Readers of this blog know my position on the Fair Start Rule; the lack of it is unfair and a deterrent to growing the business of harness racing. After all, how much fun is it if your horse is closer to the paddock than the starting line when the race goes off and you get to throw your ticket away?
That being said, there is the opposing view, and one reader of Hoof Beats submitted their objection to the Fair Start Rule in the November edition of Hoof Beats. For one thing, the person feels the Fair Start Rule is arbitrary. In Canada, the rule states a horse needs to be 200 ft or further back at the start to be considered a scratched due to the Fair Start Rule and he is right; if the horse is 190 ft back, he is considered to have had a fair start but 201 ft he is considered not to have a fair start? Why isn't 150 ft considered not having a fair start?
The writer further argues what if a gambler left a favorite out of the trifecta and that is the horse ruled not to have a fair start? As he put it, he may be looking at a $1,000 payoff but now may receive only a $400 payoff due the refunding of money; is that fair? According to this writer, the only fair way is not to have a fair start; once the gate moves a horse be considered a starter for better or worse.
The writer has some valid points, the mark of what constitutes a fair start is totally judgemental. And while I feel a gambler would be saved by a fair start far more often than being burnt by it, the fact is payoffs are likely to be smaller as a result of a Fair Start scratch. However, there is one point the writer can't explain away and there in my opinion lies the flaw of his argument. Wagering is still continuing. If we closed the betting windows before the starting gate moved, I would have no problem with there being no fair start rule; the race is underway the moment the starting gate moves.
But we don't stop wagering when the starting gate moves, we keep accepting wagers and for those who position themselves at the right point by wagering machines, they can cancel their tickets. Those at the track who are sitting at their seats are screwed. If you wager at an ADW, some ADWs already close their wagering so you have no opportunity to cancel your ticket while others are still able to do so. As a gambler,we would never condone wagering after the race got underway so how could we accept it in this situation?
Racing needs to decide when the race begins and shut wagering accordingly. This is one situation where you shouldn't be able to have your cake and eat it too. If a race begins when the field reaches the starting pole, then a fair start pole is needed, as arbitrary as the distance may be. If a race begins when the starting gate moves, then shut wagering down at that point. You can't have it both ways.
Of course, there is another option. We could restore the old recall rule and try to start the field again
.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Fair Start. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query Fair Start. Sort by date Show all posts
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
New Jersey Fair Start Proposal Update; Everybody into the Pool!
I know today has been a particularly busy day for me on the blog, but being I have been a strong supporter of instituting the fair start rule in New Jersey, I felt it important to post this update as soon as possible. The bad news is the original proposal was not passed but referred to the racing commission staff for possible revisions which means a longer delay. The good news is it looks like a fair start rule will be coming to New Jersey.
It is true that the fair start proposal, the one which was supposed to emulate the Ontario rule was not approved but apparently the racing commission feels a fair start rule of some type is necessary to protect gambler's interests as the decision was made to direct the racing commission staff to propose a revised fair start rule to address concerns raised at the January NJRC meeting.
The concerns raised by those in attendance were the following:
We will continue to follow the Fair Start Rule as it continues to move forward in the rule making process.
Everybody into the Pool: HANA is sponsoring the first Pool Party for harness racing on May 27 at Western Fair to coincide with the running of the Molson Pace (FFA Pacers). Not only will the pool feature the Pick 4, harness racing fans are being asked to determine which races in addition to the Molson Pace will comprise the Pick 4. For further details, here is the press release announcing the event.
Why the Meadowlands will Succeed. Earlier today we talked about how the drivers, trainers, and owners have been abandoning the Meadowlands. Some people feel all is lost. I don't feel that way. Read this article from the NY Daily News and read the last paragraph. I bet you he is right.
It is true that the fair start proposal, the one which was supposed to emulate the Ontario rule was not approved but apparently the racing commission feels a fair start rule of some type is necessary to protect gambler's interests as the decision was made to direct the racing commission staff to propose a revised fair start rule to address concerns raised at the January NJRC meeting.
The concerns raised by those in attendance were the following:
- The proposed rule failed to address whether a horse eliminated from wagering is also eliminated from sharing in any purse money if the horse recovers form the poor start and continues to run in the race and qualifies for a portion of the purse. Okay, apparently rule proposals need to be precise and you can't assume anything when it comes to rule making..
- The commission also discussed whether the proposed rule should be modified to allow the payment of winning tickets if the horse finishes in the money. I must admit, this option was something I did not consider. In one way it would be more gambler friendly in the event the horse did finish in the money the wager would stand but in the more likely case the horse would finish out of the money and the gambler would get their refund. Of course, the devil is in the details as to how the rule is actually modified. For example, let's say the horse finishes third; does this mean those who bet the horse to show will get paid and those that bet the horse for place or win get their refund or as long as the horse gets into a paying position (say fourth in the Superfecta), all bets on the horse will stand? How the rule is written with respect to this will be challenging to say the least.
- The racing commission also contemplated the possibility of moving the fair start pole back to 330 feet (1/16 of a mile back) instead of 200 feet from the starting point. Obviously, it would be best if the fair start point was the same at all tracks, but if it needs to be 330 feet to get it approved; so be it. Why 330 feet instead of 200 feet in Ontario? It's all speculation but it could be the fact the tracks already have a pole a sixteenth of a mile from the start; it could be the existing patrol cameras could not get a good view of the fair start point at 200 feet, or it could be a compromise with the horsemen and tracks who in all honesty rather there not be a fair start rule at all as they lose the commission on each refunded ticket.
We will continue to follow the Fair Start Rule as it continues to move forward in the rule making process.
Everybody into the Pool: HANA is sponsoring the first Pool Party for harness racing on May 27 at Western Fair to coincide with the running of the Molson Pace (FFA Pacers). Not only will the pool feature the Pick 4, harness racing fans are being asked to determine which races in addition to the Molson Pace will comprise the Pick 4. For further details, here is the press release announcing the event.
Why the Meadowlands will Succeed. Earlier today we talked about how the drivers, trainers, and owners have been abandoning the Meadowlands. Some people feel all is lost. I don't feel that way. Read this article from the NY Daily News and read the last paragraph. I bet you he is right.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Requesting a Fair Start
Racing fans, your help is needed.
How many times have you seen a horse that goes off stride or refuse the gate just as the starting gate begins moving or more than an eighth of a mile before the race starts? You may have wagered on the horse or others may have. In Ontario and other provinces in Canada the bettor is protected by the 'fair start' rule. In the United States? You become a victim of a money grab; your wagers goes south long before the race begins.
While I understand the need to eliminate recalls in these types of situations, when the old recall rules were in effect, recalls were held because a horse was considered non-competitive and the bettor was protected by having a recall. Well, if the horse was uncompetitive in the past, what now make that horse competitive? Nothing. In effect, the racing commissions have not adequately protected the gambler's interest to the benefit of the tracks. The result? The few newbies who attend the races and have their wagers go up in smoke as a result of the lack of a fair start rule head for the gates and never return. Those fans/gamblers who continue to play the game may wager less because they are not assured of a fair start or they finally get burnt by an offending horse and they decide that was the last straw; they deal with the high takeouts but enough is enough and they head to the gates and never return and turn their attention to the thoroughbreds or poker.
What can you do? Write a letter/email your racing commission and ask them to adopt a fair start rule like they have in Ontario (refer them to rule 22.03 (k) and (l)). In some states, sending them a request like this will result in it being put on the racing commission's public agenda and will be published for public comment. Such a request has already been sent to the NJRC. It may not result in a change, but at least there is a chance. If it gets published for public comment in your state, it is important to get support for the proposed rule change so when it gets to that point, ask your fellow horse players in your state to send in their comments in support of the change.
While a request may have been sent to New Jersey, we need to get this brought to the attention of all commissions which handle harness racing; if it is a national movement there is a better chance of getting a change than if it remains an isolated local request.
Not a good letter writer? I have provided a sample letter below, all you need to do is copy and modify it for your use. Then just mail or email it in.
Dear Racing Commission Chairperson,
I would like to petition for a change to the recall rule to adopt language similar to the Ontario Racing Commission’s rule regarding a ‘fair start’. The following is an excerpt from the Ontario recall rule (22.03) concerning fair starts:
(k) The Fair Start Pole is a pole erected at the point approximately 200 feet before the
start. The Fair Start Pole shall be yellow in colour and shall protrude at least two feet
above the inner rail.
(l) If a horse has not reached the Fair Start Pole when the horses are released at the
starting point by the starter, the Judges shall cause the inquiry sign to be displayed
immediately and shall request the horse be scratched from the mutuels.
It is my belief that the public’s interest was not adequately protected when the current recall rule was modified to no longer have recalls when a horse was deemed non-competitive for refusing the gate or going off-stride before the recall pole. I understand and accept the logic that having recalls for these situations can result in a disadvantage to those well mannered horses by requiring multiple start attempts. I agree with the concept of eliminating recalls but object to the fact that monies bet on such horses that refuse to come to the gate or go off-stride before the former recall pole are not refunded as it neglects the public’s (horse player) interest.
Under the old rule such horses were considered non-competitive and recalls were ordered. All of a sudden such horses are now considered competitive? No one can tell you that a horse that is hopelessly outdistanced before the race even begins is competitive. On numerous occasions I have seen horses refuse the gate or be off-stride well before the 1/8th pole and those that wagered on those horses can throw their tickets away well before the race begins.
I do recognize the tracks’ interest in not refunding the wagers; it results in lost handle. However, how many times will a horse player/gambler accept this ‘money grab’ before they decide to find alternative gambling options instead of wagering on harness racing, especially newcomers to the sport? If the argument is that the race has already ‘begun’, then why are we allowing wagering to continue after the race begun? Using this logic the pools should already be closed once the starting gate begins to move.
This current rule is ‘detrimental’ to the interest of harness racing in that it is counterproductive to the development of new racing fans and increased handle. In effect, the track wins in the short run, but they, as well as the sport, lose out in the long run. For these reasons, I urge that the recall rule be modified as requested to include a provision for a fair start.
Thank you for considering this request,
Your Name
Your Address
You can make a difference and protect your interests. All it takes is finding the person to mail/email the request to. We are not asking for much, just a fair shake.
UPDATE: The Fair Start proposal has now been placed on the agenda for the August meeting of the NJRC scheduled for August 19th at Monmouth Park. More details will be forthcoming.
How many times have you seen a horse that goes off stride or refuse the gate just as the starting gate begins moving or more than an eighth of a mile before the race starts? You may have wagered on the horse or others may have. In Ontario and other provinces in Canada the bettor is protected by the 'fair start' rule. In the United States? You become a victim of a money grab; your wagers goes south long before the race begins.
While I understand the need to eliminate recalls in these types of situations, when the old recall rules were in effect, recalls were held because a horse was considered non-competitive and the bettor was protected by having a recall. Well, if the horse was uncompetitive in the past, what now make that horse competitive? Nothing. In effect, the racing commissions have not adequately protected the gambler's interest to the benefit of the tracks. The result? The few newbies who attend the races and have their wagers go up in smoke as a result of the lack of a fair start rule head for the gates and never return. Those fans/gamblers who continue to play the game may wager less because they are not assured of a fair start or they finally get burnt by an offending horse and they decide that was the last straw; they deal with the high takeouts but enough is enough and they head to the gates and never return and turn their attention to the thoroughbreds or poker.
What can you do? Write a letter/email your racing commission and ask them to adopt a fair start rule like they have in Ontario (refer them to rule 22.03 (k) and (l)). In some states, sending them a request like this will result in it being put on the racing commission's public agenda and will be published for public comment. Such a request has already been sent to the NJRC. It may not result in a change, but at least there is a chance. If it gets published for public comment in your state, it is important to get support for the proposed rule change so when it gets to that point, ask your fellow horse players in your state to send in their comments in support of the change.
While a request may have been sent to New Jersey, we need to get this brought to the attention of all commissions which handle harness racing; if it is a national movement there is a better chance of getting a change than if it remains an isolated local request.
Not a good letter writer? I have provided a sample letter below, all you need to do is copy and modify it for your use. Then just mail or email it in.
Dear Racing Commission Chairperson,
I would like to petition for a change to the recall rule to adopt language similar to the Ontario Racing Commission’s rule regarding a ‘fair start’. The following is an excerpt from the Ontario recall rule (22.03) concerning fair starts:
(k) The Fair Start Pole is a pole erected at the point approximately 200 feet before the
start. The Fair Start Pole shall be yellow in colour and shall protrude at least two feet
above the inner rail.
(l) If a horse has not reached the Fair Start Pole when the horses are released at the
starting point by the starter, the Judges shall cause the inquiry sign to be displayed
immediately and shall request the horse be scratched from the mutuels.
