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

[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?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Alan07

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

EIGHT Races?

And 3 of them are two year old races

[herkhorse]

It's not to hard to figure out what happened to TheBigM.

[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.

[Alan07]

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

[hockey2315]

I meant to post this a while ago. . . According to Bob Kulina, the $1,000,000/day thing includes all the money the track pays out to the horsemen in other ways. I'm not completely aware of what that entails, but I think it's workers' comp, etc...

[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.

[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?

[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.

[Alan07]

The two stakes on Sunday (Dearly Presious, Starter Series) didn't fill.

[jimmy the T]

i was very interested in becoming a thoroughbred owner for the last 18 months or so. but as a small individual owner i saw the odds against success being clearly impossibe with one or two small claimers.as a result i joined the harness blood slot owners going after purses that make it very easy to pay the monthly vet and training bill.

[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.

[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!!!

[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

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Scav

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

I think some of the data in this story may be fictional