"Spaced" Races And "Fresh" Horses Are Killing The Sport

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

My final words before departing on my secret mission ...

• We can agree that just about all trainers want to win the Kentucky Derby ... and eagerly seek to find and prepare a colt for that objective. And yet ... look at the absolute joke that most recent Kentucky Derbies have been. At best there has been one ... and if we realy stretch it, two ... horses out of fields of 20 ... who were fit enough to make a decent effort there. In several years ... none ... not a single one ... was fit enough to go 10f on the first Saturday in May. Can you say Giacomo? And how did utter mediocrities like Funny Cide, War Emblem, and Charismatic get into a position to win the Triple Crown? Where were all their superbly-conditioned opponents? What does this say about today's training methods?

• In any case ... the subject of this thread was how "spaced" races are killing the sport at the G1 level. And that, my friends, is undeniable. Here we all are waiting, and waiting, and waiting for something intersting to happen ... and this in fact is a rare year when there are several exceptionally talented colts and horses in training. Bernardini may well be the best colt since Spectacular Bid ... but go down to your local mall and ask ten people at random who Bernardini is.

Whether or not "spacing" is a good or bad way to condition race horses ... and I think the evidence is overwhelming that it's bad ... very bad ... it's affect on building a future fan base is undeniable ...

... it's a disaster.

Most horseplayers are much more excited about when a horse on their "watch list" is going to run, than when Bernardini is going to run. I'm not going to make any money betting on a 2-5 shot. It's nice to have fans like you but the sport doesn't make money from fans like you since you are not a bettor. The sport needs more bettors, not fans who don't bet.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Most horseplayers are much more excited about when a horse on their "watch list" is going to run, than when Bernardini is going to run. I'm not going to make any money betting on a 2-5 shot. It's nice to have fans like you but the sport doesn't make money from fans like you since you are not a bettor. The sport needs more bettors, not fans who don't bet.

I think the 2 are correlated. A good number of serious bettors get into the game by first becoming fans.

Also, if there were enough fans, TV deals could funnel more significant money into the industry.

--Dunbar

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Most horseplayers are much more excited about when a horse on their "watch list" is going to run, than when Bernardini is going to run. I'm not going to make any money betting on a 2-5 shot. It's nice to have fans like you but the sport doesn't make money from fans like you since you are not a bettor. The sport needs more bettors, not fans who don't bet.

I'm certainly more a fan than a bettor as I only bet around $2-3,000 a year. That may hardly be a blip on the radar of the tracks in terms of handle but when you have thousands of fans like me it certainly adds up. In my case the betting comes from being a fan of the game. If the game gets to the point where it no longer interests me then my betting will dwindle. This is part of the reason why it is important to cater to the fans as well as the bettors.

The other aspect is that the true bettors are looking to make money off their betting. Considering the large takeouts, the best way to beat the system is for there to be casual fans that go to the track and bet the horses that have no shot. Otherwise every horse is going to have realistic odds minus the takeout and isn't worth a bet. The more fans that are drawn to the track a couple times a year and are willing to blow $100 without really caring (like you see all the time in casinos) the better for the bettors.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

I'm certainly more a fan than a bettor as I only bet around $2-3,000 a year. That may hardly be a blip on the radar of the tracks in terms of handle but when you have thousands of fans like me it certainly adds up. In my case the betting comes from being a fan of the game. If the game gets to the point where it no longer interests me then my betting will dwindle. This is part of the reason why it is important to cater to the fans as well as the bettors.

The other aspect is that the true bettors are looking to make money off their betting. Considering the large takeouts, the best way to beat the system is for there to be casual fans that go to the track and bet the horses that have no shot. Otherwise every horse is going to have realistic odds minus the takeout and isn't worth a bet. The more fans that are drawn to the track a couple times a year and are willing to blow $100 without really caring (like you see all the time in casinos) the better for the bettors.

Yes, that's true. You guys make some good points. I was sort of thinking of fans like Bold Brooklynite that are long-term fans that don't bet. He is probably the exception to the rule. There are probably a lot of fans like yourself out there who do bet and who are more likely to go to the track if a superstar is running. Such fans may not be big bettors but every bit counts.

[Pedigree Ann]

This is my first post in this thread because I've been fighting a bug.

First thing I'd like to point out is that horses like Cigar (10 races at 4, 7 at 5) was racing only 10 years ago, not 20. It was not that long ago that we could count on seeing our champions run most of the year, coast to coast. Holy Bull (11 races at 3, last race in Sept). Silver Charm (7 at 3, 9 at 4, just 8 years ago). The trend has been downward for a couple of decades, but the "fresh horse" argument is quite a recent development. Winning a major stakes race without a prep race within 2-3 weeks was considered a training feat of no small merit, because your competition would be racing fit from such preps.

Secondly, the top horses of yore would run their more races in a much more concetrated period of time. After Saratoga, fall Belmont, and fall Aqueduct, the NY horses would get anywhere from 2 to 4 months off - 2, if they were running at Hialeah, 4 if they were coming back when Aqueuct (previously Jamaica) opened in March. Then they would run every couple of weeks (or more closely) until they got another break. Today, a horse may run as many races as a 3yo before the Derby as Secretariat did (3), but he did it in 6 weeks, not 3-4 months. There was no first-class racing in Southern California after Hollywood Park ended (Del Mar was a lesser meet then and the best stables went east for Saratoga and the big fall races) and Santa Anita started in December. The Australians still run this way, with their champions running every week or two thru Sept and October, then often taking a couple of months off (a 'spell') before returning after New Year's. IMHO, spacing races 6-8 weeks apart and doing it all year is harder on a horse than a campaign of races 2-3 weeks apart, with a rest period until the next campaign, so I am not surprised that such horses break down more.