Stronach reneges on SA surface change..

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by richard

I'm sure the vacuum will be filled. It's an opportunity for someone else.

The lack of trainers is not an issue, it is the lack of owners. Lots of CA owners will simply get out if their trainers leave or they grow tired of the bs in CA. Those guys are tough to replace.

List of ease of replacement in order of hardest to easiest
1. Real bettors (not the guy who plays $2 in the derby pool)
2. Owners (the reason they are number 2 instead of at least tied for number 1 is that at least they can get some enjoyment out of the social aspect of the sport while losing all their money)
3. Fans (breakdowns, etc. chase them away but most are suckers for a sob story )
4. Good Assistants/Ex riders - (they do grunt work, have terrible hours, get substandard pay and receive little glory and there are fewer and fewer qualified ones to be found every year)
5. Jockeys (In 2010 people are just plain larger overall and if the size issue wasnt so important they would fall down this list dramatically)
6. Trainers (while the standards for getting a license are awful low it is getting increasingly harder to find people to risk the amount of money trainers must to do business. Not to mention the increasingly complicated labor laws to deal with that simply dont take into consideration the dymanics of horseracing. However there will never be a shortage of trainers)
7. Grooms (the level of horsemanship has dropped dramatically over the last 20 years. If a guy shows up on a consistent basis, doesnt freebase crack and can put on a saddle, bridle and bandage they are considered good help. Sadly if they fail one of those three qualifications they are bad help but often still employable)
8. Racing Secretaries (They have been stripped of power in many places and the revolving door of changes at top level tracks like GP have reduced their importance. But there are still lots of eager lower level racing officials that would jump at an opportunity to get the top job)
9. TV Analysts (with a few notable exceptions many of these people are simply not qualified of have a opinion to be shared as "expertise" and are hurting the saps that listen to them as opposed to helping.
10. Announcers (It isnt an easy skill to acquire but i have never heard of an announcer shortage)
11. Racing executives (Magna=revolving door)
12. Jockey Agents (Would be ranked even lower but some of them bet way more than they should which is a net positive)
13. Bloodstock Agents (Has any one group stolen/robbed/chased away so many good/potential clients than these guys? Sure they all arent crooks but enough of them are to drop the whole group. There are no standards to be a bloodstock agent, you dont even have to be licensed)

[MISTERGEE]

word at Sant Anita-the horse will be running over this:

http://www.bevnet.com/images/reviews...rfree.copy.jpg

[alysheba4]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The lack of trainers is not an issue, it is the lack of owners. Lots of CA owners will simply get out if their trainers leave or they grow tired of the bs in CA. Those guys are tough to replace.

List of ease of replacement in order of hardest to easiest
1. Real bettors (not the guy who plays $2 in the derby pool)
2. Owners (the reason they are number 2 instead of at least tied for number 1 is that at least they can get some enjoyment out of the social aspect of the sport while losing all their money)
3. Fans (breakdowns, etc. chase them away but most are suckers for a sob story )
4. Good Assistants/Ex riders - (they do grunt work, have terrible hours, get substandard pay and receive little glory and there are fewer and fewer qualified ones to be found every year)
5. Jockeys (In 2010 people are just plain larger overall and if the size issue wasnt so important they would fall down this list dramatically)
6. Trainers (while the standards for getting a license are awful low it is getting increasingly harder to find people to risk the amount of money trainers must to do business. Not to mention the increasingly complicated labor laws to deal with that simply dont take into consideration the dymanics of horseracing. However there will never be a shortage of trainers)
7. Grooms (the level of horsemanship has dropped dramatically over the last 20 years. If a guy shows up on a consistent basis, doesnt freebase crack and can put on a saddle, bridle and bandage they are considered good help. Sadly if they fail one of those three qualifications they are bad help but often still employable)
8. Racing Secretaries (They have been stripped of power in many places and the revolving door of changes at top level tracks like GP have reduced their importance. But there are still lots of eager lower level racing officials that would jump at an opportunity to get the top job)
9. TV Analysts (with a few notable exceptions many of these people are simply not qualified of have a opinion to be shared as "expertise" and are hurting the saps that listen to them as opposed to helping.
10. Announcers (It isnt an easy skill to acquire but i have never heard of an announcer shortage)
11. Racing executives (Magna=revolving door)
12. Jockey Agents (Would be ranked even lower but some of them bet way more than they should which is a net positive)
13. Bloodstock Agents (Has any one group stolen/robbed/chased away so many good/potential clients than these guys? Sure they all arent crooks but enough of them are to drop the whole group. There are no standards to be a bloodstock agent, you dont even have to be licensed)

.......brutal, this sport is doomed

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The lack of trainers is not an issue, it is the lack of owners. Lots of CA owners will simply get out if their trainers leave or they grow tired of the bs in CA. Those guys are tough to replace.

