When does the $1,000,000 a day start at MTH?

[blackthroatedwind]

It's interesting to merge this discussion with the one also taking place about Arlington. According to that conversation, Arlington can't fill allowance races. How can they if Monmouth, with all this money to give away, struggles to do this as well.

The whole thing is a great eye opener as to why racing isn't as good ( everywhere ) as many think it should be.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

It's interesting to merge this discussion with the one also taking place about Arlington. According to that conversation, Arlington can't fill allowance races. How can they if Monmouth, with all this money to give away, struggles to do this as well.

The whole thing is a great eye opener as to why racing isn't as good ( everywhere ) as many think it should be.

is there a need for less tracks?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

is there a need for less tracks?

Maybe. But it's a complicated discussion. One of the problems with internet discussions, and I don't mean this as a criticism of yours, is that people tend to throw out declarations without any awareness or discussion of entire issues.

Right now there is a horse shortage, especially at the top, and this makes carding higher level racing near impossible regardless of how much money a track is willing to give away. Considering this situation, some tracks have done a remarkably good job of putting on as good a show as they do. Will contraction make things better or will it drive so many people out of the game that even with less racing these same problems exist? Is it only a " strong survive " situation? I don't necessarily think so, as there are a great deal of other factors, and one facet can't be ignored, or pushed aside, in an attempt to strengthen the other. How is the high end strengthened if it doesn't even exist?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Maybe. But it's a complicated discussion. One of the problems with internet discussions, and I don't mean this as a criticism of yours, is that people tend to throw out declarations without any awareness or discussion of entire issues.

Right now there is a horse shortage, especially at the top, and this makes carding higher level racing near impossible regardless of how much money a track is willing to give away. Considering this situation, some tracks have done a remarkably good job of putting on as good a show as they do. Will contraction make things better or will it drive so many people out of the game that even with less racing these same problems exist? Is it only a " strong survive " situation? I don't necessarily think so, as there are a great deal of other factors, and one facet can't be ignored, or pushed aside, in an attempt to strengthen the other. How is the high end strengthened if it doesn't even exist?

very valid point. When monmouth is only racing 3/4 days a week, and they still cant fill allowance races, especially with those purses, then there is a major problem.

How many higher level allowance horses do Goldophin and other oversea's racing stables buy from the US and send to Dubai? I know they've been doing this for many years now.. Is that depleting our stock or is it just a minor blip in the radar?

[blackthroatedwind]

It's not the reason but it might not be unfair to say it is a contributing factor. Don't forget, it's not just the horses they buy, but also the high quality broodmare band they have amassed, and their subsequent foals. They has definitely been a talent drain so to speak.

[Antitrust32]

or is it slots that are helping this problem? Now top level allowance horses can run at "lower level" tracks because the purses are the same. So it dilutes the competition too much because the owners/trainers are just entering in spots they think they'll win?? (not that I blame them)

Or the stakes horses these days are so bad, that a horse that really should be an allowance type are running in G3's??

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Maybe. But it's a complicated discussion. One of the problems with internet discussions, and I don't mean this as a criticism of yours, is that people tend to throw out declarations without any awareness or discussion of entire issues.

Right now there is a horse shortage, especially at the top, and this makes carding higher level racing near impossible regardless of how much money a track is willing to give away. Considering this situation, some tracks have done a remarkably good job of putting on as good a show as they do. Will contraction make things better or will it drive so many people out of the game that even with less racing these same problems exist? Is it only a " strong survive " situation? I don't necessarily think so, as there are a great deal of other factors, and one facet can't be ignored, or pushed aside, in an attempt to strengthen the other. How is the high end strengthened if it doesn't even exist?