It is my belief that the public’s interest was not adequately protected when the current recall rule was modified to no longer have recalls when a horse was deemed non-competitive for refusing the gate or going off-stride before the recall pole. I understand and accept the logic that having recalls for these situations can result in a disadvantage to those well mannered horses by requiring multiple start attempts. I agree with the concept of eliminating recalls but object to the fact that monies bet on such horses that refuse to come to the gate or go off-stride before the former recall pole are not refunded as it neglects the public’s (horse player) interest.
Under the old rule such horses were considered non-competitive and recalls were ordered. All of a sudden such horses are now considered competitive? No one can tell you that a horse that is hopelessly outdistanced before the race even begins is competitive. On numerous occasions I have seen horses refuse the gate or be off-stride well before the 1/8th pole and those that wagered on those horses can throw their tickets away well before the race begins.
I do recognize the tracks’ interest in not refunding the wagers; it results in lost handle. However, how many times will a horse player/gambler accept this ‘money grab’ before they decide to find alternative gambling options instead of wagering on harness racing, especially newcomers to the sport? If the argument is that the race has already ‘begun’, then why are we allowing wagering to continue after the race begun? Using this logic the pools should already be closed once the starting gate begins to move.
This current rule is ‘detrimental’ to the interest of harness racing in that it is counterproductive to the development of new racing fans and increased handle. In effect, the track wins in the short run, but they, as well as the sport, lose out in the long run. For these reasons, I urge that the recall rule be modified as requested to include a provision for a fair start.
Thank you for considering this request,
Your Name
Your Address
You can make a difference and protect your interests. All it takes is finding the person to mail/email the request to. We are not asking for much, just a fair shake.
UPDATE: The Fair Start proposal has now been placed on the agenda for the August meeting of the NJRC scheduled for August 19th at Monmouth Park. More details will be forthcoming.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Despite What They Tell You Past Posting Occurs in Harness Racing
The first day of the International Simulcast Conference is in the books and the first panel discussion discussed the integrity of the wagering pools. One point which made is the wagering pools are secure; the reasons for odds changing after a race starts is not a result of past posting; just the processing of wagers already made.
Well, I am here to tell you this is a lie. Past posting is occurring every day in harness racing and I will explain why this is a case.
You bet a horse in a race and the starting gate moves. No sooner does the gate start moving that a horse goes off stride or refuses to race. The starting gate reaches the starting line and the field is released. Your horse is way, way back; more than 200 feet (2/3 of a football field) back. Do you get a refund? No. You lose your wager. How do you explain that? The only logical explanation is the race has started for wagering purposes. Well if that is the case, and the race has started, what do you call the wagering that is still going on once the gate is moving?
Past Posting.
That's right, every time a horse goes off stride once the starting gate moves and is hopelessly out of contention, there is past posting going on. The race has had to have started; otherwise how do you justify not refunding money to those whose horse did not get a fair start?
No doubt some people will say there is no past posting; the race did not start. If that is the case, we are cheating our customers. How do we justify not refunding money in a case when a horse is 2/3 of a football field back when a race starts? I have seen cases when a horse is closer to the paddock than the starting line when a race starts and there is no refund. Let's look at some other gambling products and let's say they did the same thing we are doing by not guaranteeing our customers a fair start:
Well, I am here to tell you this is a lie. Past posting is occurring every day in harness racing and I will explain why this is a case.
You bet a horse in a race and the starting gate moves. No sooner does the gate start moving that a horse goes off stride or refuses to race. The starting gate reaches the starting line and the field is released. Your horse is way, way back; more than 200 feet (2/3 of a football field) back. Do you get a refund? No. You lose your wager. How do you explain that? The only logical explanation is the race has started for wagering purposes. Well if that is the case, and the race has started, what do you call the wagering that is still going on once the gate is moving?
Past Posting.
That's right, every time a horse goes off stride once the starting gate moves and is hopelessly out of contention, there is past posting going on. The race has had to have started; otherwise how do you justify not refunding money to those whose horse did not get a fair start?
No doubt some people will say there is no past posting; the race did not start. If that is the case, we are cheating our customers. How do we justify not refunding money in a case when a horse is 2/3 of a football field back when a race starts? I have seen cases when a horse is closer to the paddock than the starting line when a race starts and there is no refund. Let's look at some other gambling products and let's say they did the same thing we are doing by not guaranteeing our customers a fair start:
- You are playing blackjack in a casino and after the first card was dealt to everyone the dealer dropped the cards. The casino takes your wager away before you even saw your second card.
- You play the maximum number of lines on a slot machine and the machine goes blank; it malfunctions. The casino keeps your original wager.
- The thoroughbred you wagered on was cast (stuck on the ground) in the starting gate or the jockey was not on the horse before the starter releases the horses and the starter sends the field on their way. They don't refund your money.
If any of the these situations above occurred, what would happen? It would be an outrage and we would expect the gambler never to come back. Fortunately for those people who play these games, the people in charge know better. Well, how come harness racing doesn't know better?
If harness racing had a fair start rule, meaning a horse that was 200 feet or more back when a race started the horse would be scratched and the money bet on it refunded, we would be treating our customers correctly. You can make a case that a horse that is less than 200 feet back at the start is competitive, but if it is 200 feet or more back any chance of being relevant in the race is virtually impossible.
We know why there is no fair start rule. Tracks don't want it. Horsemen don't want it. No one wants to refund wagers because wagering contributes to the track's bottom line and the horsemen's purse account and their worst fear is having to refund any sizable amount of wagers due to a horse not being competitive before the start. This is why when the recall rule was changed, there was no provision for a fair start rule; where a horse must be within 2/3 of a football field distance from the starting line when the race starts in order for him to be considered a starter. I would like someone to explain how a horse that was that far back used to be considered uncompetitive under the old rule is now considered to be competitive.
Everyone says we need to get more interest (wagering) in harness racing, yet every time we have a horse that does not have a fair start we are chasing gamblers away, pushing them to other gambling games. All in the name of short term profit. Well, there may be a short term gain but in the long run racing is losing.
It is time for harness racing to treat their gamblers right by introducing a fair start rule. In the meanwhile, remember past posting is going on every time a horse does not get a fair start.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Fair Start (Not)
Could you imagine going to a casino to play a game of blackjack and after you put your initial wager down the dealer drops the cards and you are told you lost your bet even though you didn't even get a chance to start playing the game? No.
Could you imagine going to a racetrack and playing a horse that refuses the mobile starting gate and have the field sent on their way why your selection is still 300 feet behind and being told you lost your bet? Yes, if in the United States.
What is wrong here?
One of the biggest travesties that the American harness racing fan has to face is the failure of the tracks to adopt the fair start rule in effect at Canadian tracks. For those not familiar with the rules in Canada, here is an excerpt of the rules from the Ontario Racing Commission (ORC):
(k) The Fair Start Pole is a pole erected at the point approximately 200 feet before the
start. The Fair Start Pole shall be yellow in colour and shall protrude at least two feet
above the inner rail.
(l) If a horse has not reached the Fair Start Pole when the horses are released at the
starting point by the starter, the Judges shall cause the inquiry sign to be displayed
immediately and shall request the horse be scratched from the mutuels.
To put it in simple words, in Canada, if a field is sent off and a horse is hopelessly outdistanced at the start the bettor gets their money back. Yet, the horseplayer in the United States can rip their ticket up before the race even starts.
Is it really going to cost the tracks that much money to refund wagers in these types of situations? Nope. Common sense would dictate these bets be cancelled and refunded to the horseplayer; it would make a customer feel their business is appreciated and build good will. Yet the tracks (with the help of their racing commissions) decided they rather keep the money in these situations and are willing to alienate their customers by ripping them off. Why the contempt for their customers?
Look, horses breaking before the start of the race is part of the game. But there is a big difference between a horse breaking just before the start and a 1/8th of a mile before the race starts.
Implementing the fair start rule in the United States would be a good first step in retaining and growing the fan (customer) base at a minimal cost. Each state should implement this rule immediately.
Could you imagine going to a racetrack and playing a horse that refuses the mobile starting gate and have the field sent on their way why your selection is still 300 feet behind and being told you lost your bet? Yes, if in the United States.
What is wrong here?
One of the biggest travesties that the American harness racing fan has to face is the failure of the tracks to adopt the fair start rule in effect at Canadian tracks. For those not familiar with the rules in Canada, here is an excerpt of the rules from the Ontario Racing Commission (ORC):
(k) The Fair Start Pole is a pole erected at the point approximately 200 feet before the
start. The Fair Start Pole shall be yellow in colour and shall protrude at least two feet
above the inner rail.
(l) If a horse has not reached the Fair Start Pole when the horses are released at the
starting point by the starter, the Judges shall cause the inquiry sign to be displayed
immediately and shall request the horse be scratched from the mutuels.
To put it in simple words, in Canada, if a field is sent off and a horse is hopelessly outdistanced at the start the bettor gets their money back. Yet, the horseplayer in the United States can rip their ticket up before the race even starts.
Is it really going to cost the tracks that much money to refund wagers in these types of situations? Nope. Common sense would dictate these bets be cancelled and refunded to the horseplayer; it would make a customer feel their business is appreciated and build good will. Yet the tracks (with the help of their racing commissions) decided they rather keep the money in these situations and are willing to alienate their customers by ripping them off. Why the contempt for their customers?
Look, horses breaking before the start of the race is part of the game. But there is a big difference between a horse breaking just before the start and a 1/8th of a mile before the race starts.
Implementing the fair start rule in the United States would be a good first step in retaining and growing the fan (customer) base at a minimal cost. Each state should implement this rule immediately.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Here is a Chance to Help Yourself
One of the biggest mistakes made in harness racing in the United States was when the recall rule was changed without implementing a fair start rule. Prior to the change in the recall rule, if a horse refused to come to the starting gate or was otherwise non-competitive, a recall was ordered and the horses would be regrouped for another start attempt. After two recalls, the horse would be scratched and the gamblers would have their wagers refunded.
Horsemen hated the recall rule. Having to attempt a second start would come at a disadvantage for the horses that behaved so the rule was modified. Only one problem, they eliminated the protection gamblers had of a possible refund. In what could be considered an anti-gambler action, the decision was made to consider the horse a starter even if it was hopefully outdistanced. The reason for this? Plain and simple racetracks and horsemen did not want to refund the wagers and give up their commission on wagers; apparently under the mistaken opinion this money will not be wagered in a subsequent race.
As a result, gamblers who wager on a horse who is not competitive well before the start of the race, while other people are still wagering, end up losing their wager. How does the industry justify not refunding wagers when a race hasn't started? It would be one thing if gambling on the race was halted, then you can argue the race had started, but this is basically stealing from the customer. Could you imagine a blackjack dealer dropping the deck of cards shuffling after you put down your bet telling you that you lost your wager before you even saw a card? Could you imagine a thoroughbred refusing to get loaded into a gate and the track announcer telling you that the horse is being scratched and you are not getting a refund (In the case of a runner refusing to leave once the gate opens, it is a totally different situation. Wagering has ceased; the race actually has started)? Yet, we are basically doing the same thing every time a wager is lost when a horse is non-competitive fifteen seconds or more before a race begins.
We want to develop new gamblers. How many times will a new gambler tolerate losing a wager this way before they decide they will never come back? Probably only once. Will the next time a regular horse player loses a bet this way be the time he walks away? The tracks and horsemen are pulling a money grab for short term gains, yet chasing customers away.
In Canada, the racing commissions protect the public. They implemented the fair start rule which mean any horse that was 200 feet or more behind when the race started, the horse would be declared a non-starter and the wagers would be refunded. Horsemen eliminated their recall and the wagering public was protected. In Canada, they are doing something for the gambler, whereas it seems in the United States we are trying to push gamblers away.
Fortunately, we have a chance to correct this situation. A proposed rule change to implement a fair start rule in New Jersey has been published for public comment. The proposed amendment to The proposed amendment to N.J.A.C. 13:71-17.1 will implement a "fair start pole," which will be erected approximately 200 feet before the start. The fair start pole would be used to disqualify a horse from the pari-mutuel wagering pools if the horse has not reached the fair start pole by the time the starting gate reached the starting pole. The judges will order the 'Inquiry' sign to be lit and the horse will be removed from the wagering and the gambler will get a refund.
However, for this to occur, the New Jersey Racing Commission needs to hear from you. The public comment period has begun and concludes on November 6, 2010. Without the racing commission hearing from the public that they want this to occur, this proposal may very well go down to defeat. If you care about this issue, the time has come for you to act. If you want a fair star rule to be implemented, you need to send in your comment to the NJRC (emails are not accepted). In this day of simulcast wagering, you don't need to be a New Jersey resident to voice your opinion.
To comment, you need to send your comments to:
Submit written comments by November 6, 2010 to:
Frank Zanzuccki, Executive Director
New Jersey Racing Commission
P.O. Box 088
140 E. Front Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Make sure you specify your comments are in reference to Proposal Number: PRN 2010-185.
