Washington Post/George Will article..
 

I'm not sure I ever thought I would see the day that George Will wrote about horse racing, Illinois based at that, in an op-ed piece in the WAshington Post, but he did. This is a ruling that has huge ramifications for all parts of the Illinois, and to some degree, the national horse racing picture and I am obviously biased towards how I want the Supreme Court to rule, but Will is certainly of the opposite opinion.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...041002606.html

Hmm, interesting read.

I bet there is something in the licensing of the river boat casinos that required this, thus they were aware of the barriers of entry/cost of doing business. Will's analogy to a taking of money from Bill Gates/internet and giving it to newspapers is specious. The internet and newspapers have been around for some time now, this would be an entirely new taking, not a taking established at the time of inception and agreed upon in order to conduct business. Additionally, newspapers and the internet do not need to be licensed and then do not pay an additional "fee" to the state, above and beyond payroll taxes, real estate taxes, etc., to conduct their business while racing, and I assume, casions do.

How did George Will get onto this subject? Are the riverboat casinos complaining about the transfer of money? If so, it is as folks have been saying for awhile, casinos will not be the white knight for racing. Next you'll have the casino section of a racino balking at the transfer of money from the casion side to the racing side.

make them pay that was the idea all along..

Complaining is an understatement. When this bill originally passed approving the allocation of a percentage of certain(based on geographical proximatey to tracks) casinos profits to the tracks. This was many years ago. The casinos took it to the Illinois Supreme Court and actually won. But then the appellate court over ruled saying the original decision was wrong and ruled in the tracks favor. The casinos then appealed that and lost and now at their last resort, The US Supreme Court, who should rule in the next 60 days. Meanwhile, there is about $80 Million in an escrow awaiting distribution to all tracks....a percentage to the physical building and a percentage to purse funds...based on the Supreme Court denying the casino's appeal. Plus this law was extended another 3 years by a last minute signing by Blagojevich before he was hauled off to jail. That went over real well:rolleyes:

Will and the slimey new generation of gaming operators, have either forgotten or don't want to remember why racing is due their tithe... Racing did the heavy lifting, for 150 phucking years, for these gaming putzes. They're johnny-come-latelies to gambling in America.

I imagine it did not go over really well. It just makes horse racing look like a sleazy money grab. Hopefully the SC looks at the agreement that was signed and the ensuing agreements and tells them to pay up and then re-negotiate their license with the state.

Talk about negotiating in bad faith.

Will may have lost it. his latest is a long harangue against people who wear denim. i'm not joking.

that was one of the sticking points when they first put in the boats here and the casinos knew that from the beginning.

The horse tracks deserve their rightful portion, as it was agreed to when the casinos were built.

The casinos have probably spent the $80 Mil they owe the tracks in what they have paid lobbysists just to keep the tracks from getting slots. :zz:

You may be more right than you think.... also throw in the legal bills :eek:

Or the IL legislature can pass new laws allowing casinos at the tracks. Then all will be fair.

Tomorrow will be a piece on why those darn kids should get off his lawn.

Seriously, Will's a pompous gasbag who just makes things up when pesky things like facts contradict what he wants to believe.

Should boxing get a share of the UFC/MMA action as well?

It isn't the same. if UFC decided to have a few boxing matches they would be entirely within their rights to. If racetracks wanted to put in slots they arent allowed to. Apples and Oranges. Plus UFC is already fading...

Aren't casinos and racetracks apples and oranges as well? Could a casino put on horseraces if it wanted to?

I don't think the UFC could just decide to put on a boxing event, it isn't that easy. And why would they want to? Boxing is a dead sport, just as horseracing seems to be.

They are both in the gambling business. Simple really. If a casino applied for dates i'm sure they could hold horseraces.
Boxing isnt anymore dead than horseracing. And the UFC could just decide to hold boxing matches if they wanted to. Just have to get a license through the state commission. We could hold matches if we wanted to. And MMA seems to be a fad btw.

Looked at his biography. He was a 'town kid', the son of a professor of philosophy at the University of Illinois. He probably grew up looking down on the 'farm kids' who wore jeans into town as hopelessly ignorant bumpkins. (That even happened in small towns.) He sounds like he wants to preserve the ability to judge a person's place in the social hierarchy by their clothing; all those people in jeans! he can't tell if they are lumpen proletariat or computer geniuses. Oh horrors. Bet he hates for women to wear pants, too. Heaven forfend that women should actually be comfortable in their clothes.

He does like baseball

I think it was early/mid 90's and there was a revenue sharing agreement in place when they were built (memory wants to say 3% of revenue to be split between the state's horse tracks).

You know you are on to something. He also loves the Masters because as you probably know, It is a tradition like no other!

In 2006, supposedly to "address the negative impact that riverboat gaming has had" on Illinois horse racing, the legislature -- racing interests...

Why would the racing industry in Illinois take this route if there was a prior agreement? The Supreme Court will send it back. They wont take the case if there is a major flaw like a prior agreement that was not looked at. Will does not mention this... He clearly states that racing interests were using a negative impact arguement, I dont see where it says anything about a prior agreement.

Conflicting rulings by state courts demonstrate that that question is chaotically unsettled.

Apparently the agreement, whatever it is or was, has some type of flaw.
Or Will has missed something big time.
He usually does his homework.