One of the biggest problems that high end racing at the major tracks faces is the accumulation of the vast majority of the elite stock in a few barns. I know I have harped on this to no end but it is something that is never discussed (at least publicly) in any meeting or forum that talks about the problems of racing. I have no idea what the solution is (at least a realistic one) but I find it hard to believe that no one in the industry even thinks it worthy of discusion. A lot of horses that used to be allowance horses in NY (or NJ under these circumstances) are racing at Woodbine or CD or Delaware where their trainers maintain different divisions. So Todd Pletcher for example may have 6 nw1 sprint horses of varying ability. He will split his best two between a race at Bel and Mth, the other 4 will be raced at Delaware or CD or even a place like Woodbine. If the 6 horses were in training in NY with different trainers they would probably all run in NY with the horses that arent quite as good eventually dropping into higher priced claimers. The destruction of the mid to upper level claiming ranks is perhaps a greater tragedy than just the thinning of the allowance races. What those claiming races did was give the racing secretary good solid races every few weeks with familar horses running up and down the ladder as opposed to what they have to offer now like a 25000 nw2 6 furlongs on the turf race or worse.

Racing was a much better sport when there was a clear division among its tracks. And as the lines blurred because of slots purses and other alternate revenue sources, racing secretaries needed to expand their conditions to keep up with these other tracks. Obviously in 20/20 hindsight that was a mistake but it is easy fo me to say when I am not sitting behind the counter with three races made and needing to make 7 more.

What can happen to begin to right the ship is NYRA to finally get their own slots deal cooking and to raise it pots back to the premier levels again and for the monmouth experiment to be continued at a slightly lower level. This will put NY racing back in its place as king with monmouth and its shorter meets a second alternatitive. Doing so would make PHA and Delaware atractive pursewise but far less so than the other two. Clear lines would be drawn through the divisions

NYRA
Mth
Del/Pha
MD racing/Penn

Of course that does not address the original issue that i brought up which is a few trainers controlling all the stock. But it would be much harder to convince an owner to go run at Delaware in a 37k pot when NY was offering an 80k race or Mth was offering 60k. Of course this wouldnt solve the problem or bring back the claiming ladder but it would be better than what we have now.

[blackthroatedwind]

I have little argument with any of that Chuck.

[Travis Stone]

Very good points, and interesting too.

We've read time and time again the various problems in horse racing, when in reality, a lot of those lists are filled with "nice to haves."

A lot of "fixes" tap into Ries/Trout's Law of Perspective... "The long-term effects are often the exact opposite of the short term effects."

For example, minor takeout decreases will not save the game long term... getting rid of money going offshore would do far more in the long run. Would racing rather have the added money from a 1% takeout decrease (provided it positively impacted wagering) or would racing rather have the full-takeout of all bets which have gone offshore in the last ten years? Because if all that money were in the game, who knows how racing could have treated big bettors, whales etc.

Slot machines are a short-term fix... they've juiced purses... but as Chuck said the long term effect is an erosion of racing's hierarchy and a padding of the superstar trainers' pockets. And eventually, when everyone has slots, when do governments start to re-write laws to eliminate the "racing requirement."

The Sheikh buying horses was considered awesome at one point... big money into horse racing, breed the next big Sheikh purchase. Well, short term, that cash infusion was great. Long term? As Andy said, where have all the good horses gone? (not that it's entirely their fault, but I think a meaningful portion of it is).

[Alan07]

NJ has other issues that they need to fix, such as tonight's card at the Big M.

EIGHT Races?

[Alan07]

Friday (7/16): $520,000
Saturday (7/17): $836,000
Sunday (7/18): $495,000

[PatCummings]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What can happen to begin to right the ship is NYRA to finally get their own slots deal cooking and to raise it pots back to the premier levels again and for the monmouth experiment to be continued at a slightly lower level. This will put NY racing back in its place as king with monmouth and its shorter meets a second alternatitive. Doing so would make PHA and Delaware atractive pursewise but far less so than the other two. Clear lines would be drawn through the divisions

NYRA
Mth
Del/Pha
MD racing/Penn

Of course that does not address the original issue that i brought up which is a few trainers controlling all the stock. But it would be much harder to convince an owner to go run at Delaware in a 37k pot when NY was offering an 80k race or Mth was offering 60k. Of course this wouldnt solve the problem or bring back the claiming ladder but it would be better than what we have now.

