subjective to leave that in the hands of people who can’t agree and see the same thing differently. If you think Bayern didn’t knock the wind out of Shared Belief and that having your wind knocked out before immediately running a mile and a quarter didn’t impact the race…….never mind. Some things are better left unsaid.
The other option which is used successfully in other jurisdictions is to harshly penalize the riders and connections with steep fines and suspensions and purse revocations but not alter the finish penalizing innocent bettors who got it right. If the fines and penalties are stiff enough fouls are indeed minimized and the opportunities for cheating are mitigated. Nothing, and I do mean nothing eliminates all cheating when money is at stake.
From a humanitarian standpoint, aftercare and horse slaughter are the two most troublesome issues the industry faces — both equally problematic. We have made great strides in aftercare. We have rehoming efforts, second careers and adoption programs. All of these things mean we are moving in the right direction. The problem here is, as is in any animal rescue situation, there are just too many to save. We can never get them all, and there is never enough money or people to help every horse. This fuels slaughter. Most accept this as the natural order of things. I don’t. Not in our game. Remember this is the Sport of Kings or so we are called. The richest and most influential people in the world play this game predicated on yes gambling. Why should there be any money problem? We have owners spending millions on horses who may not be able to out run a Shetland Pony and gamblers betting thousands and even millions in some cases every year.
I for one have no issue and am all for a piece of every dollar I wager, or anyone wagers going towards aftercare. I extend that sentiment to a piece of every dollar spent at the sales going towards aftercare. If we care more, it will cut into the horrendous slaughter numbers we don’t talk about at victory parties. We don’t talk about it, but most of us know that salespeople make commissions buying, selling and every which way they can. A piece of those dollars should go in the pot as well. While many of us love and revere these fine animals it is overdue the industry as a whole begins to.
Slaughter is a deeper rooted and more complex problem. The injured horses and those whose only crime was not being fast or brave enough to compete have become a depended upon food source, which in turn is an ugly convenience for our industry. Never mind the greed and heartlessness of the kill pen operations, this is a real problem. It can only be addressed from within. We need strict regulations on breeding or should I say over-breeding and stricter regulations that are enforced when horses are retired. Owners must be held accountable for where their horses wind up, but the industry must also provide a road that is attainable to prevent these horses going to kill pens. Even humane euthanasia would be better than what we have, as much as that pains me to say but that’s not the answer. It comes down to properly funded programs regulated by the industry. Takeout has to do more than pay lofty salaries and put on the show. The show does NOT end after the last race.
With the end of greyhound racing in Florida, people fear horse racing could be next. If that happens the industry has no one to blame but those who run it. Not PETA, not politicians, not the changing times. Just themselves. Change perception and clean up the yard or your neighbor's will, and they’ll just throw everything away.
It is kind of comical when some media member writes how everything is great, "just look at the handle." That makes me chuckle. You hear every meet the handle broke the record, but you can fire a cannon in most tracks on a weekday and not hit a soul. Now I get most action comes from ADW’s and off-track, but we are a spectator sport. Racing is exciting to watch and exhilarating to watch live. Tracks used to be a fun place to go where you saw the same people for years. I don’t know where these handle figures come from, but they are on the internet so they must be accurate. Racetracks have to get people to come back out. Not all these new people they can’t find or even identify, the old people, their customers. The bettors. The gamblers. That’s where your bread is buttered, not by the fan who overpays for a ticket, parking space and cup of coffee once a year and maybe bets $20. They don’t matter in the long run. The bettor does. Take care of them with a seat, racing form, and a cup of coffee. They’ll repay you tenfold.
I am against raceday medication — all of it. That said, I see the true benefits for horses who truly need therapeutic medications like Lasix. The problem becomes, do 98% of horses bleed and need Lasix? We have trainers saying, on the one hand, you can’t compete without it, and on the other hand it doesn’t enhance performance, mask any other drugs or speed up and clean out a horses metabolism. Which is it? If you really want to know, pick up a form and read the past performances. The answer is there. You can also look at the careers and longevity of horses who ran in New York prior to Lasix being allowed.
Getting a horse on Lasix is as easy as telling your Vet hey he worked a little slower today, I think he might have bled a little. Done, he’s on Lasix. We ruin things for ourselves. Illegal drugs are a whole different and worse story. We penalize people like Bill Mott, and allow what we see to go on daily like it is not even happening. Remember that yard thing, if you let it get bad enough your neighbor decides to do it everything gets tossed. Including you.
While we talk about attracting new fans and retaining ones we already have, we have front people for major circuits that have not been explained the concept of a thick skin while in a spotlighted position. They are fast to block people who simply disagree on social media, or even worse attack and condescend toward anyone who criticizes. That’s eroded to a threat of having people banned from racetracks we are trying to attract them to. Seriously, how is that ok? A prerequisite should be these front people have to be engaging towards people. They need to be easy to like. I can’t even watch without muting some track feeds anymore.
So yes indeed the racing has been great on most of the big days. I don’t think we could ask for more there. The other days despite over breeding we have field shortages. We have tracks closing. We have more problems than solutions. Horses being abandoned and slaughtered. Drugs rampant. We have management totally disconnected from their core customers. But, everything is great. I read it on the internet.
“You either understand, or you don’t understand.”
HIGH FIVE: Tell me who deserves it.
LOW FIVE: NYRA, why are you carding all these grass races now? Stronach Group. Holiday firings always get a low five. Timing is everything.