What would you change?
 

If you could make one change, in any part of the industry, what would it be?

Not necessarily legal ( collusive ), but I would like to see a comprehensive change in simulcasting fees charged which would coincide with a massive takeout reduction for the major league tracks. This would eliminate rebates, return big players to host tracks thus increasing their bottom line, even out the parimutual playing field for all players, increase handle, thus increasing purses, improve the health of the strong racing establishments, expose and eliminate the barnicle racetracks, and make it easier to win.

Good for pretty much everyone.

Stop allowing the theft that occurs when a trainer works a 1st timer in 1:15,or 1:16,and then unleashes a grenade at 40-1.In other words,no unraced horses in p4,or p6 races.No more Dutrow preparing a 2 year old first timer by using breezing pedestrian works(and then unleashing a can't lose bullet at 7-1.) That is simple thievery.Stop this sht,and then worry about the drugs.

Tracks somehow coming up with the $$$$ to have multi-million $$$ reward plans for keeping TC race winners in training thru the Breeder's Cup. Like saying to the connections of Bernardini- "congrats on your Preakness win- if you stay in training thru the Breeder's Cup and win, we'll give you a 10 million dollar bonus".

You can say "well Bernardini did stay in training that long". But Smarty didn't Alex didn't. We gotta find a way to keep these true stars running longer to build up more of a fan base... give the casual fans reason to watch more. come up with the cash, and that might put off the breeding decisions for a lil longer

My one wish has the same goal, but different angle.

Regulate breeding so that no stallion is allowed to breed until he is 5 years old. No exceptions. If a horse is truly injured before that, let him feed happily on oats for a year or two before breeding him.

There is precedent for regulating breeding--the rules against artificial insemination, for example.

Now, with a rule in place like that, don't you think we'd have seen both Alex and Smarty as 4-yr-olds? Probably Bernardini, too.

--Dunbar

i disagree with dunbar. when the breeding business is down, horses stay on track longer. but no way you can force someone to race a horse, especially when insurance costs can become prohibitive. it's a business first and foremost. i'd love to see horses stay around to run at four, but you can't force that imo. all you can do is try to offer incentives to get owners to feel they have a chance at a reward large enough to merit the risk. a t.c. for older would be one way to do that.

my one change would be to have one regulatory body overseeing racing nationwide.

Danzig, you can't force owners to race them at 4, but if they can't breed 'em...

--Dunbar

i see no legit reason why a horse can't breed at four. the simple reason of forcing another year of racing isn't a legitimate reason to tell an owner a horse either is raced or benched. it's his horse. he foots all the bills, and takes all the risks.

also, live cover, rather than artificial insemination, protects the breed, and protects the integrity of breeding. banning a four year old from covering mares does neither.
i would have no problem in regulating the breeding of unsound horses, or bleeders, etc. that does have an impact on the breed.

I agree 100%. I think it is the single change that would do the most to save the sport. It would keep the top horses on the track longer and that is my biggest gripe with the sport. We'd have Bernardini, Henny Hughes, Aussie Rule, and Ivan Denisovich all coming back next year for starters.

The simulcast fees were considered found money when they first came about, but now, in hindsight, the fee rate is drastically out of whack. I agree, this is the best place to start.

Breeding is free market and trade enterprise and its so completely unrealistic to think that courts would uphold such an edict. It would be laughed out on the first challenge. You can't tell people what to do with their property. I understand the sentiment, but what would you suggest a guy with a horse who has been injured do if the hores has been injured at age two or three?