List of ease of replacement in order of hardest to easiest
1. Real bettors (not the guy who plays $2 in the derby pool)
2. Owners (the reason they are number 2 instead of at least tied for number 1 is that at least they can get some enjoyment out of the social aspect of the sport while losing all their money)
3. Fans (breakdowns, etc. chase them away but most are suckers for a sob story )
4. Good Assistants/Ex riders - (they do grunt work, have terrible hours, get substandard pay and receive little glory and there are fewer and fewer qualified ones to be found every year)
5. Jockeys (In 2010 people are just plain larger overall and if the size issue wasnt so important they would fall down this list dramatically)
6. Trainers (while the standards for getting a license are awful low it is getting increasingly harder to find people to risk the amount of money trainers must to do business. Not to mention the increasingly complicated labor laws to deal with that simply dont take into consideration the dymanics of horseracing. However there will never be a shortage of trainers)
7. Grooms (the level of horsemanship has dropped dramatically over the last 20 years. If a guy shows up on a consistent basis, doesnt freebase crack and can put on a saddle, bridle and bandage they are considered good help. Sadly if they fail one of those three qualifications they are bad help but often still employable)
8. Racing Secretaries (They have been stripped of power in many places and the revolving door of changes at top level tracks like GP have reduced their importance. But there are still lots of eager lower level racing officials that would jump at an opportunity to get the top job)
9. TV Analysts (with a few notable exceptions many of these people are simply not qualified of have a opinion to be shared as "expertise" and are hurting the saps that listen to them as opposed to helping.
10. Announcers (It isnt an easy skill to acquire but i have never heard of an announcer shortage)
11. Racing executives (Magna=revolving door)
12. Jockey Agents (Would be ranked even lower but some of them bet way more than they should which is a net positive)
13. Bloodstock Agents (Has any one group stolen/robbed/chased away so many good/potential clients than these guys? Sure they all arent crooks but enough of them are to drop the whole group. There are no standards to be a bloodstock agent, you dont even have to be licensed)

I don't think it's a good sign ( for me) when I occupy spots 1-3 in that list

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The lack of trainers is not an issue, it is the lack of owners. Lots of CA owners will simply get out if their trainers leave or they grow tired of the bs in CA. Those guys are tough to replace.

List of ease of replacement in order of hardest to easiest
1. Real bettors (not the guy who plays $2 in the derby pool)
2. Owners (the reason they are number 2 instead of at least tied for number 1 is that at least they can get some enjoyment out of the social aspect of the sport while losing all their money)
3. Fans (breakdowns, etc. chase them away but most are suckers for a sob story )
4. Good Assistants/Ex riders - (they do grunt work, have terrible hours, get substandard pay and receive little glory and there are fewer and fewer qualified ones to be found every year)
5. Jockeys (In 2010 people are just plain larger overall and if the size issue wasnt so important they would fall down this list dramatically)
6. Trainers (while the standards for getting a license are awful low it is getting increasingly harder to find people to risk the amount of money trainers must to do business. Not to mention the increasingly complicated labor laws to deal with that simply dont take into consideration the dymanics of horseracing. However there will never be a shortage of trainers)
7. Grooms (the level of horsemanship has dropped dramatically over the last 20 years. If a guy shows up on a consistent basis, doesnt freebase crack and can put on a saddle, bridle and bandage they are considered good help. Sadly if they fail one of those three qualifications they are bad help but often still employable)
8. Racing Secretaries (They have been stripped of power in many places and the revolving door of changes at top level tracks like GP have reduced their importance. But there are still lots of eager lower level racing officials that would jump at an opportunity to get the top job)
9. TV Analysts (with a few notable exceptions many of these people are simply not qualified of have a opinion to be shared as "expertise" and are hurting the saps that listen to them as opposed to helping.
10. Announcers (It isnt an easy skill to acquire but i have never heard of an announcer shortage)
11. Racing executives (Magna=revolving door)
12. Jockey Agents (Would be ranked even lower but some of them bet way more than they should which is a net positive)
13. Bloodstock Agents (Has any one group stolen/robbed/chased away so many good/potential clients than these guys? Sure they all arent crooks but enough of them are to drop the whole group. There are no standards to be a bloodstock agent, you dont even have to be licensed)

Where do stoopers and 10 percenters fit on this list?