Once this rule is approved in New Jersey, hopefully other states will get the message and make a similar change.
The fate of this rule is in your hands.
Horsemen hated the recall rule. Having to attempt a second start would come at a disadvantage for the horses that behaved so the rule was modified. Only one problem, they eliminated the protection gamblers had of a possible refund. In what could be considered an anti-gambler action, the decision was made to consider the horse a starter even if it was hopefully outdistanced. The reason for this? Plain and simple racetracks and horsemen did not want to refund the wagers and give up their commission on wagers; apparently under the mistaken opinion this money will not be wagered in a subsequent race.
As a result, gamblers who wager on a horse who is not competitive well before the start of the race, while other people are still wagering, end up losing their wager. How does the industry justify not refunding wagers when a race hasn't started? It would be one thing if gambling on the race was halted, then you can argue the race had started, but this is basically stealing from the customer. Could you imagine a blackjack dealer dropping the deck of cards shuffling after you put down your bet telling you that you lost your wager before you even saw a card? Could you imagine a thoroughbred refusing to get loaded into a gate and the track announcer telling you that the horse is being scratched and you are not getting a refund (In the case of a runner refusing to leave once the gate opens, it is a totally different situation. Wagering has ceased; the race actually has started)? Yet, we are basically doing the same thing every time a wager is lost when a horse is non-competitive fifteen seconds or more before a race begins.
We want to develop new gamblers. How many times will a new gambler tolerate losing a wager this way before they decide they will never come back? Probably only once. Will the next time a regular horse player loses a bet this way be the time he walks away? The tracks and horsemen are pulling a money grab for short term gains, yet chasing customers away.
In Canada, the racing commissions protect the public. They implemented the fair start rule which mean any horse that was 200 feet or more behind when the race started, the horse would be declared a non-starter and the wagers would be refunded. Horsemen eliminated their recall and the wagering public was protected. In Canada, they are doing something for the gambler, whereas it seems in the United States we are trying to push gamblers away.
Fortunately, we have a chance to correct this situation. A proposed rule change to implement a fair start rule in New Jersey has been published for public comment. The proposed amendment to The proposed amendment to N.J.A.C. 13:71-17.1 will implement a "fair start pole," which will be erected approximately 200 feet before the start. The fair start pole would be used to disqualify a horse from the pari-mutuel wagering pools if the horse has not reached the fair start pole by the time the starting gate reached the starting pole. The judges will order the 'Inquiry' sign to be lit and the horse will be removed from the wagering and the gambler will get a refund.
However, for this to occur, the New Jersey Racing Commission needs to hear from you. The public comment period has begun and concludes on November 6, 2010. Without the racing commission hearing from the public that they want this to occur, this proposal may very well go down to defeat. If you care about this issue, the time has come for you to act. If you want a fair star rule to be implemented, you need to send in your comment to the NJRC (emails are not accepted). In this day of simulcast wagering, you don't need to be a New Jersey resident to voice your opinion.
To comment, you need to send your comments to:
Submit written comments by November 6, 2010 to:
Frank Zanzuccki, Executive Director
New Jersey Racing Commission
P.O. Box 088
140 E. Front Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Make sure you specify your comments are in reference to Proposal Number: PRN 2010-185.
Once this rule is approved in New Jersey, hopefully other states will get the message and make a similar change.
The fate of this rule is in your hands.
Friday, January 20, 2017
Fair Start Rule (Again) and the Lack of Public Influence on Commissions
In the January 20 edition of Harness Racing Update, Brett Sturman discusses one of my sore points in harness racing, the fair start rule. More specifically, the lack of a fair start in American racing.
Sturman discusses how the Fair Start rule is an improvement over not having the rule but the ideal situation would be for wagering to cease prior to the field heading to the starting gate. I agree with him as this would ensure every horseplayer is given a fair chance. Alas, this will likely never happen due to
horsemen and track operators’ objections.
These two parties will object because they fear a drop in
handle because the whales like wagering at the last possible seconds to see if
they can take advantage of any late clue to a race’s running such as a horse
leaving or not, as well as the possibility of a horse going off-stride before
the gate. To be honest, it is a
legitimate complaint, assuming these gamblers will not adjust to the 'new normal'. Quite honestly, the idea of an even playing
field with the other gamblers is one the whales/syndicates do not relish as their success is based on having an advantage over John/Jane Q. Public. Hence, while the proposal to stop wagering before the field heads to the starter is in principle the right thing to do, it will sadly not see the light of day.
At least fans of Canadian racing have an advantage over
American punters where there is no such thing as a fair start and it will never
happen. A few years ago in New Jersey there
was a proposal for a fair start and while the racing commission agreed to
formulate a rule, it took them two years for it to happen (of course, if it was
something the tracks wanted, it would have been formulated much quicker), only
for the rule change to be rejected at the final hearing despite no objections being raised during the public comment period, no doubt at the urging
of horsemen and track operators worrying about the impact to their bottom
line, the fear of losing their share of the revenue due to refunding wagers.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
The Streak Ends and a 'Fair Start'
Last night in the Maple Leaf Trot, Lucky Jim's fifteen race win streak came to an end with the upset victory by San Pail. Lucky Jim finished third after having horrible racing luck (click here for a good narrative of the race). Lucky Jim was not disgraced and we will be hearing more from him as the year goes on.
Before you watch the race below, look at the picture. The horse that was way back at the start was Misterizi. If you bet him, your money was refunded thanks to the fair start rule in Canada. If this race was held at track in the United States, you could have ripped up your tickets at this point. The lack of a fair start rule in the states in inexcusable. The racing commissions did not protect the interest of the wagering public when the recall rule was modified. However, you can help get this corrected.
If you live in the United States and you feel you should be treated with respect as Canadian gamblers, the battle for the fair start rule begins in New Jersey as a proposal for a fair start rule is on the agenda of the New Jersey Racing Commission (NJRC) public meeting being held at Monmouth Park on August 19th. If you can attend, show your support for a fair start rule (it is not known if you will get a chance to speak at the meeting). When the proposal is published for public comment, make your thoughts known. Here is a link showing the genesis of the proposal before the NJRC.
Before you watch the race below, look at the picture. The horse that was way back at the start was Misterizi. If you bet him, your money was refunded thanks to the fair start rule in Canada. If this race was held at track in the United States, you could have ripped up your tickets at this point. The lack of a fair start rule in the states in inexcusable. The racing commissions did not protect the interest of the wagering public when the recall rule was modified. However, you can help get this corrected.
If you live in the United States and you feel you should be treated with respect as Canadian gamblers, the battle for the fair start rule begins in New Jersey as a proposal for a fair start rule is on the agenda of the New Jersey Racing Commission (NJRC) public meeting being held at Monmouth Park on August 19th. If you can attend, show your support for a fair start rule (it is not known if you will get a chance to speak at the meeting). When the proposal is published for public comment, make your thoughts known. Here is a link showing the genesis of the proposal before the NJRC.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Gambler Beware
I promise, here is the last time I plan to talk about the fair start rule for a long, long time.
You may be wondering what made me discuss the Fair Start rule once again. A Canadian gambler brought the Hazel Park race to my attention which made me take a look at it. After reading my most recent blog on the subject, this individual responded to me saying,
"I honestly had no idea before now that the "Fair Start Rule" only applied up here. I kept expecting to see that the horse was a VERY late scratch, or, to see the inquiry sign and a refund for sure. Imagine my shock when the race was declared official and my money taken. Gambler Beware!"
Gambler Beware indeed. Welcome to the Great Money Grab.
Yesterday I gave the benefit as to why the Fair Start Rule went down to defeat in New Jersey As I said in yesterday's post I was being naïve to give the NJRC the benefit of the doubt. Today, I can speak with more certainty. Supposedly the tote companies would have a problem if a horse left behind at the fair start pole managed to get into a paying position despite being 300' behind at the start. This is a red herring. If the tote companies can't handle it the easy thing to do is tell the driver of a horse left behind to pull up or not to scratch the horse until after the race is over to make sure he doesn't finish in a paying position.
Let's not kid ourselves, it is the fear of racetracks and horsemen losing the commission they would have earned on the horse if it was declared a starter. What if a favorite was left behind at the fair start pole when the race begins? How much would the track and horsemen lose?
Sadly, the fact is while racing commissions purport to protect the interests of the horseplayer, they are pro-industry and don't really look out for the interests of the horseplayer.
So if you think the racing commission will protect your interests, gamblers beware.
Finally, a story about the danger of betting with an off-shore operation which promises to pay track odds. One unlucky gambler wagered with one of those off-shore companies and hit the Pick-4 in Australia and was paid zilch. You see, the off-shore company paid off using North American odds and since the wagers weren't comingled, no one in North America had the Pick-4, hence no payoff on a winning ticket.
So if considering wagering with an off-shore wagering company; gambler beware..
You may be wondering what made me discuss the Fair Start rule once again. A Canadian gambler brought the Hazel Park race to my attention which made me take a look at it. After reading my most recent blog on the subject, this individual responded to me saying,
"I honestly had no idea before now that the "Fair Start Rule" only applied up here. I kept expecting to see that the horse was a VERY late scratch, or, to see the inquiry sign and a refund for sure. Imagine my shock when the race was declared official and my money taken. Gambler Beware!"
Gambler Beware indeed. Welcome to the Great Money Grab.
Yesterday I gave the benefit as to why the Fair Start Rule went down to defeat in New Jersey As I said in yesterday's post I was being naïve to give the NJRC the benefit of the doubt. Today, I can speak with more certainty. Supposedly the tote companies would have a problem if a horse left behind at the fair start pole managed to get into a paying position despite being 300' behind at the start. This is a red herring. If the tote companies can't handle it the easy thing to do is tell the driver of a horse left behind to pull up or not to scratch the horse until after the race is over to make sure he doesn't finish in a paying position.
Let's not kid ourselves, it is the fear of racetracks and horsemen losing the commission they would have earned on the horse if it was declared a starter. What if a favorite was left behind at the fair start pole when the race begins? How much would the track and horsemen lose?
Sadly, the fact is while racing commissions purport to protect the interests of the horseplayer, they are pro-industry and don't really look out for the interests of the horseplayer.
So if you think the racing commission will protect your interests, gamblers beware.
Finally, a story about the danger of betting with an off-shore operation which promises to pay track odds. One unlucky gambler wagered with one of those off-shore companies and hit the Pick-4 in Australia and was paid zilch. You see, the off-shore company paid off using North American odds and since the wagers weren't comingled, no one in North America had the Pick-4, hence no payoff on a winning ticket.
So if considering wagering with an off-shore wagering company; gambler beware..
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Have You Sent Your Letter?
Previously, I had written about a proposed rule change up for public comment in New Jersey. This proposed rule change would institute a fair start rule in New Jersey, requiring horses who are 200ft (2/3rds of a football field) behind at the start of a race to be scratched from the mutuel pools and refund those wagers. This rule would mirror the fair start rules in effect at Woodbine and Mohawk as well as the other harness tracks in Canada.
Have you sent in your comments to protect your own interests? The current rule in New Jersey does not protect the gambler and is encouraging gamblers to give up harness racing. How can a horse lose before a race actually starts? Yet this is what is happening when wagering continues as the starting gate moves. Under the current rule, a horse can be 200ft (2/3rds of a football field) behind at the start and be considered a legitimate starter. How can this be? After all, under the old recall rules that same horse would have been scratched as uncompetitive. What now makes this horse competitive? Nothing.
To ensure this rule gets implemented, people need to make their thoughts known in support of the proposed rule change. If you don't have time to write your own letter, you can copy the following and fill in your name and address and mail it in (e-mails not accepted). The important thing is to get your comments in before the public comment period ends on November 6. Not a resident of New Jersey? With simulcasting, it doesn't matter. If you play the Meadowlands through simulcasting you have an interest in this rule as well.
You don't often get a chance to stand up for your rights in horse racing. Here is your chance. Don't let the opportunity go by.
The sample letter follows:
Have you sent in your comments to protect your own interests? The current rule in New Jersey does not protect the gambler and is encouraging gamblers to give up harness racing. How can a horse lose before a race actually starts? Yet this is what is happening when wagering continues as the starting gate moves. Under the current rule, a horse can be 200ft (2/3rds of a football field) behind at the start and be considered a legitimate starter. How can this be? After all, under the old recall rules that same horse would have been scratched as uncompetitive. What now makes this horse competitive? Nothing.
To ensure this rule gets implemented, people need to make their thoughts known in support of the proposed rule change. If you don't have time to write your own letter, you can copy the following and fill in your name and address and mail it in (e-mails not accepted). The important thing is to get your comments in before the public comment period ends on November 6. Not a resident of New Jersey? With simulcasting, it doesn't matter. If you play the Meadowlands through simulcasting you have an interest in this rule as well.