Couldn't agree more with this. The blurring that has taken place has thrown the sport, at least regionally, into a form of shock. The delineation between the tracks is almost a necessity to bring a form of order to bear.

The complete joke of it is that New York has had the right for slot machines for years, one of the great boondoggles of racing business, ever...the politically-induced feet dragging has been a collossal dagger.

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

One of the biggest problems that high end racing at the major tracks faces is the accumulation of the vast majority of the elite stock in a few barns. I know I have harped on this to no end but it is something that is never discussed (at least publicly) in any meeting or forum that talks about the problems of racing. I have no idea what the solution is (at least a realistic one) but I find it hard to believe that no one in the industry even thinks it worthy of discusion. A lot of horses that used to be allowance horses in NY (or NJ under these circumstances) are racing at Woodbine or CD or Delaware where their trainers maintain different divisions. So Todd Pletcher for example may have 6 nw1 sprint horses of varying ability. He will split his best two between a race at Bel and Mth, the other 4 will be raced at Delaware or CD or even a place like Woodbine. If the 6 horses were in training in NY with different trainers they would probably all run in NY with the horses that arent quite as good eventually dropping into higher priced claimers. The destruction of the mid to upper level claiming ranks is perhaps a greater tragedy than just the thinning of the allowance races. What those claiming races did was give the racing secretary good solid races every few weeks with familar horses running up and down the ladder as opposed to what they have to offer now like a 25000 nw2 6 furlongs on the turf race or worse.

Racing was a much better sport when there was a clear division among its tracks. And as the lines blurred because of slots purses and other alternate revenue sources, racing secretaries needed to expand their conditions to keep up with these other tracks. Obviously in 20/20 hindsight that was a mistake but it is easy fo me to say when I am not sitting behind the counter with three races made and needing to make 7 more.

What can happen to begin to right the ship is NYRA to finally get their own slots deal cooking and to raise it pots back to the premier levels again and for the monmouth experiment to be continued at a slightly lower level. This will put NY racing back in its place as king with monmouth and its shorter meets a second alternatitive. Doing so would make PHA and Delaware atractive pursewise but far less so than the other two. Clear lines would be drawn through the divisions

NYRA
Mth
Del/Pha
MD racing/Penn

Of course that does not address the original issue that i brought up which is a few trainers controlling all the stock. But it would be much harder to convince an owner to go run at Delaware in a 37k pot when NY was offering an 80k race or Mth was offering 60k. Of course this wouldnt solve the problem or bring back the claiming ladder but it would be better than what we have now.

Chuck, do you think that changing the way conditions are done would help at all such as how harness does their conditions, i.e. non-winners of X amount in the last 6 starts?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pointman

Chuck, do you think that changing the way conditions are done would help at all such as how harness does their conditions, i.e. non-winners of X amount in the last 6 starts?

No as a matter of fact I think they should do the opposite. Conditioned claimers and opt claimers came from the harness tracks. There are too many choices for trainers now and you can shop for perfect spots if you are willing to ship. The claiming ladder has been destroyed by condition claimers. When I worked in the harness game I saw too many horses that were one race away from dropping in condition sit on the wood and the next week be out on the engine. Not to mention that thoroughbreds at the higher levels run infrequently enough that the conditions are hardly valid in some cases.

If I could put together a racing program at NYRA (with all other outside forces eliminated-impossible but to keep the post from epic proportions) I would do something like the following:

MSW
Mdn 50
mdn 25
(occasionally run a mdn 100k/75k at Saratoga or belmont fall)
mdn 15 (aqueduct inner only)

Alw $
Alw nw 3
Alw nw 2
Alw nw 1
75k
50k
35k
20k
12-15k
25nw2
Starter hdcp

3yo
75
50
25

NYB MSW
NYB Mdn 25
NYB NW2
NYB NW1
NYB 20

Obviously have stakes as well. I would have 1 conditioned claiming class to give a guy a chance to win a race with a cheaper maiden claiming horse without facing multiple winners right off the bat. Once you won that you have to find your level in either a straight 3 yo claimer or open claimers. Move em up or mve em down. I would also have a starter handicap so a dominant starter horse cant ruin the stater allowance races. Plus it gives a lesser horse a chance if he can get in a race getting a bunch of weight. Since there are so many NYB's out there we need to have at least 2 alw classes and i would have one separate NYbred claiming category. If your horse has no alw conditions and is too good for the NYB 20 claimer then let me introduce you to open claimers.