As for Santa Anita, they are going to be the permanent site starting in 2011 based on what Satish Sanan is saying without saying. Book it. And that is a phucking shame.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

She is in for a bit of culture shock

Hey! I grew up near there! Those are my people and... and... uh... you're absolutely right.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by johnny pinwheel

did they ever think of fixing the dirt surface? softer base, deeper cushion? instead, its a man-made piece of garbage!

I'm sure they have thought of that, but the reason, I would venture, that the CA dirt tracks were hard as rock is that, for all that these torrential rainstorms have been in the news, southern CA is a desert. That's the climate. Yes, a dirt track could be put in, but the cost of keeping it soft and deep will be quite a bit. The synthetic was an attempt to get what the Northeast gets without having to pay the difference for being in a different climate.

It's business- you try to get as much as you can and pay as little as you can. The horse owners aren't the track owners- it's not the track owner that loses money when the horse breaks down on the track and I doubt the horse owners are interested in paying for the track maintenance because it's not their property.

What sucks, of course, is that, as in most business-related things where risk is compared with cost, the biggest victims are the ones who don't have any say in the situation; in this case the horses.

So, the ongoing solution to find an inexpensive, easy solution goes on. And it reminds me of the old adage that there's cheap; there's fast; and there's good, and you can have two out of the three.

[asudevil]

13. Bloodstock Agents (Has any one group stolen/robbed/chased away so many good/potential clients than these guys? Sure they all arent crooks but enough of them are to drop the whole group. There are no standards to be a bloodstock agent, you dont even have to be licensed)[/quote]

This fact doesn't get exposed enough!! Flat out larceny most of the time.

[randallscott35]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The lack of trainers is not an issue, it is the lack of owners. Lots of CA owners will simply get out if their trainers leave or they grow tired of the bs in CA. Those guys are tough to replace.

List of ease of replacement in order of hardest to easiest
1. Real bettors (not the guy who plays $2 in the derby pool)
2. Owners (the reason they are number 2 instead of at least tied for number 1 is that at least they can get some enjoyment out of the social aspect of the sport while losing all their money)
3. Fans (breakdowns, etc. chase them away but most are suckers for a sob story )
4. Good Assistants/Ex riders - (they do grunt work, have terrible hours, get substandard pay and receive little glory and there are fewer and fewer qualified ones to be found every year)
5. Jockeys (In 2010 people are just plain larger overall and if the size issue wasnt so important they would fall down this list dramatically)
6. Trainers (while the standards for getting a license are awful low it is getting increasingly harder to find people to risk the amount of money trainers must to do business. Not to mention the increasingly complicated labor laws to deal with that simply dont take into consideration the dymanics of horseracing. However there will never be a shortage of trainers)
7. Grooms (the level of horsemanship has dropped dramatically over the last 20 years. If a guy shows up on a consistent basis, doesnt freebase crack and can put on a saddle, bridle and bandage they are considered good help. Sadly if they fail one of those three qualifications they are bad help but often still employable)
8. Racing Secretaries (They have been stripped of power in many places and the revolving door of changes at top level tracks like GP have reduced their importance. But there are still lots of eager lower level racing officials that would jump at an opportunity to get the top job)
9. TV Analysts (with a few notable exceptions many of these people are simply not qualified of have a opinion to be shared as "expertise" and are hurting the saps that listen to them as opposed to helping.
10. Announcers (It isnt an easy skill to acquire but i have never heard of an announcer shortage)
11. Racing executives (Magna=revolving door)
12. Jockey Agents (Would be ranked even lower but some of them bet way more than they should which is a net positive)
13. Bloodstock Agents (Has any one group stolen/robbed/chased away so many good/potential clients than these guys? Sure they all arent crooks but enough of them are to drop the whole group. There are no standards to be a bloodstock agent, you dont even have to be licensed)

I have a problem with #12. No one can replace Vic.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by philcski

Where do stoopers and 10 percenters fit on this list?

As for Santa Anita, they are going to be the permanent site starting in 2011 based on what Satish Sanan is saying without saying. Book it. And that is a phucking shame.

Nice job with Satish today, Phil

Very salient with a healthy dose of respect, but unfortunately seemed to fall on deaf ears

Hope that Haileah gets it's act together and writes a new chapter to this...

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Scav

California needs to start worrying about trainers completely jumping ship. O'Neil now has about 20 horses at Philly Park and Kristin Mulhall is the newest trainer to head east, to Penn National!

she is some scary talent

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by The Bid

The cost to keep the horses out there is ridiculous. The track is junk, the racing is mediocre. Who wouldn't want to head east?