You don't often get a chance to stand up for your rights in horse racing. Here is your chance. Don't let the opportunity go by.
The sample letter follows:
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Date]
Frank Zanzuccki, Executive Director
New Jersey Racing Commission
P.O. Box 088
140 E. Front Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Re: PRN 2010-185
New Jersey Racing Commission
P.O. Box 088
140 E. Front Street
Trenton, New Jersey 08625
Re: PRN 2010-185
Mr. Zanuccki,
I am writing today in support of the proposed amendment to N.J.A.C. 13:71-17.1, regarding the implementation of a fair start rule in the State of New Jersey for harness racing. The implementation of a fair start rule would be a net positive to the standardbred racing industry as it would reinstate protection for horseplayers wagering on New Jersey standardbred races which was lost when the recall rule was previously revised.
Under the original recall rule, if a horse was deemed uncompetitive before the recall pole, a recall was ordered. If a horse caused two recalls, the horse was scratched and wagers involving the offending horse were refunded. When the recall rule was revised, an error was made by failing to introduce a fair start rule at the time; leaving the horseplayer’s interests unprotected.
If wagering ceased when the gate begins to move, a legitimate argument could be made not to refund wagers on uncompetitive horses as it could be argued the race has begun. However, allowing wagering to continue during the roughly thirty plus seconds it takes for the field to reach the starting point indicates the race has not begun. To not refund wagers in the situation described in the proposed rule change would be like not refunding wagers on a thoroughbred who can’t be loaded into the starting gate; a situation which would never be allowed.
I understand a refund in wagers would result in tracks and horsemen not earning commission on the refunded bets, but this is short sighted. For an industry seeking to retain and obtain new gamblers, how does the industry benefit by losing horseplayers who consider it unfair to lose a wager this way and decide to no longer wager on harness racing? The current rule encourages the exodus of gamblers from racing.
For the reasons above, I encourage the adoption of the proposed rule change.
Regards,
[Your Name]
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Scorching Tickets Early and Other Miscellanery
Oops, it happened again (not that it will be the last time). Last night at Hazel Park in their 8th race the favorite was #2 Slip, going off at 8-5. Watching the replay of the race I noticed the two hole was empty on the starting gate. There was no mention of him at all in the race call at all. The fact is he broke well, well before the start of the race yet betting continued and those who wagered on him were left holding the bag. The chart shows him breaking before the start and being distanced the whole race, finishing in a blazing 2:12.3; a mere 78 1/4 lengths behind (that far back how do they tell the 1/4 length?). As the person who brought this to my attention noted, "I watched the race live on the computer and not once did they show him. They should be ashamed to keep the commission on this horse".
Unfortunately, they are not ashamed to keep the commission in instances like this and it is a blight on harness racing. In all of the United States, the only state which allows for a fair start rule such as in Canada is North Dakota (and they haven't raced in a few years there). Proponents of the fair start rule were recently handed a defeat when the NJRC voted down a proposal to institute a fair start pole.
Why it got defeated, who knows? Let's be naïve and say it has to do with the fact NJ would have been the only state to have a fair start rule. Maybe what needs to happen is for someone to submit the proposal to the USTA to be voted upon at their next annual meeting. In all likelihood, being how clueless tracks and horsemen are about this, the only thing such a proposal would do is bring a lot of levity to district meetings when the proposal came up for discussion.
I've said it before and I will say it again. If wagering was closed, then it would be one thing to have a ticket scorched before the word 'go' is said, but as long as wagering is continuing it is unconscionable not to have a fair start pole.
As for Hazel Park's track announcer, a word of advice. Should this happen again, at least somewhere in your race call mention something like "Slip broke well before the starting gate". At least those who bet on the horse will know what happened to the horse; being they are contributed to your bottom line, it is the least you can do for them.
We all know harness racing has a bad name, far worse than thoroughbred racing. To some extent the criticism is warranted, but it certainly doesn't help when there is a bias in the media. For example a headline in the Herald Sun from Australia blares out "Trots Trainer Charged with Race Fixing". A person just glancing at the paper is likely to remember about those cheating trots. Of course, if the person read the article, they will also learn about people charged with drenching a thoroughbred. The fact is, there are those involved in racing of all breeds who are willing to cheat to get ahead; it is human nature. I just wish the press would be more evenhanded when reporting the 'ugly' in racing.
The Paulick Report has an article where America's Best Racing Vehicle has been very successful in getting the younger generation interested in racing. Sure they show up at racetracks on big race days but they also set up shop in front of bars and other places where those in their 20s hang out. Events like Back to the Track are good, but marketing only to those who show up to the track while useful, omits a large number of the target market. You can't wait for the people to come to the track, you need to bring the track experience to them.
Reading Trot's May issue, a common complaint was learning how to read a program. On the Job Training (OJT) can be an expensive lesson for gamblers. Maybe something more logical would be to have a learner's night at the track; a night where qualifiers are conducted at a slower pace and participants learn at no cost how to read the program and get a feel for the game at no cost. Better yet, without the experienced gamblers being inconvenienced.
Perhaps have only nine races instead of twelve. Have reduced price concessions and offer wagering using mock money where at the end of the night the prizes can be gifts; not money. Basically, you are simulating a night of racing where those twenty year olds can learn all about racing at no cost, yet have a night out. Don't want to do this at the track? Bring the track to the bar using replays of races. If you want new fans, you got to go where they are; you can't expect them to just show up.
Unfortunately, they are not ashamed to keep the commission in instances like this and it is a blight on harness racing. In all of the United States, the only state which allows for a fair start rule such as in Canada is North Dakota (and they haven't raced in a few years there). Proponents of the fair start rule were recently handed a defeat when the NJRC voted down a proposal to institute a fair start pole.
Why it got defeated, who knows? Let's be naïve and say it has to do with the fact NJ would have been the only state to have a fair start rule. Maybe what needs to happen is for someone to submit the proposal to the USTA to be voted upon at their next annual meeting. In all likelihood, being how clueless tracks and horsemen are about this, the only thing such a proposal would do is bring a lot of levity to district meetings when the proposal came up for discussion.
I've said it before and I will say it again. If wagering was closed, then it would be one thing to have a ticket scorched before the word 'go' is said, but as long as wagering is continuing it is unconscionable not to have a fair start pole.
As for Hazel Park's track announcer, a word of advice. Should this happen again, at least somewhere in your race call mention something like "Slip broke well before the starting gate". At least those who bet on the horse will know what happened to the horse; being they are contributed to your bottom line, it is the least you can do for them.
We all know harness racing has a bad name, far worse than thoroughbred racing. To some extent the criticism is warranted, but it certainly doesn't help when there is a bias in the media. For example a headline in the Herald Sun from Australia blares out "Trots Trainer Charged with Race Fixing". A person just glancing at the paper is likely to remember about those cheating trots. Of course, if the person read the article, they will also learn about people charged with drenching a thoroughbred. The fact is, there are those involved in racing of all breeds who are willing to cheat to get ahead; it is human nature. I just wish the press would be more evenhanded when reporting the 'ugly' in racing.
The Paulick Report has an article where America's Best Racing Vehicle has been very successful in getting the younger generation interested in racing. Sure they show up at racetracks on big race days but they also set up shop in front of bars and other places where those in their 20s hang out. Events like Back to the Track are good, but marketing only to those who show up to the track while useful, omits a large number of the target market. You can't wait for the people to come to the track, you need to bring the track experience to them.
Reading Trot's May issue, a common complaint was learning how to read a program. On the Job Training (OJT) can be an expensive lesson for gamblers. Maybe something more logical would be to have a learner's night at the track; a night where qualifiers are conducted at a slower pace and participants learn at no cost how to read the program and get a feel for the game at no cost. Better yet, without the experienced gamblers being inconvenienced.
Perhaps have only nine races instead of twelve. Have reduced price concessions and offer wagering using mock money where at the end of the night the prizes can be gifts; not money. Basically, you are simulating a night of racing where those twenty year olds can learn all about racing at no cost, yet have a night out. Don't want to do this at the track? Bring the track to the bar using replays of races. If you want new fans, you got to go where they are; you can't expect them to just show up.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Who's Watching out for the Public's Interests?; Thurs-Fri Lex Preview
Dean Towers, writing for the Horseplayers Association of North America (HANA), discusses a recent article regarding unclaimed tickets and how the horseplayer's money is going to everyone but the gambler. The argument made is no matter how well-intentioned the distribution of unclaimed money is, it is not the racing industry's money to distribute; it belongs to the bettors and should be used for the bettors' benefit.
Dean goes on to report how in 2007 there was an wagering conference in Canada where the issue of unclaimed tickets was discussed and a proposal was approved in near unanimity (out of the three hundered people there, one person (a horseman) opposed an idea to use uncashed winning tickets to lower takeout, fund jackpot wagers, and giveaways to bettors. Done in public it seemed like a no-brainer it would happen, right?
In a subsequent meeting out of the public eye, the horsemen and track operators who got a share of the uncashed tickets vetoed the idea and the government agency killed the proposal. Once again, something which could be done to benefit the public was killed off.
This issue goes beyond the uncashed tickets. The question which begs to be asked is who is watching out for the public's interest when it comes to racing? Certainly not the tracks and the horsemen; it must be the racing commission? Do you really think so? Not in the United States.
A prime example of this is the lack of a fair start rule. Not to rehash this subject (you can refer to a prior blog entry), when the recall rules were changed in North America, the Canadian racing commissions protected the customer by instituting a fair start rule. In the United States, with the exception of North Dakota (which took their cue from their Canadian counterparts north of their border), there was no fair start rule implemented at the behest of the horsemen and track operators who did not want to refund wagers to horseplayers as it would reduce what they earned for their purse accounts/racing expenses. Whereas, the racing commissions had the ability to stand up for the public and institute a fair start rule to protect the public, the decision was made in a "the public be damned" arrogance and a protection the horseplayer had was eliminated just like that.
Well, in New Jersey, the racing commission may be changing their tune. A proposal to implement a fair start rule is on the table and is the period of public comment. Once the public comment period is over, the racing commission will consider giving final approval to this rule change which will protect the wagering public. Make not mistake, the horsemen and track operators will likely be opposed to this rule proposal. It is important that the horseplaying public make their support for this proposal known. We will then see if the NJRC will stand up and protect the public or once again side with the industry.
The Red Mile Grand Circuit meet is underway with the Kentucky Futurity scheduled for this Saturday, instead of their normal second Saturday slot, as a result of the delay in their meet due to the World Equestrian Games being conducted in Lexington. The first week of the Red Mile meet is always challenging as horses are shipping in from everywhere in an effort to get a fast mark on them before the racing season shifts into winter mode. A lot of favorites will be leading at the wire, but every once in a while, you will see a horse come off the beaten path and upend the favorites; especially in some of the late closing series which are contested.
For those looking to play The Red Mile, here are my selections for Thursday's and Friday's card.