I have always liked the guy despite the fact
that he has no clue how comfy my blue jeans
are. Even with my massive groin area. (Damn.
That was destined for the 3 words that describe
me thread)
Cat is out of the bag.
The Mighty Python has left his cage.

I apologize for my juvenile behavior.

there might have been a time limit on the original percentage that expired.

then let the games begin

He did a piece in February about climate change where he blatantly misinterpreted data and also stated that a research group said things they'd never said (i.e., made stuff up about them). Why? Because, I'm sure, the pesky facts didn't fit in with his opinion. When these mistakes were pointed out, neither he nor the Washington Post ever did a correction. If you enjoy him great, but I think op-ed columnists should do a bit more fact-checking if they're writing for a big publication. Will just doesn't bother and then when the mistakes are pointed out, doesn't fix them.

This wasn't a well-reasoned argument (the ed on racing) as it was only tangentially connected to his main complaint, which is eminent domain. I do think there are very good arguments to be made against seizing private property to give to other private hands (and for a lot of public reasons, for that matter), but I think, as "just compensation" is required for seizing of property, it's pretty clear that revenue doesn't fall under the kind of private property eminent domain addresses. He's seriously reaching by using racing getting casino revenues as his straw man because many people have a bad opinion of gambling anyway, so he's safe. Maybe I'm misreading his argument, but I don't think so.

And any man who is going to do a piece on the trashy classlessness of blue jeans is a pompous gasbag in my book. And he doesn't check his facts. Which doesn't make him a gasbag, but does make him a lazy writer.

Why anyone continues to think slots are the holy grail for racing it is beyond me... Slots destroy people, there damage costs way more to repair then the short term good.. Racing needs to fix its product based on what it can control not the alure of slot dollars.. IE Nerud message

Am I happy to race a horse at PID in a state bred Mdn Spl for 70k sure ,but I recognize that in 3 years all the bloom will be for the rose and folks will be broke and PID state breds will be racing for 27k again.. Its a shot in the arm for a few years and then you still have to deal with broke ass folks who were baited into losing they lives... Slots suck!

I agree: Slots are a stopgap measure at best. They are not a panacea. They also appeal to people who are not likely to become horseplayers no matter how much the game changes. The slot player does not want to think about their selections -- here's the extent of the experience: "-CLICK- -CLICK- -CLICK-" (repeat a couple of thousand times).

Unfortunately we are not capable of dumbing down the game enough to appeal to slot players -- and we should not try to do so. Aside from accessibility and marketing, a leadership post at the national level, and the ending of the intransigence of the state-based fiefdoms, there is not a lot that can be done about the game. A race will still take 20 minutes between starts, time that we handicappers put to good use, and it will always be difficult to figure out who's going to win, place or show, or complete exotics.

We horseplayers are in as unfortunate position as those who enjoy other intellectual pursuits -- we don't drive the market more than those who don't participate. Some of the best movies don't do well at the box office, making it less likely to see more of that caliber. Classical music stations do terrible in the ratings and advertising rates so they don't last forever.

The thing that really gets my goat is that racing (and to a similar extent, poker) need not be "negative expectation" games all the time. As we all know, sometimes the odds are higher than they should be on a horse, making him a good bet. This never happens at a casino table game, where odds are fixed to always be lower than true risk, and especially not at the slots, where the real risk numbers are often not even published!

The gambling public is actually being less well served by the casinos than the racetrack, where parimutuel betting is self equalizing over time, and provides a more interesting "market" for action, literally. Again, we all know this, but I try my best to advocate on racing's behalf to those friends of mine whom I know enjoy gambling and whom I also know are ignorant of racing's obvious advantages over casino gaming.

Circling back to the article and the situation here, all the Illinois Horseman, Tracks and Bettors are asking for is a level playing field with the "competition"...The tax laws and other incentives in Illinois greatly favor the riverboats and this was a measure to tip the scales back a bit.

Yeah I know but they don't serve and promote Crack in 10th grade Home Eck...Crack doesn't destroy lives either..

Ok Bob so basically its F'd up and we know it so now let's just make it fair and f'd up.. BTW the action on the boat in Elgin is fantastic...100x's odds and 100 to 10k on the BJ tables is awesome..

Remember once you suck tit it's hard to break the habit

I hate that freakin boat..never win there..but that's a different story..

Band aids serve a purpose too Freddy....although this is more like a full body cast

Less dates, less horses, less folks in the business.. There are too many horses and to little money to fund the industry.. Shouldn't the lottery kick to racing as well?

If you want to talk about the problems in racing, then that will overwhem this little thread...I think its pretty safe to say that the benefits awarded to the casino industry in Illinois far outweigh anything that the State run lottery gets..And I can buy all the lottery tickets I want at the track and they get a piece back in return.

Nobody ever wins there, nobody.

I'm positive the last 2 times I was in there (only play certain games though and play less since they took out most of the quarter video poker ones).

You're the greatest gambler of all time then

good word, i had to look it up

intransigence - 3 dictionary results Jump to: Synonyms | News | Nearby Words

in⋅tran⋅si⋅gent   /ɪnˈtrænsɪdʒənt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-tran-si-juhnt] Show IPA
–adjective 1. refusing to agree or compromise; uncompromising; inflexible.

–noun 2. a person who refuses to agree or compromise, as in politics.