Vic

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

[/b]

Nice job with Satish today, Phil

Very salient with a healthy dose of respect, but unfortunately seemed to fall on deaf ears

Hope that Haileah gets it's act together and writes a new chapter to this...

Thanks- last ditch effort to pitch keeping the rotational schedule. I agree that it fell on deaf ears though. It's a done deal on the permanent Santa Anita site.

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Why Santa Anita when Fairplex is available?

The Breeders Cup Turf can be run on the dirt - right?

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by 2Hot4TV

Hope is not a very good business plan.

Any type of new track is a better business plan than a track that closes every time it rains.

I personally would prefer a dirt track. I agree with Honu that the old dirt tracks here were terrible but I think a brand new dirt track would be just as safe as a brand new synthetic track.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by tector

The BC is not ever going back to SA without changes--you think they are going let their event risk a rainout, all for a surface which has proven a disaster for attracting top domestic talent?

The last two years were a horrible fluke which just about everybody regrets.

I've heard they're thinking on this is actually the opposite. They like having a synthetic surface for the BC because it attracts more of the top European horses. I guess they're more interested in top European talent than top domestic talent.

I personally don't like having a synthetic track for the BC.

[pmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by The Indomitable DrugS

Why Santa Anita when Fairplex is available?

The Breeders Cup Turf can be run on the dirt - right?

With a new dirt surface at SA and the right business model, I could live with it as the permanent home (and would go back to having a betting interest).

With the "dirt" races run over synthetic, I will continue to have no interest in the BC. Perhaps they could just have turf racing and the dirt and synthetic horses could compete in a swimming competition to level the playing field...

[Danzig]

at some point in the past, i looked at handle numbers. churchill far outweighs the other tracks when you compare bc's. why they'd have it at a permanent site other than in ky, i don't know. as for the bc in cali, for every euro you draw due to surface, you lose another due to the much warmer weather. add in the firmness of the turf track....you lose anyone who has a horse they don't want to run on syn, who prefers a track with cut in the ground. overall, you'd have to think ky would be the best choice if they're so determined to have one permanent host site.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Danzig

at some point in the past, i looked at handle numbers. churchill far outweighs the other tracks when you compare bc's. why they'd have it at a permanent site other than in ky, i don't know. as for the bc in cali, for every euro you draw due to surface, you lose another due to the much warmer weather. add in the firmness of the turf track....you lose anyone who has a horse they don't want to run on syn, who prefers a track with cut in the ground. overall, you'd have to think ky would be the best choice if they're so determined to have one permanent host site.

From a fan's perspective, and not taking into account the surface at all, there really is no better place to attend a BC than SA. The physical plant is designed well, the lines are the shortest of any BC that I know of, the infield is a great viewing alternative and you have the best chance for good weather that time of year outside of GP (where it never will go again) and LS ,where it probably will never go again. Yeah..it's a pain for the East Coast people to get to and that is why I still think a three way geographical rotation is best, but I do see the reasoning behind a single track hosting.

That being said...and I have been on the bottom of the poly hater list, but the need to have a dirt track for BC races is becoming more and more evident and to award SA the permanant rights if they keep an artificial surface is a slap in the face to the Bettor and the Breeders, Trainers and Owners of dirt horses.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by GBBob

From a fan's perspective, and not taking into account the surface at all, there really is no better place to attend a BC than SA. The physical plant is designed well, the lines are the shortest of any BC that I know of, the infield is a great viewing alternative and you have the best chance for good weather that time of year outside of GP (where it never will go again) and LS ,where it probably will never go again. Yeah..it's a pain for the East Coast people to get to and that is why I still think a three way geographical rotation is best, but I do see the reasoning behind a single track hosting.

That being said...and I have been on the bottom of the poly hater list, but the need to have a dirt track for BC races is becoming more and more evident and to award SA the permanant rights if they keep an artificial surface is a slap in the face to the Bettor and the Breeders, Trainers and Owners of dirt horses.

If you hate the BC then electing SA to host it permanently will be an awesome stroke of luck. Within a few short years the BC will fail and the racing will return to its roots, G1 races that feature horses competing against one another with key races being the benchmarks. Great dirt horses will point to the Fall Champsionship, great turfers will race at AP in the million and Secr. and order will be restored. That being said I really loved the BC and enjoy the racing immensely but I do see the damage it has done to racing and wonder if the industry wouldnt be better off without it?