Thursday, October 14
1st Trot - $87,500; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Fillies
6 - Cedar Dove (Pierce, 5-2)
1 - Celebrity Katie (Sears, 3-1)
4 - Pacific Splash (Norris, 9-2)
2nd Trot - $10,000; 2yo Colts and Geldings Late Closer - NW 2 PM or $15,000 LT
1 - Soulful Delight (Pierce, 5-2)
7 - For You Almostfree (Campbell, 3-1)
6 - Big Tuna (Tetrick, 7-2)
3rd Trot - $10,000; 3-5yo Colts and Geldings Late Closer - NW 3 PM or $40,000 LT
2 - Classic Sone (A Miller, 1-1)
4 - Super Sonic Flash (Magee, 3-1)
6 - Martoddi (Hochstetler, 8-1)
4th Trot - $88,500; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Fillies
2 - Andover The Top (Palone, 8-5)
4 - Epona Blue Chip (Schnittker, 6-1)
5 - Celebrity Obsesion (Sears, 5-1)
8 - Sashay (Pierce, 12-1)
5th Trot - $10,000; 3-5yo Colts and Geldings Late Closer - NW 3 PM or $40,000 LT
6 - Fool's Revenue (Campbell, 2-1)
7 - Under The Stars (Hochstetler, 8-1)
3 - Madoffwiththemoni (Tetrick, 8-1)
5 - Bullet (D Miller, 5-2)
6th Pace - $10,000; 3-5yo Colts and Geldings Late Closer - NW 3 PM or $40,000 LT
6 - Private Interview (Sears, 5-2)
1 - Rojette's Best (Noble, 3-1)
5 - Show Me Glory (Pierce, 7-2)
7th Trot - $88,500; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Fillies
8 - Sweet Love (D Miller, 7-2)
3 - Sacred Saint (Tetrick, 8-1)
5 - Creme De Cocoa (DR Ackerman, 5-2)
4 - Lady Rainbow (Zeron, 3-1)
8th Trot - $10,000; 2yo Colts and Geldings Late Closer - NW 2 PM or $15,000 Lifetime
4 - Cash On Delivery (Campbell, 7-2)
6 - Permanent Joy (Tr Tetrick, 7-5)
1 - Northern Photo (Sears, 9-2)
8 - Cantabourway (Loney, 15-1)
9th Trot - $88,500; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Fillies
1 - Tango Dancer (Palone, 7-2)
5 - Caitrin Hall (Tetrick, 6-1)
8 - Tight Pants (D Miller, 5-2)
3 - After Dark (Lachance, 15-1)
10th Pace - $12,000; 2yo Colts and Geldings Late Closer - NW 2 PM or $15,000 Lifetime
5 - Real Or Magic (Tetrick, 6-1)
12 - Cam's Tux (Palone, 8-1)
9 - Eat Your Art Out (Campbell, 4-1)
6 - We The People (Sears, 7-2)
11th Trot - $3,000; 5yo and Under - NW 2 Races (NW 1 draws inside)
2 - Mucho Cerveza (Campbell, 7-2)
1 - Sunny Victory (Steck, 5-2)
9 - Massasauga (D Miller, 4-1)
8 - The Queen (Wrenn, 8-1)
Friday, October 15
1st Pace - $2,800; NW 1 PM (Mares 2) or $12,000 Life
2 - Jade Mountain (Loney, 5-2)
5 - Fortune Road (A Miller, 7-2)
3 - Cascata (D Miller, 2-1)
2nd Trot - $88,500; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Colts and Geldings
2 - Evil Urgfes (Hochstetler, 4-1)
4 - Big Rigs (Tetrick, 2-1)
5 - Live Jazz (Campbell, 5-2)
1 - JR Alber (Pierce, 6-1)
3rd Trot - $10,000; 3-5yo Colts and Geldings Late Closer - NW 3 PM or $40,000 Lifetime
6 - Strong Hope (Pierce, 2-1)
7 - Sharp Edge (A Miller, 5-2)
3 - Mr Caviar (Loney, 9-2)
2 - Stretch Limo (Lighthill, 15-1)
4th Pace - $105,000; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Fillies
2 - Honky Tonk Woman (D Miller, 9-5)
3 - Say Anything (Lachance, 8-1)
4 - Cold Mist (Tetrick, 2-1)
5th Trot - $88,500; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Colts and Geldings
2 - Whit (A Miller, 8-1)
4 - Opening Night (Sears, 8-1)
1 - Johnny B Kemp (Takter, 5-2)
5 - Blue Porsche (Ritchie, 3-1)
6th Pace - $105,000; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Fillies
2 - Music Row (Tetrick, 8-1)
4 - Shyaway (Sears, 2-1)
5 - Fashion Mystery (Pierce, 9-2)
7th Trot - $88,500; Bluegrass Serires - 2yo Colts and Geldings
5 - Pegasus Blue Chip (Ritchie, 3-1)
2 - Spring Goal (Tetrick, 12-1)
1 - Fawkes (D Miller, 12-1)
6 - High Pan Tolerance (Pierce, 8-1)
8th Pace - $185,000; Bluegrass Series - 3yo Fillies
8 - Full Picture (Pierce, 6-1)
11 - Ticket To Rock (D Miller, 7-2)
7 - Best Boss (Lachance, 9-2)
4 - Western Royaly (Wrenn, 10-1)
9th Trot - $88,500; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Colts and Geldings
5 - Neal (Sears, 5-2)
7 - Kash's Cantab (Paver, 9-2)
4 - Mythical Hall (Pierce, 7-2)
1 - Not Nice (Gingras, 3-1)
10th Pace - $105,000; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Fillies
3 - Strike An Attitude (Campbell, 1-1)
5 - All Tucked Up (Jamieson, 6-1)
6 - Asteria Blue Chip (Tetrick, 8-1)
11th Trot - $10,000; 2yo Colts and Geldings Late Closer - NW 2 PM or $15,000 Lifetime
2 - Haulin Laser (D Miller, 7-2)
5 - Valiant Warrior (Tr Tetrick, 3-1)
6 - Ax Man (Wrenn, 5-2)
9 - Total Outlaw (Pierce, 15-1)
Dean goes on to report how in 2007 there was an wagering conference in Canada where the issue of unclaimed tickets was discussed and a proposal was approved in near unanimity (out of the three hundered people there, one person (a horseman) opposed an idea to use uncashed winning tickets to lower takeout, fund jackpot wagers, and giveaways to bettors. Done in public it seemed like a no-brainer it would happen, right?
In a subsequent meeting out of the public eye, the horsemen and track operators who got a share of the uncashed tickets vetoed the idea and the government agency killed the proposal. Once again, something which could be done to benefit the public was killed off.
This issue goes beyond the uncashed tickets. The question which begs to be asked is who is watching out for the public's interest when it comes to racing? Certainly not the tracks and the horsemen; it must be the racing commission? Do you really think so? Not in the United States.
A prime example of this is the lack of a fair start rule. Not to rehash this subject (you can refer to a prior blog entry), when the recall rules were changed in North America, the Canadian racing commissions protected the customer by instituting a fair start rule. In the United States, with the exception of North Dakota (which took their cue from their Canadian counterparts north of their border), there was no fair start rule implemented at the behest of the horsemen and track operators who did not want to refund wagers to horseplayers as it would reduce what they earned for their purse accounts/racing expenses. Whereas, the racing commissions had the ability to stand up for the public and institute a fair start rule to protect the public, the decision was made in a "the public be damned" arrogance and a protection the horseplayer had was eliminated just like that.
Well, in New Jersey, the racing commission may be changing their tune. A proposal to implement a fair start rule is on the table and is the period of public comment. Once the public comment period is over, the racing commission will consider giving final approval to this rule change which will protect the wagering public. Make not mistake, the horsemen and track operators will likely be opposed to this rule proposal. It is important that the horseplaying public make their support for this proposal known. We will then see if the NJRC will stand up and protect the public or once again side with the industry.
The Red Mile Grand Circuit meet is underway with the Kentucky Futurity scheduled for this Saturday, instead of their normal second Saturday slot, as a result of the delay in their meet due to the World Equestrian Games being conducted in Lexington. The first week of the Red Mile meet is always challenging as horses are shipping in from everywhere in an effort to get a fast mark on them before the racing season shifts into winter mode. A lot of favorites will be leading at the wire, but every once in a while, you will see a horse come off the beaten path and upend the favorites; especially in some of the late closing series which are contested.
For those looking to play The Red Mile, here are my selections for Thursday's and Friday's card.
Thursday, October 14
1st Trot - $87,500; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Fillies
6 - Cedar Dove (Pierce, 5-2)
1 - Celebrity Katie (Sears, 3-1)
4 - Pacific Splash (Norris, 9-2)
2nd Trot - $10,000; 2yo Colts and Geldings Late Closer - NW 2 PM or $15,000 LT
1 - Soulful Delight (Pierce, 5-2)
7 - For You Almostfree (Campbell, 3-1)
6 - Big Tuna (Tetrick, 7-2)
3rd Trot - $10,000; 3-5yo Colts and Geldings Late Closer - NW 3 PM or $40,000 LT
2 - Classic Sone (A Miller, 1-1)
4 - Super Sonic Flash (Magee, 3-1)
6 - Martoddi (Hochstetler, 8-1)
4th Trot - $88,500; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Fillies
2 - Andover The Top (Palone, 8-5)
4 - Epona Blue Chip (Schnittker, 6-1)
5 - Celebrity Obsesion (Sears, 5-1)
8 - Sashay (Pierce, 12-1)
5th Trot - $10,000; 3-5yo Colts and Geldings Late Closer - NW 3 PM or $40,000 LT
6 - Fool's Revenue (Campbell, 2-1)
7 - Under The Stars (Hochstetler, 8-1)
3 - Madoffwiththemoni (Tetrick, 8-1)
5 - Bullet (D Miller, 5-2)
6th Pace - $10,000; 3-5yo Colts and Geldings Late Closer - NW 3 PM or $40,000 LT
6 - Private Interview (Sears, 5-2)
1 - Rojette's Best (Noble, 3-1)
5 - Show Me Glory (Pierce, 7-2)
7th Trot - $88,500; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Fillies
8 - Sweet Love (D Miller, 7-2)
3 - Sacred Saint (Tetrick, 8-1)
5 - Creme De Cocoa (DR Ackerman, 5-2)
4 - Lady Rainbow (Zeron, 3-1)
8th Trot - $10,000; 2yo Colts and Geldings Late Closer - NW 2 PM or $15,000 Lifetime
4 - Cash On Delivery (Campbell, 7-2)
6 - Permanent Joy (Tr Tetrick, 7-5)
1 - Northern Photo (Sears, 9-2)
8 - Cantabourway (Loney, 15-1)
9th Trot - $88,500; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Fillies
1 - Tango Dancer (Palone, 7-2)
5 - Caitrin Hall (Tetrick, 6-1)
8 - Tight Pants (D Miller, 5-2)
3 - After Dark (Lachance, 15-1)
10th Pace - $12,000; 2yo Colts and Geldings Late Closer - NW 2 PM or $15,000 Lifetime
5 - Real Or Magic (Tetrick, 6-1)
12 - Cam's Tux (Palone, 8-1)
9 - Eat Your Art Out (Campbell, 4-1)
6 - We The People (Sears, 7-2)
11th Trot - $3,000; 5yo and Under - NW 2 Races (NW 1 draws inside)
2 - Mucho Cerveza (Campbell, 7-2)
1 - Sunny Victory (Steck, 5-2)
9 - Massasauga (D Miller, 4-1)
8 - The Queen (Wrenn, 8-1)
Friday, October 15
1st Pace - $2,800; NW 1 PM (Mares 2) or $12,000 Life
2 - Jade Mountain (Loney, 5-2)
5 - Fortune Road (A Miller, 7-2)
3 - Cascata (D Miller, 2-1)
2nd Trot - $88,500; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Colts and Geldings
2 - Evil Urgfes (Hochstetler, 4-1)
4 - Big Rigs (Tetrick, 2-1)
5 - Live Jazz (Campbell, 5-2)
1 - JR Alber (Pierce, 6-1)
3rd Trot - $10,000; 3-5yo Colts and Geldings Late Closer - NW 3 PM or $40,000 Lifetime
6 - Strong Hope (Pierce, 2-1)
7 - Sharp Edge (A Miller, 5-2)
3 - Mr Caviar (Loney, 9-2)
2 - Stretch Limo (Lighthill, 15-1)
4th Pace - $105,000; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Fillies
2 - Honky Tonk Woman (D Miller, 9-5)
3 - Say Anything (Lachance, 8-1)
4 - Cold Mist (Tetrick, 2-1)
5th Trot - $88,500; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Colts and Geldings
2 - Whit (A Miller, 8-1)
4 - Opening Night (Sears, 8-1)
1 - Johnny B Kemp (Takter, 5-2)
5 - Blue Porsche (Ritchie, 3-1)
6th Pace - $105,000; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Fillies
2 - Music Row (Tetrick, 8-1)
4 - Shyaway (Sears, 2-1)
5 - Fashion Mystery (Pierce, 9-2)
7th Trot - $88,500; Bluegrass Serires - 2yo Colts and Geldings
5 - Pegasus Blue Chip (Ritchie, 3-1)
2 - Spring Goal (Tetrick, 12-1)
1 - Fawkes (D Miller, 12-1)
6 - High Pan Tolerance (Pierce, 8-1)
8th Pace - $185,000; Bluegrass Series - 3yo Fillies
8 - Full Picture (Pierce, 6-1)
11 - Ticket To Rock (D Miller, 7-2)
7 - Best Boss (Lachance, 9-2)
4 - Western Royaly (Wrenn, 10-1)
9th Trot - $88,500; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Colts and Geldings
5 - Neal (Sears, 5-2)
7 - Kash's Cantab (Paver, 9-2)
4 - Mythical Hall (Pierce, 7-2)
1 - Not Nice (Gingras, 3-1)
10th Pace - $105,000; Bluegrass Series - 2yo Fillies
3 - Strike An Attitude (Campbell, 1-1)
5 - All Tucked Up (Jamieson, 6-1)
6 - Asteria Blue Chip (Tetrick, 8-1)
11th Trot - $10,000; 2yo Colts and Geldings Late Closer - NW 2 PM or $15,000 Lifetime
2 - Haulin Laser (D Miller, 7-2)
5 - Valiant Warrior (Tr Tetrick, 3-1)
6 - Ax Man (Wrenn, 5-2)
9 - Total Outlaw (Pierce, 15-1)
Friday, July 24, 2015
Indiana Implements Fair Start Rule, Who (if there is) is Next?
Indiana has implemented the fair start rule (page 4), giving protection to the horseplayer for the first time in an American state. The fair start rule is a step in improving the product which Murray Brown of Hanover Shoe Farms, once said sucks.
