Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cannon Shell
While agree that it would be nice if horses raced longer the idea that the game will somehow be revived if a few of the big horses run at 3 is just not true.
1st problem - The greater the chance of a popular horse having an untimely ending which does far more to hurt the game than one staying in training and running does to help it. Making anything mandatory will always make people make questionable decisions especially when so much money is involved. The truth is that I am sure that you can get a much lower insurance rate if a horse is not in training and some may retire and sit the year out anyway. Or run in the Dubai race then retire.
|
Good point about the risk of the untimely ending, but I don't agree with your conclusion. Anguish is part of the game. The Barbaro saga did nothing to hurt horseracing. Horseracing got more good press that year than any year in the past 20.
You may be right about some owners sitting out rather than paying higher insurance, but I'm skeptical of that.
Quote:
|
2nd Problem - Racing fans are going to watch the big events regardless. New fans may not know who the hell is running anyway. Beside a few big days a year, it is not like the horses will run much anyway. Racings problem is that it needs new fans that bet, not just new fans.
|
I'd certainly agree that keeping horses in training isn't going to single-handedly solve all the problems. But I do think a fan base is important, and it's not easy to have a fan base in a sport where the stars disappear as soon as they become familiar.
Quote:
|
3rd Problem - See recent campaigns of Funny Cide
|
Didn't Funny Cide bring fans and attention to Finger Lakes when he ran his swan song race? Of course it would have helped if Funny Cide had raced at his earlier level a la Kelso or John Henry. But even with his diminished talent, he was a popular draw.
Anyway, as always I appreciate and respect your thoughts.
--Dunbar