[Left Bank]

Yeah!! What 'da man said!!!

[pointman]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Maybe. But it's a complicated discussion. One of the problems with internet discussions, and I don't mean this as a criticism of yours, is that people tend to throw out declarations without any awareness or discussion of entire issues.

Right now there is a horse shortage, especially at the top, and this makes carding higher level racing near impossible regardless of how much money a track is willing to give away. Considering this situation, some tracks have done a remarkably good job of putting on as good a show as they do. Will contraction make things better or will it drive so many people out of the game that even with less racing these same problems exist? Is it only a " strong survive " situation? I don't necessarily think so, as there are a great deal of other factors, and one facet can't be ignored, or pushed aside, in an attempt to strengthen the other. How is the high end strengthened if it doesn't even exist?

How do you feel the cost of ownership has impacted the number of horses being run? We don't hear much on this issue, but if the cost of ownership could be decreased would it logically follow that more horses would be put into training? It seems to me the little guy is being forced out of the game or into partnerships in order to participate as an owner which could impact on the size of the stock available to race.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by pointman

How do you feel the cost of ownership has impacted the number of horses being run? We don't hear much on this issue, but if the cost of ownership could be decreased would it logically follow that more horses would be put into training? It seems to me the little guy is being forced out of the game or into partnerships in order to participate as an owner which could impact on the size of the stock available to race.

I think this is a huge issue. The last year or so my sense has been that the shortage is more of owners than horses (although even when there are enough horses, there are never enough "good" ones). If horses have problems, given today's economics, they are more likely retired than brought back from injury. The economy has also impacted the claiming game, as guys seem to be more willing to jam horses than in the past; if they lose a horse, it's one less mouth to feed.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pointman

How do you feel the cost of ownership has impacted the number of horses being run? We don't hear much on this issue, but if the cost of ownership could be decreased would it logically follow that more horses would be put into training? It seems to me the little guy is being forced out of the game or into partnerships in order to participate as an owner which could impact on the size of the stock available to race.

The cost of ownership is not going to go down because the basic expenses are only going to rise in cost. Hay has tripled in price in 4 years because of drought conditions in many areas and increase in fuel/shipping costs. Other feed like grain, etc has also risen for similar reasons. Workman's comp is not going down, liability ins is also more expensive and is now required in many jurisdictions(which is a good thing but hasnt always been required and hence is another expense). Labor costs continue to rise especially in NY where you are forced to pay employees under conditions that don't match their jobs. In other words we aren't paying them as agricultural workers but as though they are employees in a warehouse or 7-11 who work a basic 40 hour work week.

The little guy can still compete at the B level tracks but it doesnt make sense to try to do it in NY or CA. You pay a lot less in expense money at smaller tracks and run for similar purses to the big guys.

[10 pnt move up]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The cost of ownership is not going to go down because the basic expenses are only going to rise in cost. Hay has tripled in price in 4 years because of drought conditions in many areas and increase in fuel/shipping costs. Other feed like grain, etc has also risen for similar reasons. Workman's comp is not going down, liability ins is also more expensive and is now required in many jurisdictions(which is a good thing but hasnt always been required and hence is another expense). Labor costs continue to rise especially in NY where you are forced to pay employees under conditions that don't match their jobs. In other words we aren't paying them as agricultural workers but as though they are employees in a warehouse or 7-11 who work a basic 40 hour work week.

The little guy can still compete at the B level tracks but it doesnt make sense to try to do it in NY or CA. You pay a lot less in expense money at smaller tracks and run for similar purses to the big guys.

One of your better posts.

The middle of the road owner has all but been eliminated due to many reasons.

[Scav]

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/201...eclines_a.html