The question is which state, if there is a state, will be next? New Jersey considered a fair start rule which seemingly went through the slow-track and when it finally reached the NJRC for adoption was defeated as they found every excuse to over complicate things in order to vote against the proposal, no doubt with the approval of racetracks and horsemen who feared the return of money to the players, losing the small amount in commission.
The Fair Start Rule is the first test to see if people are seriously looking to improve the product. If states are looking to improve the product they should take the Indiana rule and implement it promptly, as soon as possible.
The horseplayer is waiting to see who acts next. In the meanwhile, Indiana will be my 'go to' state when looking for racing action.
The question is which state, if there is a state, will be next? New Jersey considered a fair start rule which seemingly went through the slow-track and when it finally reached the NJRC for adoption was defeated as they found every excuse to over complicate things in order to vote against the proposal, no doubt with the approval of racetracks and horsemen who feared the return of money to the players, losing the small amount in commission.
The Fair Start Rule is the first test to see if people are seriously looking to improve the product. If states are looking to improve the product they should take the Indiana rule and implement it promptly, as soon as possible.
The horseplayer is waiting to see who acts next. In the meanwhile, Indiana will be my 'go to' state when looking for racing action.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
HANA Poll - Part 2; Marc St Louis Jr. Returns
Continuing the review of the HANA harness racing poll, there are other interesting tidbits.
Myth: Fans hate the idea of classified racing.
Truth: Make no mistake about it, of the two systems, conditioned racing is more accepted with 61% of the respondents liking the conditioned system versus 21.6% who opposed it. However, when asked about classified racing, 36.8% liked classified racing and 38.6% did not like it. As pollsters would say, it was a statistical dead heat. A large number of respondents (24.6%) had no opinion; likely because a lot of them never experienced racing using the classified system. The conclusion which can be made is there would be no mass revolt from the gamblers if classified racing was introduced; the revolt would be from horsemen. Where fans are pretty much united is with regards to how classified races are reported in the past performance program. NW3CD clearly doesn't do it with 71.9% of the respondents say the program is lacking with regards to not showing the expanded conditions.
Let's look at some other findings.
Gamblers are definitely not satisfied with the product being provided.as only 31% of the respondents are somewhat satisfied with the racing product. 10% are neutral in their feelings and 55.9% of the respondents are dissatisfied with the product (29.3% are very dissatisfied). This was one question where people were given the opportunity to express specific reasons for their dissatisfaction. Well, to no surprise takeout rates and small pools were a prime complaint for gamblers as are drugs. From reading the responses received, rest assured trainers will not be receiving many dinner invitations from gamblers. One respondent put it succinctly, when they said "trainers are cheating b**tards" as the use of drugs is considered quite prevalent. Fans are troubled by the super trainers, and the frequency of reversal of forms. Judges come in for some criticism for lack of consistency. One surprising thing was there were few complaints, if any, regarding the whipping rules which being this survey was answered by Canadian and American fans. Obviously, these respondents did not find too much objection to the Ontario Urging Rules (the whipping question will be specifically surveyed in a subsequent survey), the strictest rules in North America.
When asked about gamblers complaints regarding half mile track racing, the biggest problem identified was the post position bias followed by low payoff prices, no movement in a race, and small pools. When asked what could make half mile track racing better, the staggered starting gate is the first recommendation, followed by handicapping all races to put the best horses on the outside. After these two ideas, moving post seven and eight to the second tier was next, with the suggestions of moving the speed horses to the second tier to force movement and adding distance to the races falling flat on their face.
Fans were specifically asked about the biggest problems on the Meadowlands and WEG circuits individually. The biggest problem gamblers felt about the Meadowlands was questionable trainers. After the trainers, the biggest problem the respondents felt was buddy-buddy driving (letting your friends up the rail as an example). After those two issues, the lack of flow/no movement came up, poor field quality and field size came up as issues three, four and five.
At Woodbine and Mohawk, questionable trainers were considered the third biggest problem. The reason questionable trainers are considered the biggest problem at the Meadowlands and the third biggest problem at WEG probably has something to do with the ability of WEG to exclude questionable trainers where the Meadowlands does not have that ability. At WEG, the lack of flow and movement was the biggest problem with buddy buddy driving considered the second biggest problem. Poor field quality is the fourth biggest problem at WEG with the field size being the fifth biggest problem. I suspect next year poor field quality at WEG will become a non-issue with the ORC's new rules to ensure the best horses race at WEG tracks instead of at tracks like Georgian Downs and Western Fair.
When asked in general what they felt the biggest problems are with horse racing, respondents were most concerned with parimutuel takeout rates, the perception of the sport, the use of medication and illegal drugs, parimutuel pool integrity, declining field size, federal tax laws with regards to winnings, small pool size, late odd changes, and decreased television coverage. What may be surprising to some people is the issue of uncoupling entries, most people were not concerned or only slightly concerned about the uncoupling of horses in races.
Other issues which came up are as follows:
Fair Start Rule
No doubt a contributor to the large dissatisfaction of the racing product is the lack of a fair start rule. Remember how the NJRC voted down the fair start rule? Well 76% of the respondents want the United States to adopt the Canadian Fair Start rule. 56.1% prefer the fair start pole being at 200 feet. Clearly a lot of gamblers have been shafted by having horses go off stride well before the start.
Amount of Time Between Races
Here is an issue which may be hard to resolve. The vast majority of gamblers want fifteen minutes between races. With the younger generation having a smaller attention span, the question becomes how do you resolve the issue of speeding races up? Perhaps the answer may be intermingling of race programs at different tracks to allow those who focus on one track to get their fifteen minutes while those clamoring for more action can play another race track in between. The other solution may be to offer alternate entertainment options between races.
What Would Make People Wager More?
About 47% of the people indicated they wager more money with lower takeout rates or bigger rebates. So it is clear that Tioga Downs and others who are reducing their takeout rates are making the right moves. 40% of the people said lower takeout rates is the way to increase handle and get others interested in racing.
With Medication and Illegal Drugs being a big problem, what would Gamblers like to see?
It's a good thing the gamblers don't issue fines and suspensions as some trainers would be in real trouble. Gamblers have no patience for the use of illegal drugs and medications and they are angry about it. Here are some statistics from the survey:
News Item: Marc St Louis Jr Returns. Pardon me if I don't welcome him back. Speaking of individuals who deserved a stiffer penalty. For those that don't know, Marc St Louis Jr was fined $5,000 and suspended more than a year by Michigan officials for making false and misleading statement regarding the death of the horse named Alex E Mel. According to the original ruling, "...St Louis admitted to the death, burning and burial of the horse and in doing so he did attempt to conceal, tamper and destroy evidence in the case by improperly burning and burying the horse in violation of state law". and in a separate incident, he was penalized "...for possession of hypodermic needles, syringes and/or injectable and/or other drugs." St Louis was "...observed by MORC personnel using a hypodermic syringe to inject a drug or foreign substance into the horse Rising Artist which was entered to race.".
The USTA denied him membership when he applied but since Michigan doesn't require a driver or trainer to have USTA membership, he is about to make his return racing at Northville Downs this weekend, making his first start since 2009 as he is listed to drive on six horses Saturday night at Northville. Yes, he served his time, but does this type of person install confidence in the sport? And then people wonder why harness racing is losing relevancy. One has to question the logic of Michigan allowing him back.
News Item: Christie Vetoes Online Gaming Bill. While racing was hoping for this legislation as it was to funnel some money into purses, I have doubts the law would have survived the inevitable court challenges. The arguement could have been successfully made that this would have been an expansion of gaming in New Jersey. The state constitution allows casino gambling only in Atlantic City. Even though the servers would have been in Atlantic City, I am sure someone would have made the case that a person making a wager from their computer in Paramus, NJ would be the same as having casino gaming in Paramus. While racing would have benefited from this bill, I am reasonably certain the courts would have scuttled this bill if the Governor didn't.
Myth: Fans hate the idea of classified racing.
Truth: Make no mistake about it, of the two systems, conditioned racing is more accepted with 61% of the respondents liking the conditioned system versus 21.6% who opposed it. However, when asked about classified racing, 36.8% liked classified racing and 38.6% did not like it. As pollsters would say, it was a statistical dead heat. A large number of respondents (24.6%) had no opinion; likely because a lot of them never experienced racing using the classified system. The conclusion which can be made is there would be no mass revolt from the gamblers if classified racing was introduced; the revolt would be from horsemen. Where fans are pretty much united is with regards to how classified races are reported in the past performance program. NW3CD clearly doesn't do it with 71.9% of the respondents say the program is lacking with regards to not showing the expanded conditions.
Let's look at some other findings.
Gamblers are definitely not satisfied with the product being provided.as only 31% of the respondents are somewhat satisfied with the racing product. 10% are neutral in their feelings and 55.9% of the respondents are dissatisfied with the product (29.3% are very dissatisfied). This was one question where people were given the opportunity to express specific reasons for their dissatisfaction. Well, to no surprise takeout rates and small pools were a prime complaint for gamblers as are drugs. From reading the responses received, rest assured trainers will not be receiving many dinner invitations from gamblers. One respondent put it succinctly, when they said "trainers are cheating b**tards" as the use of drugs is considered quite prevalent. Fans are troubled by the super trainers, and the frequency of reversal of forms. Judges come in for some criticism for lack of consistency. One surprising thing was there were few complaints, if any, regarding the whipping rules which being this survey was answered by Canadian and American fans. Obviously, these respondents did not find too much objection to the Ontario Urging Rules (the whipping question will be specifically surveyed in a subsequent survey), the strictest rules in North America.
When asked about gamblers complaints regarding half mile track racing, the biggest problem identified was the post position bias followed by low payoff prices, no movement in a race, and small pools. When asked what could make half mile track racing better, the staggered starting gate is the first recommendation, followed by handicapping all races to put the best horses on the outside. After these two ideas, moving post seven and eight to the second tier was next, with the suggestions of moving the speed horses to the second tier to force movement and adding distance to the races falling flat on their face.
Fans were specifically asked about the biggest problems on the Meadowlands and WEG circuits individually. The biggest problem gamblers felt about the Meadowlands was questionable trainers. After the trainers, the biggest problem the respondents felt was buddy-buddy driving (letting your friends up the rail as an example). After those two issues, the lack of flow/no movement came up, poor field quality and field size came up as issues three, four and five.
At Woodbine and Mohawk, questionable trainers were considered the third biggest problem. The reason questionable trainers are considered the biggest problem at the Meadowlands and the third biggest problem at WEG probably has something to do with the ability of WEG to exclude questionable trainers where the Meadowlands does not have that ability. At WEG, the lack of flow and movement was the biggest problem with buddy buddy driving considered the second biggest problem. Poor field quality is the fourth biggest problem at WEG with the field size being the fifth biggest problem. I suspect next year poor field quality at WEG will become a non-issue with the ORC's new rules to ensure the best horses race at WEG tracks instead of at tracks like Georgian Downs and Western Fair.
When asked in general what they felt the biggest problems are with horse racing, respondents were most concerned with parimutuel takeout rates, the perception of the sport, the use of medication and illegal drugs, parimutuel pool integrity, declining field size, federal tax laws with regards to winnings, small pool size, late odd changes, and decreased television coverage. What may be surprising to some people is the issue of uncoupling entries, most people were not concerned or only slightly concerned about the uncoupling of horses in races.
Other issues which came up are as follows:
Fair Start Rule
No doubt a contributor to the large dissatisfaction of the racing product is the lack of a fair start rule. Remember how the NJRC voted down the fair start rule? Well 76% of the respondents want the United States to adopt the Canadian Fair Start rule. 56.1% prefer the fair start pole being at 200 feet. Clearly a lot of gamblers have been shafted by having horses go off stride well before the start.
Amount of Time Between Races
Here is an issue which may be hard to resolve. The vast majority of gamblers want fifteen minutes between races. With the younger generation having a smaller attention span, the question becomes how do you resolve the issue of speeding races up? Perhaps the answer may be intermingling of race programs at different tracks to allow those who focus on one track to get their fifteen minutes while those clamoring for more action can play another race track in between. The other solution may be to offer alternate entertainment options between races.
What Would Make People Wager More?
About 47% of the people indicated they wager more money with lower takeout rates or bigger rebates. So it is clear that Tioga Downs and others who are reducing their takeout rates are making the right moves. 40% of the people said lower takeout rates is the way to increase handle and get others interested in racing.
With Medication and Illegal Drugs being a big problem, what would Gamblers like to see?
It's a good thing the gamblers don't issue fines and suspensions as some trainers would be in real trouble. Gamblers have no patience for the use of illegal drugs and medications and they are angry about it. Here are some statistics from the survey:
- 70.6% of respondents say the penalties need to be more severe than they are now
- 40% of the respondents say the horse should be suspended with the trainer or owner
- 51.2% of the people feel the vet needs to be fined or suspended along with the trainer.