To give an answer to this question that is realistic and could actually be done, I'd find a way to get purses in graded stakes races raised to a level which would encourage and make it financially feasible to race horses on at older ages. In other words I think you guys are in the right church but the wrong pew. The reason people retire horses early these days is because the proportion of money you can race for and earn as compared to the money you can get in the shed is way out of whack. The insuranec alone on a great stallion prospect or broodmare is far more than they can earn racing another year after you pay expenses and the trainer and jockey 10% apiece. A horse that earns 3 million in one year really only nets his owner about 2.3 million after expenses. It simply makes no sense to race on these days.
How many horses earn 3 million a year? 1-5? Maybe? none? maybe?
If you made grade ones worth a minimum of 1 million, grade 2's a minimum of 500,000 and grade 3's a minimum of 250 grand, TRUST me people would be glad to race on!!!! You would still lose the 1-5 VERY best prospects and those who are injured, but the fringe very best horses would indeed race on with the lure of plenty of cash to go after. You'd also increase field sizes in thesegrade one events which have become like 4-6 horse harness races where they take single file order with uncontested paces. The "keepaway" from teh other good horses would end, for a million bucks a crack you could bet your ass that people would race in more spots.
You'd also see owners abandoning a specific 4 race campaign aimed at the BC. They'd race all year and say if we make the BC great, but if we don't thats ok as well.
It would also make more than 5 days a year "big days" at the racetrack. In addition people may start trying to breed a bit more towards the performance side instead of just the commercial side. The reason the breed has slipped so badly is that the robber barons of yesteryear used to breed to sell and RACE with equal interest. As a matter of fact many just bred to RACE. They chose matings and sires that weren't just an attempt to get a flashy worker in February at a 2YO in training sale, or to break their maiden in rocketship time in June going 5F.
The bottom line is that all the bitching and moaning about the game really boils down to the fact the economically it makes absolutely no sense for anyone to race on or race often with a good horse.

Thank you Mike... when people start realizing that there are people who try to make a living in the sport, and like anyone else in any other industry make the best financial decisions they can for themselves, maybe people will let up a slight tad on the breeding industry.

In this sport, its so HARD to break even, let alone make a good profit that when you get the chance with one animal, you take it, because that animal has to carry all your other ones who arent getting it done.

Yes, some connections have more money than God himself... but who can blame them for still treating the sport as a business? It is what it is. Its a vicious cycle that checks itsself every few years. Hell, thats the universal theme of economics. Do what your can while the market is hot so you can weather it when its not.

Suggesting a horse cant breed until 5 is like suggesting every horse that cant win a graded race shouldnt be bred. In theory it sounds good for the sport, but its an extremist attitude geared toward the fan and gambler, not the breeders who make their income on luck and chance.

create new races and designations for a turf sprint division, which would then include a race in the Breeders Cup

If what you say is true about the courts, then the artificial insemination ban would not have held up. Why not grab a bunch of Sunday Silence sperm and have another 100 years of Sunday Silence offspring? Wasn't that their property, too?

There are already regulations about what kind of horse can race in a thoroughbred race. Restricting it further to horses that are the offspring of 5-yr-old or older stallions isn't a huge leap of imagination.

As far as your last question, I already addressed that. An injured horse that has value as a breeding prospect can live happily for a year or 2 without being bred. Yes, the owners will have to wait a bit to collect the breeding dividend, and the dividend may be a little smaller with 1-2 years taken out of the breeding lifetime.

I agree with you that it is extremely unlikely we'll ever see this change take place. But it won't be the courts that stop it. It will be shortsightedness and fragmentation in the industry.

--Dunbar

I dont really know enough about the politics of AI to comment on it but do you have any idea how expensive it is to board a HEALTHY horse??? So now, you would suggest having owners pay that expense without any financial compensation for at least a year or two (noting that with a mare, you'd have to pay a stud fee and then wait almost another year while gestation was taking place... oh, and boarding fees increase when dealing with a pregnant mare/foal). Now adding insult to injury, literally, if your horse had mounting vet bills, you could add thousands a month to that already building bill.

I understand we all want to see talented horses continue racing until they're either past their prime, proven their mettle, or unfortunately get injured, but its not financially reasonable for MOST owners in the sport. Be a fan, be a vocal fan... but view the issue from every angle possible. You may change your tune slightly.

Well Sunday Silence is dead, so thats gonna throw a wrench into your idea there.
racing does not allow artificial insemination and the reason noone challenges it is because it single handedly wiped out all harness breeding farms and lowered the vlaue of all harness horses in miracle record time.
Breeders will never challenge that, lest their farms be worth pennies on the dollar.
YOu really have no idea whatyou are talking about. WHo would make the dteremination of how badly a horse is injured? Its all subjective and impossible to enforce. When trying to buy horses privately the lastest harsh stumbling block has become the new digital x rays which basically light up someting on each and evey horse you try and buy. Its a judgement call on what is and isn't unsound, and no way could yo just have a few vets(and who would they work for? Where would the power come from?) to go around and determine who is or isnt sound. Its a completely dumb idea anyway because owners would still just retire them, stand them overseas or in South America for two years or one year and then bring them back. It wouldn't change a damn thing, trust me it wouldnt.

