Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer
For some reason fans give ownership a million EXCUSES. The truth is that ownership is doing a lousy job. Don't make excuses for them. It's a lie that they can't roundup allowance level horses to at least get the number of entries up to 8. They just are not good at rounding up extra horses for these events. They aren't good at it. They do not set it as a priority.
The big owners are HAPPY with some easy grade I's.
I don't want to hear how hard it is to get hroses to run for a hundred thousand dollars.
Plain and simple the ownership sucks at rounding up extra allowance horses to fill out these cards. They do not understand the importance of at least 8 horses.
|
What is the basis for saying this, and what exactly do you propose is the solution to the problem?? There are many things that go into this. Some examples are too many tracks running at the same time; and in this era of the high-profile, mega-stables with outfits in numerous jurisdictions, there just aren't that many allowance horses to go around in each jurisdiction (but the racing industry as a whole can't limit the number of horses of trainers has, even if, as I believe, it would be a good thing that would likely increase field size).
It's hard to say that the tracks don't get it. Look at what NYRA just did with purse supplements for added betting interests in distance races. Maryland has tried "full field" supplements. Almost every track is focused on average field size.
I usually read the comments about how we have too many state-bred races, but aren't they the ones with full fields. Do the tracks always do a "perfect" job at writing a card? No, but the fact is that the tracks can't win no matter what they do: either have full fields with cheaper horses, and people complain about the quality of the racing, or card higher level races with smaller fields, and then people complain about the number of betting interests.