- 48.8% of the people feel the use of banned substances should be a criminal offense.
News Item: Marc St Louis Jr Returns. Pardon me if I don't welcome him back. Speaking of individuals who deserved a stiffer penalty. For those that don't know, Marc St Louis Jr was fined $5,000 and suspended more than a year by Michigan officials for making false and misleading statement regarding the death of the horse named Alex E Mel. According to the original ruling, "...St Louis admitted to the death, burning and burial of the horse and in doing so he did attempt to conceal, tamper and destroy evidence in the case by improperly burning and burying the horse in violation of state law". and in a separate incident, he was penalized "...for possession of hypodermic needles, syringes and/or injectable and/or other drugs." St Louis was "...observed by MORC personnel using a hypodermic syringe to inject a drug or foreign substance into the horse Rising Artist which was entered to race.".
The USTA denied him membership when he applied but since Michigan doesn't require a driver or trainer to have USTA membership, he is about to make his return racing at Northville Downs this weekend, making his first start since 2009 as he is listed to drive on six horses Saturday night at Northville. Yes, he served his time, but does this type of person install confidence in the sport? And then people wonder why harness racing is losing relevancy. One has to question the logic of Michigan allowing him back.
News Item: Christie Vetoes Online Gaming Bill. While racing was hoping for this legislation as it was to funnel some money into purses, I have doubts the law would have survived the inevitable court challenges. The arguement could have been successfully made that this would have been an expansion of gaming in New Jersey. The state constitution allows casino gambling only in Atlantic City. Even though the servers would have been in Atlantic City, I am sure someone would have made the case that a person making a wager from their computer in Paramus, NJ would be the same as having casino gaming in Paramus. While racing would have benefited from this bill, I am reasonably certain the courts would have scuttled this bill if the Governor didn't.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Fair Start Rule Update
Word has been received that at the August 19th meeting of the New Jersey Racing Commission held at Monmouth Park, the racing commission voted to accept the petition requesting the implementation of a fair start rule in New Jersey. As a result of this decision, the NJRC will publish a proposed rule change along with a solicitation for public comment. At the end of a 60 day public comment period the racing commission will review the comments received and then decide whether to approve, modify or reject the proposed rule.
The fact this proposal got this far is good; the petition could have been rejected at the commission meeting. However, we can not rest on our laurels. Once the proposed rule change is published, it will be available online at the bottom of this page. If you want a fair start rule make sure you voice your support for the proposed rule by commenting during the 60 day public comment period (it must be in writing); those who don't want to see a fair start rule will certainly be raising their objections. I will try to publicize when the proposed rule change is published for comment.
Make sure to make your voice heard; after all, if you don't stand up for your interests, who will?
The fact this proposal got this far is good; the petition could have been rejected at the commission meeting. However, we can not rest on our laurels. Once the proposed rule change is published, it will be available online at the bottom of this page. If you want a fair start rule make sure you voice your support for the proposed rule by commenting during the 60 day public comment period (it must be in writing); those who don't want to see a fair start rule will certainly be raising their objections. I will try to publicize when the proposed rule change is published for comment.
Make sure to make your voice heard; after all, if you don't stand up for your interests, who will?
Thursday, October 6, 2011
USTA Proposed Rule Changes for 2012
The USTA proposed rule changes for 2012 has been published and the horsemen in each individual district will be discussing them, endorsing or rejecting the proposals. While these endorsements or rejections are not automatic, they are considered by each district's directors at the USTA's annual meeting in 2012.
As done the last two years, this blog will review the rules with respect to their impact on horseplayers. While, the vast majority of the rule proposals this year address breeding and registration issues, there are some issues which impact racing. Unfortunately, an issue which benefits the horseplayer, a fair start rule, is not proposed this year not that this surprises me as a fair start rule has the potential of costing tracks and horsemen money while benefiting the horseplayer. Of course, if individual states approve fair start rules, it will be the practice for the particular state.
It is important to remember the USTA rules are basically model rules; individual states adopt their own rules. While a state may refer to the USTA rule when making their own rules, state rules take precedence and USTA rules apply only if an individual state's set of rules don't address the issue.
Without further ado, let's go over the rule changes and how I would vote for each proposal.
Rule 18 is a proposal to ban the consideration of any rule changes after the district meetings have been completed and before the annual meeting. This is being proposed to clarify the board's authority to introduce rules which were not previously discussed.
As done the last two years, this blog will review the rules with respect to their impact on horseplayers. While, the vast majority of the rule proposals this year address breeding and registration issues, there are some issues which impact racing. Unfortunately, an issue which benefits the horseplayer, a fair start rule, is not proposed this year not that this surprises me as a fair start rule has the potential of costing tracks and horsemen money while benefiting the horseplayer. Of course, if individual states approve fair start rules, it will be the practice for the particular state.
It is important to remember the USTA rules are basically model rules; individual states adopt their own rules. While a state may refer to the USTA rule when making their own rules, state rules take precedence and USTA rules apply only if an individual state's set of rules don't address the issue.
Without further ado, let's go over the rule changes and how I would vote for each proposal.
- A proposal to amend Rule 18, Section 1 - Racing and Track Rules by considering the following a violation of the rules "Failure to make a reasonable effort to keep holes closed". - FOR. This has been a common complaint of horseplayers, that horses find holes to easily in a race as drivers give certain drivers a hole to tuck into if they are from the outside. It is one thing if a driver finds a hole due to a horse not being able to keep up; it is another thing when a driver takes up his horse to make the hole for the other driver.
- A proposal to add a new subsection to Rule 18, Section 1 which mandates "Any horse pulled to the outside must make a reasonable effort to advance its position. Driver may not be half in or half out and block the outer flow. If a driver races half in or half out or just pulls to the outside and just sits there would be considered violating the rules. - FOR. If a horse pulls to the outside it should be attempting to advance and they should not sit half in or half out which in effect causes confusion to trailing drivers. This has been a common complaint regarding racing at the Meadowlands this past year and undoubtedly occurs elsewhere.
- A proposal to amend Rule 18 Section 12 to the following "Any trainer shall have the option to race a trotter with or without hopples at the trainers discretion if the horse had qualified in their lifetime with and without hopples". - FOR, with modifications. I agree if a horse has shown it can race with or without hopples, it should be the trainer's discretion how to race the horse without having to qualify once again. However, I do have problems with this proposal. First of all the proposal talks about trotters and I realize 95% of the time it would be for trotters. If such a rule change should be made, it should also apply to pacers who have raced both free legged or with hopples. In addition, if a multi-heat race, a horse should be required to race with or without hopples in all heats they are eligible for. Lastly, the protection of not being able to change the length of the hopples during a multi-heat race or having a head pole protrude beyond a horse's nose must remain.
- A proposal to amend Rule 10 (Claiming Races) Section 9 (dealing with the voiding of claims) by having post race urine and.or blood samples marked as "priority" and delivered to the testing lab within 24 hours of collection; a successful claimant automatically waives his or her right to void a claim once a horse has made a start for them; funds for the purchase of a claiming horse be distributed once test samples come back negative or the horse starts in a race. - FOR. This proposal will speed up the process of testing samples of horses being claimed so a claim may be voided promptly, not after a horse has made some starts for the new owners. If a new owner can't wait for accelerated lab work to come back, then they should lose their right to void a claim. It seems to be a common sense proposal.
- A proposal to add to Rule 14 - Declaration to Start and Drawing Horses to add a new subsection which would allow a judge to scratch a horse if a driver change is made within the hour before the race in matinee, qualifying and county fair races. - AGAINST. Apparently at some tracks, drivers who were not licensed and qualified to drive have been able to race a horse. I understand safety is an issue, however there should be lists that the judges should have access to which list which drivers have a matinee, qualifying, amateur, or full license. How long does it take for a judge to check a name against a list. If a person is not on the list, the person should not be allowed to drive. Ir seems to me this rule is being proposed because of the inability of a racing office to do their job.
- A proposal to make it illegal to obliterate permanent identification markings assigned by the USTA or Standardbred Canada. - FOR. It makes it harder for a horse protected by the SOS, Full Circle programs or the Pleasure horse registration.
- A proposal to amend Rule 24 to change the timing of races from fifths of seconds to one hundredths of seconds. - AGAINST. Yes, we can time races in hundreths of seconds, but with the rest of the standardbred world outside of North America timing races in tenths of seconds, it would be more appropriate to change to tenths of seconds ot standardize timing which would be better for the future of global simulcasting. If all standardbred racing juristictions changed to hundreths of seconds, I would have no problem with this rule. Also, there is no indication Standardbred Canada would change their timing method. Any timing change should be made in conjunction with Standardbred Canada.
- A proposal to require foals under 17 months to be premanently identified and have parentage verified before issuing an export certificate. - FOR. Without this rule change, it is conceivable that someone could pass off a foal of an American sire and dam as a foal of a sire and dam in the country being exported to. This rule change would prevent fraud being committed.
- A proposal to make the conversion of a horse's registration from racing to pleasure horse apply to the horse and/or offspring separate. - ABSTAIN. Currently a horse that has been issued a pleasure registration may not be used for breeding. The proposal would allow a horse to be banned from racing but allowed to be used for breeding unless the prior owner has clearly forbidden it. Quite honestly, I have mixed feelings on this. The last thing we need are more stallions and broodmares, however if a horse may be used for breeding purposes it may save it from slaughter as the horse has additional value. Odds are if the horse has any commercial value, the original owner would not register the horse as a pleasure horse. I would propose in the rule that any horse with a pleasure horse registration may have their foals registered with the USTA as a pleasure horse; thus proving its lineage but keeping it from racing.
- A proposal to change who is the breeder is if an unregistered horse sold in a lien or sherriff sale. FOR - Currently, the rules list the breeder as the owner or lessee of the dam at the time of breeding. Why should that person get any breeder awards if someone else paid the stud fee?
Rule 18 is a proposal to ban the consideration of any rule changes after the district meetings have been completed and before the annual meeting. This is being proposed to clarify the board's authority to introduce rules which were not previously discussed.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
Another Black Eye for Harness Racing
Let me start right up front that I don't think the 7th race at Yonkers Raceway this past Friday night (November 29) was a 'fixed' race. Many handicappers will tell you it is better to bet the horses moving up off a good effort rather than betting a horse dropping down off a poor effort. The two horses in question, Fort Valley AS (the winner, 8-1 morning line) and Elin (second place, 5-1 morning line) were the only two horses that won their last race albeit moving up, The race program had plenty of horses with higher morning lines in other races so it is clear the track handicapper thought the race was wide open and these horses would get some support at the window. No doubt the gamblers figured the post position of death (#8) would doom Fort Valley AS and they let him go big time. It turns out these two horses were the two that left so handicappers which follow the rule of playing the horses on the upswing would have and should have been handsomely rewarded as the following picture of the field heading into the stretch to start would indicate.
The problem is it would appear at the surface those who follow this rule were robbed of their just rewards. As you can see, the 8-3 Exacta should have paid $646 (the 3-8 would have paid $417). Imagine how much jumping up and down you would be doing after the race congratulating yourself on your handicapping and then finding out your $646 payoff has been cut to $85, a payoff shaved roughly 86%?
You would be screaming for the Feds and I wouldn't blame you.
In fact, in the 'good old' days before there was anything called a racino, there is a good chance there would have been a riot at the track (well maybe in the 1970's; just before a racino opened at Yonkers I don't know if there would have been enough people to have a riot). Before you get any ideas, I wouldn't suggest such an action. Never coming back to the track, perhaps.
The worst thing is what just happened may be perfectly legal; ethical may be a different question.
Could it have been past posting? While some are claiming so the truth is right now we have no proof of that. Could it have been people who had the ability to get bets in at the last minute punching tickets with the two leavers boxing the them? Much more plausible.
And there lies the problem. While betting the horses who leave first is not fool proof, the fact some people can do this cries out for reform in racing with regards to when the windows are shut.
With the takeout the way it is, racing is a hard way to make money. First you have to deal with the high takeout rates. As the seventh race on Friday night proves, it is that much tougher when people with preferential treatment are able to crush your payoff on a winning ticket by 86% with the tacit approval of management. Not necessarily management at the racetrack where the race is taking place, but at any simulcast location which takes bets on a race. The reason why is clear, the location taking the bet gets the largest share of the commission.
An 86% reduction in the payoff sticks out like a sore thumb. How many times is the price shaved more 'reasonably', not sticking out like a sore thumb?
Look, as a small time gambler, I can accept the fact larger gamblers get (larger) rebates which allow them to play longer, call if volume discount; the same way Walmart can buy widgets cheaper than Mom and Pa's hardware store. However, while a whale may have the ability to stand in front of a teller waiting to see which two horses are leaving, you see how long you are allowed to stand in front of a teller trying to do the same thing with people in line behind you screaming, not only to get their bet in on the race you are wagering on but at one of the umpteen other tracks racing at the same time. Can this be done via ADWs? Perhaps, but with a delay in the signal reaching someone at home, I am not sure it is the best way to pull this strategy off.