How much do YOU have invested into this industry? Start telling owners that spent 10 million that they can't get back that money spent and you can count on lots of em just leaving. The only way they can it back under the current structure is in the shed. If you raised purses in stakes races all year long you would atleast give them SOME incentive to race on.
Why would someone choose to try and race on with a horse and try and win a million pre expense bucks next year, when they can stand him for 40 or 50 grand a whack and get back some of the money they have spent in this business?

I think most everyone who is a deep fan of the sport realizes the economics involved and they do view the issue from every angle possible, so don't try to talk down to all of us. Do you really think breeders and owners are looking at it from every angle? They can breed their beautiful babies all day long, but unless they are developing a reason for people to get excited for and head to the track, eventually they are no longer going to have a sport out there to make money in. Racing has existed for as long as it has because it was truly a sport. You can read all day long about people waxing poetic over horses of the past...but do you ever think anyone will be saying anything more than; "That Smarty Jones COULD HAVE been something great"? The biggest problem is the immediate satisfaction that people seek, but the long term picture for racing isn't looking so good right now.

We've lost the cyclic balance that once existed.

And how are they going to raise the purses if they are not throwing any incentitives to new or current fans?

I never said anything about it being legal but I don't see the legal implications being that difficult to get past. Why is it different from saying that yearlings can't race? Why is it different than the NBA requiring you be at least 20 years of age to play in the league? I understand that it is people's property we are dealing with so obviously you can't tell them they can't breed the horse but what is to prevent the jockey club from not recognizing horses bred to a stallion of less than 5 years of age?

As far as the horse that is injured at 2 or 3, I really don't think they are doing that much to help the bloodlines to begin with. They can still be bred at 5 but would have to wait a year or two to begin their stallion duties. I actually think that would have a positive impact on the sport as they would have to stand the test of time before being bred and might not be as big a market commodity when they can breed. It would also encourage people to try and breed a horse that will stay sound through their four year old season so they don't get stuck footing the bills for two years on an injured horse while waiting to stand it stud. Sucks for that owner but nowhere near as much as it does for the probable #1 pick of the NBA Draft as a 19 year old that can't go to the draft, is forced to play another year, and gets into a motorcycle crash like Jason Williams that effectively ends his career. The end result is if the owner can't afford to pay the insurance to race a horse at four or to wait two years to breed a horse that was injured at 2 they can always sell it to someone that can afford it.

Sniper,
how did they raise money for the BC and its fund?
You charge a nomination fee to the foals to participate in the added money to stakes races. The money raised in the fund is added to the purses in the graded races in top of what the track puts up, and horses who arent nominated to the program don'tget too compete for the added money, only the base purse by the track. Everyone would wanna nominate their foals to increase their sales and racing worth!!! The Bc has already done this successfully, why would it not work in what I am describing?

There are so many things wrong with the game....

I am in the minority who loves seeing 2yo maiden sprints loaded with debuters in a back-end of a P3 or a P4.

I don't think "insiders" have anywhere near the kind of edge in those races, that everyone else seems to think. And when they do have something, they still need to "have" the winner in the two or three other legs.

In my opinion, a sharp takeout reduction would be the first change I want to see.

I like your idea too. If they could get people to raise the money for it then I'm all for it but I'm a little skeptical that we could ever see purses like that from getting enough people to nominate. It worked with the BC but will it work again?

The problem is the people retiring horses most rapidly aren't the ones that need money. Bernardini, Henny Hughes, Aussie Rules, etc weren't retired because the purse money for racing was too low. They were retired because the owners are anxious to get that next big stallion. I don't see anything short of not allowing horses to stand stud until 5 preventing that from happening. And I fully recognize that there is zero chance of ever seeing that happen. However, if you put me in charge of racing for one day and allowed me to make one change that is the change I would make.

