Would you call an industry who needs slots to save it a "steady business?"

That racing is hardly doing nothing in many cases. That some of the issues brought up like the ones involving the sales have already been dealt with through regulatory changes and state laws. That there needs to be a whole lot more clarification than to simply say "drugs". That there are customers that wont appreciate paying more for the product despite the pleas of Moss, Van Berg, and Jackson. That this is a far more complex issue because many of the "drugs" that are being talked about are useful medications that would not be an issue in a human sport yet are in ours. That this whole endeavor would cost a tremendous amount of money that the industry simply doesnt have? That there is no reason for anyone to believe that the Federal government will be any more effective in its oversight than the states currently are? That the great majority of people in the business are against horse slaughter yet see the issues that arise because of the ban of it.

I don't think any of the panelists demanded federal intervention. It sounded like all hoped the industry could ultimately do all of this itself.

I don't know that I'd use the Sales Integrity Task Force as an example of the industry doing a good job of cleaning up its own house. Have there been some improvements, yes. However, the industry continues to tolerate a whole lot of practices that would be, at best, questionable in almost any other line of business.

Check handle trends the last 10 years. They look pretty steady to me.

Slots are competition that has huge tax advantages that are relatively recent additions to the gambling landscape. Racing was doing fine even as it's taxes were increased because of the lack of competition. When casino's started to spread throughout the country racing was at a big disadvantage because it was already heavily taxed and regulated. The only gambling game in town now had a competitor that had huge built in advantages and racing's hands were tied. Racing's problem is that were slow to adopt slots and casinos to add to their gaming menu. The problem wasnt racing, it was the addition to the market of a competitor with a huge advantage. It is the same reason why Wal Marts eat up other businesses. It isnt necessarily the fault of the other businesses but unless they morph into something other than the same old business model they will disappear. I tend to think of it more in tose terms. You know Mc Donalds sells more than hamburgers now

ripping the great jack van berg.......wow:rolleyes:

Drugs have not weakened the breed. There is zero scientific evidence that this is so.

People are not at a disadvantage betting because of drugs. This is a silly agrument. It is a variable that cant be quantified. Unless you had some inside information that some undetectable drug was going to be used in a particular race you have no advantage either. I love it when i hear that a guy can tell who's horses are drugged and whose arent.

The betting angle should be to lower takeout and stop worrying about drugs. then you will have a better chance of winning.

So the status-quo is okay? Handle remains steady. But the status-quo, like you said, is dangerous...

There have been laws passed in KY and Fl that deal with many of these issues.

You are the one who inferred that business wasnt steady. Look past the headlines and examine the actual facts. Wouldnt adding slots be changing the staus quo?

As for the drugs issue, there have been more changes in the last 3 years than the previous 30. If that is not good enough for you...

1) So you do not buy the argument that the administration of legal and illegal drugs allows horses with genetic infirmities to prosper on the track, and then go on to careers at stud where they pass on those genetic infirmities to their offspring, who pass them on to their offspring, and so on?

2) Whether or not people are at a disadvantage because of drugs is 100% irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that the sport has such an awful image because of the cheating that goes on that people are hesitant to gamble on it. I know this for a fact, and I have numerous complusively gambling friends who wouldn't set foot in a racetrack because they believe they can't win. Maybe it is a variable that can't be quantified, but that doesn't make it a non-problem.

... and that don't deal with many other issues.

Let me put it this way. Would you want to hold up the integrity of the sales to an outsider as an example of how "clean" the business is?

I get guys calling me all the time to "invest" with them. Or invest in oil wells. Or other things. Who polices them? I never said that the sales were perfect and there are people with whom i wont do business with. But there have been reforms made so to say that there havent is wrong. How do you propose that the sales are cleaned up. I'm serious, i would like to hear your views.

1. No because I have never seen a "genetic" infimity. There is no unsoundness gene. Soundness or lack of it is caused usually by confirmation, sometimes due to other outside factors. There are so many facets to breeding horses that I am sometimes embarrased when supposedly knowledgeable people bring this up. There is no reason to believe that supposed "dependance" on a certain medication has anything to do with the ability of a sire to pass on such dependance. They will often pass on confirmation and physical flaws that have nothing to do with drugs.
2. The game has an image problem simply because it does a terrible job in the PR department. The truth is that any good Federal oversight will do in this area will be undone the first time a horse improves 20 beyer points and pays $22.00. The naysayers will be howling. It is just part of the deal

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here, nor what you're trying to defend. First you said the handle is steady, so all is a-okay. And then you said Wal-Mart is driving out other businesses, because they refused to change their business model, which contradicts the steady handle argument (which for the record, handle has dropped by since 2003, and it dropped since last year as well). And again, I'm not simply arguing drugs alone. Drugs are one in a long line of issues.

So if I'm following you right, aside from PR, everything in horse racing is peachy keen?

Where besides PR do you see a problem?

I tried to make an analogy to say what may happen in the big picture yet you want to argue semantics. What i am trying to say is that if we raise takeout to fund this drug war we will wind up losing more customers than we will gain. If we take money out of purses we will lose more owners than we will gain. Either way it is a net loss. I am arguing drugs because that is what was the topic. I didnt hear any talk about other issues today. Hell the drugs are simple compared to simulcasting, host fees, source fees, etc.

ATR with Steve today
 

Wow!! Is Steve pumped up today or what?! I believe he actually said the male organ word today!! :eek: Go Steve :D

I don't disagree. The take-out issues etc. all have repercussions, absolutely. But you have to take care of the core business model, because without it, everything else fails. Brushing these issues under the rug because of costs or other hoops, without fully investigating options, is nearsighted, which is all I'm saying.