Here is where my understanding nature has a problem and my sense of fair play steps in. While I accept the fact volume discounts (rebates) exist, I have a problem when large players are given an advantage to wager unencumbered longer than anyone else with the assistance of racetrack management. What makes it more infuriating is racing commissions seem to tolerate this type of behavior by allowing wagering to continue as long as it does.
We need tote integrity and the first place it needs to start is for wagering to stop the moment the starter calls the field.
Thoroughbred and quarter horse racing have wagering stopped before the horses leave the gate. Harness racing? Keep on wagering as the starting gate is moving; even if tickets become virtually worthless as a horse refuses to go to the gate or jumps off just after the starter calls the field thanks to the lack of a fair start rule (Shame on the NJRC which could have done the right thing but voted the fair start down earlier this year). If windows were shut the moment the starter called the field, while some people get an advantage on the effective takeout rate, at least no one gets the ability to bet after the average player is effectively shut out.
Let's address the arguments against stopping wagering so early:
Do I think anything will change soon? ROFL LOL. That is the saddest part about it. Until racing commissions or the State/Federal Governments gets involved, things are not likely to change. I hope I am proven wrong but I am not holding my breath.
Post Script: By the way, four days after the race in question, no word from Yonkers or the NYGC regarding where those late wagers were bet or on the betting patterns. This doesn't help the situation either.
The problem is it would appear at the surface those who follow this rule were robbed of their just rewards. As you can see, the 8-3 Exacta should have paid $646 (the 3-8 would have paid $417). Imagine how much jumping up and down you would be doing after the race congratulating yourself on your handicapping and then finding out your $646 payoff has been cut to $85, a payoff shaved roughly 86%?
You would be screaming for the Feds and I wouldn't blame you.
In fact, in the 'good old' days before there was anything called a racino, there is a good chance there would have been a riot at the track (well maybe in the 1970's; just before a racino opened at Yonkers I don't know if there would have been enough people to have a riot). Before you get any ideas, I wouldn't suggest such an action. Never coming back to the track, perhaps.
The worst thing is what just happened may be perfectly legal; ethical may be a different question.
Could it have been past posting? While some are claiming so the truth is right now we have no proof of that. Could it have been people who had the ability to get bets in at the last minute punching tickets with the two leavers boxing the them? Much more plausible.
And there lies the problem. While betting the horses who leave first is not fool proof, the fact some people can do this cries out for reform in racing with regards to when the windows are shut.
With the takeout the way it is, racing is a hard way to make money. First you have to deal with the high takeout rates. As the seventh race on Friday night proves, it is that much tougher when people with preferential treatment are able to crush your payoff on a winning ticket by 86% with the tacit approval of management. Not necessarily management at the racetrack where the race is taking place, but at any simulcast location which takes bets on a race. The reason why is clear, the location taking the bet gets the largest share of the commission.
An 86% reduction in the payoff sticks out like a sore thumb. How many times is the price shaved more 'reasonably', not sticking out like a sore thumb?
Look, as a small time gambler, I can accept the fact larger gamblers get (larger) rebates which allow them to play longer, call if volume discount; the same way Walmart can buy widgets cheaper than Mom and Pa's hardware store. However, while a whale may have the ability to stand in front of a teller waiting to see which two horses are leaving, you see how long you are allowed to stand in front of a teller trying to do the same thing with people in line behind you screaming, not only to get their bet in on the race you are wagering on but at one of the umpteen other tracks racing at the same time. Can this be done via ADWs? Perhaps, but with a delay in the signal reaching someone at home, I am not sure it is the best way to pull this strategy off.
Here is where my understanding nature has a problem and my sense of fair play steps in. While I accept the fact volume discounts (rebates) exist, I have a problem when large players are given an advantage to wager unencumbered longer than anyone else with the assistance of racetrack management. What makes it more infuriating is racing commissions seem to tolerate this type of behavior by allowing wagering to continue as long as it does.
We need tote integrity and the first place it needs to start is for wagering to stop the moment the starter calls the field.
Thoroughbred and quarter horse racing have wagering stopped before the horses leave the gate. Harness racing? Keep on wagering as the starting gate is moving; even if tickets become virtually worthless as a horse refuses to go to the gate or jumps off just after the starter calls the field thanks to the lack of a fair start rule (Shame on the NJRC which could have done the right thing but voted the fair start down earlier this year). If windows were shut the moment the starter called the field, while some people get an advantage on the effective takeout rate, at least no one gets the ability to bet after the average player is effectively shut out.
Let's address the arguments against stopping wagering so early:
- A recall can happen - A typical recall? Tough luck. A horse gets scratched? I am sure the windows can be reopened for a few minutes to allow people to make changes to their wagers or make new wagers. Establish a new post time.
- The whales will stop wagering without that advantage - When the smaller gamblers stop playing your product. where will the dumb money come from for the whales to feast on? Or the reverse may happen, when people don't see their payoffs slashed big time when prices go official, maybe the little guy will stick around or even come back once they realize the game is no longer stacked against the little guy.
- The whales are used to wagering at the last minute - Well, if the stores can get the typical shopper to act like Pavlov's dog on Black Friday, I am sure the whales are intelligent enough to adapt to the 'new' last minute and wager accordingly.
- The whales like betting at the last minute to avoid betting on breakers - About time they join us little fishes who get screwed when their horse refuses to go to the gate when the starter calls the field. At least they can take solace in their reduced takeout rate. Better yet, alleviate the problem by adopting the Fair Start Rule which is used in Canada.
Do I think anything will change soon? ROFL LOL. That is the saddest part about it. Until racing commissions or the State/Federal Governments gets involved, things are not likely to change. I hope I am proven wrong but I am not holding my breath.
Post Script: By the way, four days after the race in question, no word from Yonkers or the NYGC regarding where those late wagers were bet or on the betting patterns. This doesn't help the situation either.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
D Day for the New Jersey Harness Player
The next public meeting of the NJRC will be held next Wednesday, January 19 at the Meadowlands. On the agenda is the the decision whether to adopt the proposal to introduce the Fair Start rule used in Canada to harness racing in New Jersey (agenda item #8). In addition, to the fair start rule, there is the formal adoption of the revised Meadowlands schedule; reducing the dates from 141 days to 82 days for the 2011 meet. As you recall, until the legislation was passed by the legislature, the Meadowlands needed to submit a 141 day schedule to keep their OTW facility open. Now, with the legislative change, the schedule may be updated to reflect the actual proposed schedule.
But as for the adoption of the fair start rule in New Jersey, I remain cautiously optimistic regarding the chance of approval of the proposed rule change. Not knowing how the letters sent in during the public comment period ran in sentiment (hopefully blog readers voiced their support), nor not being aware if there was a campaign against the rules adoption by the horsemen and track operators against it, passage of the rule change is not certain.
Approval of this proposal will right a wrong that was done to horseplayers when the old recall rule was changed. Even more important, those potential customers, who happen to have the misfortune of betting on a horse who for some reason that day decides it's not racing, will not be chased away from harness racing when they get their wager back instead of their ticket becomes worthless the moment the starting car begins moving.
How big a decision is this? With the approval of this rule in New Jersey, other states may look favorably on adopting a similar rule change in their own state once the rule is in effect at America's number one harness track. After all, how do you tell your local customers that they don't have the same protection as gambler wagering into New Jersey pools?
This NJRC meeting is open to the public. The meet starts at noon with a scheduled one hour executive session with the public session scheduled to be immediately after. The meeting will be held at the Meadowlands Hambleotnian Room on the Pegasus level.
But as for the adoption of the fair start rule in New Jersey, I remain cautiously optimistic regarding the chance of approval of the proposed rule change. Not knowing how the letters sent in during the public comment period ran in sentiment (hopefully blog readers voiced their support), nor not being aware if there was a campaign against the rules adoption by the horsemen and track operators against it, passage of the rule change is not certain.
Approval of this proposal will right a wrong that was done to horseplayers when the old recall rule was changed. Even more important, those potential customers, who happen to have the misfortune of betting on a horse who for some reason that day decides it's not racing, will not be chased away from harness racing when they get their wager back instead of their ticket becomes worthless the moment the starting car begins moving.
How big a decision is this? With the approval of this rule in New Jersey, other states may look favorably on adopting a similar rule change in their own state once the rule is in effect at America's number one harness track. After all, how do you tell your local customers that they don't have the same protection as gambler wagering into New Jersey pools?
This NJRC meeting is open to the public. The meet starts at noon with a scheduled one hour executive session with the public session scheduled to be immediately after. The meeting will be held at the Meadowlands Hambleotnian Room on the Pegasus level.
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
RUS New York Kicks-off the 2015 Season; Show Your Suspport
Here is the fair schedule for New York
• Wednesday, July 1 – Oswego County in Sandy Creek
• Tuesday, July 7- Tioga County in Owego
• Thursday, July 9 – Afton Fair
• Tuesday, July 21 – “Little World’s Fair” in Hemlock
• Tuesday, Aug 4 – Otsego County in Morris
• Monday, Aug. 10 – Wayne County in Palmyra
• Wednesday, Aug. 12 – Franklin County in Malone
• Tuesday, Aug. 18 – Steuben County in Bath
• Tuesday, Aug. 25 – Tompkins County in Trumansburg
• Wednesday, Sept. 2- Final race to be included with the harness race fair finals at Monticello Raceway
Racing Under Saddle will be occurring at pari-mutuel tracks as well. Vernon Downs begins a RUS series on July 26 and Monticello will be holding two races in addition to the fair finals. Other racetracks will be announced as dates are finalized.
If you are able, attend as many RUS dates as possible to show both fair committees and sponsors there is a demand for racing under saddle. Nothing like a large audience to show interest in the racing product.
Do you have a horse you want to start in a RUS event but are looking for an easier place to begin their career? The New York fair circuit may be where you want to start your horse's career as the qualifying time on the fair circuit is 2:20 regardless of track size. The complete conditions for the fair circuit are located here.
Sponsorship options are available at different levels and may be made for a particular track or the entire series. As with sponsorships, sponsors will be recognized in the programs. Sponsorship levels are as follows: Premier Platinum Sponsorship ($2,000 plus); Platinum Sponsorship ($1,000 plus); Gold Sponsorship ($ 550 plus); Silver ($250 plus); Bronze Sponsorship ($100 plus); Contributors (anything under $100); Sponsors who donate product.
Who should consider sponsorship? Those who are interested in promoting RUS and supporting racing by those who hope to compete on the parimutuel level; trainers who are looking to expand their stable, including horses who will race under saddle; riders looking to get their name out there for future mounts; breeders and lovers of the standardbred who are looking to show the versatility of the standardbred; fans of racing. Truth is there is a sponsorship level for individuals competing at different levels in the sport. If interested in becoming a sponsor, check out the sponsorship page on RUS New York's website or contact me and I will put you in contact with the proper individual.
If you are a fan and want to show your love for RUS, you can click on this link and purchase sweatshirts and t-shirts here. The pricing is reasonable, so why not take a look?
Friday, March 18, 2011
Free Start Rule Lives?
In today's NJRC meeting, the racing commission has announced they will be post for public comment a proposed rule change for implementing a fair start rule; this after voting down a previous proposal which was submitted. My understanding for the first proposal's failure was that it did not specify what happened if a horse somehow finished in the money after not reaching the fair start pole. You would have thought the commissioners would have known what would happen; after all the original proposal was to emulate the Ontario rule. That being said, I guess legal technicalities need to be followed so it was voted down. I guess the racing commission found merit in the concept, because it is now back. Hopefully, it won't take another year plus for it to come to a vote.
In addition, with Freehold hurting, they are cutting some days from their spring meet and adding it to the fall meet; hoping to drop them all together if the law cutting the number of race dates goes into effect. The meet ends in May instead of June and races on three days a week instead of the four days now.
Tomorrow night is the Four Leaf Clover series. Who would have thought the Meadowland's racing secretary would have had to make calls to get enough horses to start? It is a whole new game these days and I don't think I like it. Chester Downs opens this evening and Pocono Downs raises its curtain on Tuesday evening..
In addition, with Freehold hurting, they are cutting some days from their spring meet and adding it to the fall meet; hoping to drop them all together if the law cutting the number of race dates goes into effect. The meet ends in May instead of June and races on three days a week instead of the four days now.
Tomorrow night is the Four Leaf Clover series. Who would have thought the Meadowland's racing secretary would have had to make calls to get enough horses to start? It is a whole new game these days and I don't think I like it. Chester Downs opens this evening and Pocono Downs raises its curtain on Tuesday evening..
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)