Drugs,
Obviously handle reduction is what i would MOST like to see, but I'm trying to be realistic, Some very well respected people have tried to explain to politicos that we need to do this and they always balk because they lack the caring and understanding of the issue. Its a very hard battle.

I know these might sound as if they are a number of changes and the thread asked for one but I'd just put it all under the heading of changing the 3yo season:

Reduce the Derby to 9f, keep the Preakness at 9.5f, and reduce the Belmont to 10f. We don't need a 12f Belmont anymore to see which 3yo's will be able to go on and compete against their elders at that distance in the fall since we no longer have 12f races in the fall.

Keep the Derby on the first Saturday in May, move the Preakness to the first Saturday in June, and move the Belmont to the Fourth of July.

Raise the purse of the Derby to $3 million. The Preakness purse would be $1 million if the Derby winner doesn't show up, $1.5 million if the Derby winner is there, $2 million if the Derby 1-2 are there, $2.5 million if the Derby 1-2-3 are there. The Belmont purse would be $1 million if neither TC race winner is there, $2 million if one is there, $2.5 million if both are there.

Bring back the TC bonus. Score it 10-5-3-1 for first through fourth so that way the winner of two races is guaranteed no worse than a split of the pot. Make a horse have to run in all three races to be eligible. Make the bonus $2 million. Have a $5 million bonus for a TC sweep.

Have all graded 3yo stakes after the TC include a purse upgrade of $100k if u get a horse that ran third in a TC race, $200k if u get a horse that ran second in a TC race, $500k if u get a TC race winner. Have that upgrade doubled if u get two such horses, tripled if u get three such horses.

hmm. Nothing as an owner or breeder. Countless hours as a fan and large amounts of both time and money as a bettor. It would be interesting to add up how much I've "invested" as a bettor.

I'm not sure deferring breeding for a year would have such a huge impact on owners that they would leave in droves. And I'm all for raising purses, but as you suggest yourself, it's not much incentive.

Absolutely no reason, unless they are not allowed to by regulation.

--Dunbar

I don't see the point in putting more money into the TC. That money would be much better served establishing a series of high purse races for older horses. You could run the Derby for $1 and you'd still have everyone building their racing calendar around it because of the prestige of the race.

Look, Im not agaisnt what you are saying in theory, but theory is not reality.
I just don't see it.

Triple Crown is overhyped as it is. The problem is the year between the TC and BC. Thats where we really miss the boat. Currently we build up 4 days, and not the other 361.

Damnit, Sniper! I hate it when somebody says what I'm trying to say so much better than I said it!

--Dunbar

Good, I agree with you there. IMO, the chance of this happening is close to nil. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be suggested at every opportunity. Stranger things have happened.

--Dunbar

I'd love to create a series of 12f dirt races at about $500k each and make them only available to horses 5yo and up and also create a BC race for them.

That would actually be the change I'd ask the Genie for.

I'd get rid of the Breeder's Cup and i'd detonate Laurel Park.

You can watch them with the Red Queen over tea.

The one thing I don't get is people's infactuation with playing slots. I'm appreciative of them of course, because they benefit horseracing...but why not bet racing instead? Mindlessly pulling a lever just doesn't seem very exciting.

Wasnt talking down, but when people dont have their own money invested, its real easy to run off at the mouth.

Breeders dont just breed "beautiful" babies. If you're breeding for the ring, then yes, conformation and appeal are important, but dont tell me any breeder is going into a mating thinking "I want him to be pretty and slow". Its ridiculous.

Remember this, every day your mare is alive, her value is depreciating from the moment she gives birth unless her foals are proving themselves on the track.

The real monetary gain for most breeders is in the first few foals out of a mare, before she's been proven a producer or a bust.

Regardless, some interesting suggestions, and some just REAL left field with no hope of becoming reality... but to each their own and all opinions SHOULD be heard.

Anyone that bets their money does have " their own money invested " and deserves a say. You, or I, may not agree with them, and can offer legitimate counter points, but the bettors have every right in the world to " run off at the mouth ". The disgraceful thing is the pomposity of some people to suggest they don't.