Let me preface this column by once again mentioning this blog is to discuss harness racing from the fan's view. As such, this blog will discuss all things related to harness racing; from the good and not so good. The topics will vary though at times there will be a concentration on one particular topic or another. So kindly indulge me for another, albeit brief, entry regarding horse slaughter.
In another forum, there was a brief discussion regarding the Salon article concerning horse slaughter which was mentioned in an earlier post from this blog as well as the proposal of surcharging various fees to provide for the means of retiring or at worst, humanely euthanizing a horse that is no longer able to race. There were few responses to the thread in that forum, which was troubling in itself for reasons I will discuss shortly, but the some responses were surprising. Here are a a couple of sample responses:
"...this (animal slaughter) is a very distressing subject to discuss, but is a fact of life with no apparent solution in the near future..."
"...this is a distressing topic to discuss, ...but for myself, I would rather not know the gory details of what happens to our athletes once they are not racing any more. Just human nature I suppose. I would hope they all go to green pastures or become members of police force to live out their lives, unfortunately, this not the case as long as there is a market for their meat."
To be sure, there were a couple responses of how as owners they took care to make sure their charges found a suitable home when they were done racing and that is to be applauded.
Then there is the lack of responses by people in various forums where this is discussed. Why don't people join in the discussion? Most likely it is because they have the same sentiments as the people quoted above, they don't care, or they believe if we don't discuss the problem it will go away (and yes, there is probably a very small minority that don't have a problem with horse slaughter).
The problem is not going to go away if we don't talk about it and work on addressing the problem; the status quo is unacceptable. Attitudes towards animals have changed; society is more 'enlightened'. If we don't do anything about our unwanted horses the animal rights people will do something about it and you will see harness racing disappear. Can't happen? How many racetracks are still in operation because of the VLTs? As states continue to have budget issues, animal rights groups like PETA will be sure to launch a campaign to make sure slot revenue for horse racing goes away as a way to fund social programs in the various states as well ending the inhumane treatment of unwanted race horses (horse slaughter). These groups have been very successful in crippling greyhound racing; once they finish that industry off they will turn to horse racing.
This is not the only reason we should be doing something about unwanted race horses. It is the right thing to do both ethically and business-wise. Ethically, we owe it to these animals who perform for us to treat them right when their racing career is over by letting them start new careers or if so seriously injured that they can't become pasture animals, euthanized; not sent to the horrors of a slaughterhouse. Business-wise, considering what owners pay to keep horses racing they certainly can afford to give the horse away to a rescue group or if that far gone, they can afford to euthanize a horse that can't physically tolerate a life as a pasture horse. Let's call it an investment in the long term survival of their industry. If they can't do that, they have no business being an owner.
Continuing on the stranglehold Atlantic City has over New Jersey racing, State Senator Steven Oroho writes an opinion piece which indicates why it is time for New Jersey to get racinos. Apparently, the doom and gloom the casino industry says racinos will cause is all smoke. According to studies the author mentions, opening a racino at the Meadowlands will have for all practical purposes no impact on Atlantic City, all it will do is bring back the gaming dollars spent at Yonkers back into New Jersey where the state will benefit; very little additional gambling dollars will be transferred from Atlantic City to the Meadowlands.
Showing posts with label racinos. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racinos. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Share Some of that Slot Money with the Bettors
In an editorial in the Philadelphia Daily News concerning the current revenue from the VLTs, the writer is wondering why the vast majority of slot money is going to horse racing while the state is having to curtail social programs. Fortunately, the editorial recognizes the horse racing industry is important to the state, but suggests when the state decides to add table games (they will), that the legislature revisit the percentage that goes to racing; others are not so generous in their comments and would like to cut racing out totally from slot revenues.
The horsemen in all states have certainly gone through some lean times. I remember $2,500 claimers racing for a $1,200 purse at Pocono Downs but now with slot revenue the bottom level $5,000 claimers are racing for $4,400 purses. Those that have endured through the dark days are deservedly reaping the rewards for persevering.
While the horsemen in racino states are enjoying a renaissance, maybe it is time for the horsemen to fight for the bettors by working to get the takeout reduced by offering a small part of their share of the slot revenue to make up for a reduction in the takeout. The Pennsylvania product is not bettable; the heavy hitters refuse to wager into pools with a 35% takeout on trifectas and superfectas. As a result, so little of the purse money comes from actual wagering. It is a known fact that lower takeouts result in more money being wagered churned so what is lost by cutting the takeout is made up by volume. By conceding a small portion of the slot proceeds, the product can become more bettable, handles will increase, and more people will show up at the track.
Why should horsemen in particular lead the charge? Horsemen have the most to lose. Harrahs has made it known they would love to get rid of racing at Chester if they could; the profits from slots are basically financing racing and racing is contributing little to its own upkeep. Fortunately, Harrahs needs racing in order to offer slots, for now. Most racinos have the same love-hate relationship with racing. Unless racing gets more fans showing up and getting the handle growing the time may come when Harrahs and others get their wish. We need to make racing relevant again. Offering new wagering options and lowering the takeout is a significant part of the solution.
No one likes giving up money but if the horsemen want a long future for themselves and their children, it is necessary to race for a little less now and have a place to race in a few years. Having asked the states for assistance to preserve racing, perhaps it is time for racing to ask the states to help the bettors. Giving up a small portion of the slot money to cover part of the takeout is a good start. Harness racing's survival may depend on it.
The horsemen in all states have certainly gone through some lean times. I remember $2,500 claimers racing for a $1,200 purse at Pocono Downs but now with slot revenue the bottom level $5,000 claimers are racing for $4,400 purses. Those that have endured through the dark days are deservedly reaping the rewards for persevering.
While the horsemen in racino states are enjoying a renaissance, maybe it is time for the horsemen to fight for the bettors by working to get the takeout reduced by offering a small part of their share of the slot revenue to make up for a reduction in the takeout. The Pennsylvania product is not bettable; the heavy hitters refuse to wager into pools with a 35% takeout on trifectas and superfectas. As a result, so little of the purse money comes from actual wagering. It is a known fact that lower takeouts result in more money being wagered churned so what is lost by cutting the takeout is made up by volume. By conceding a small portion of the slot proceeds, the product can become more bettable, handles will increase, and more people will show up at the track.
Why should horsemen in particular lead the charge? Horsemen have the most to lose. Harrahs has made it known they would love to get rid of racing at Chester if they could; the profits from slots are basically financing racing and racing is contributing little to its own upkeep. Fortunately, Harrahs needs racing in order to offer slots, for now. Most racinos have the same love-hate relationship with racing. Unless racing gets more fans showing up and getting the handle growing the time may come when Harrahs and others get their wish. We need to make racing relevant again. Offering new wagering options and lowering the takeout is a significant part of the solution.
No one likes giving up money but if the horsemen want a long future for themselves and their children, it is necessary to race for a little less now and have a place to race in a few years. Having asked the states for assistance to preserve racing, perhaps it is time for racing to ask the states to help the bettors. Giving up a small portion of the slot money to cover part of the takeout is a good start. Harness racing's survival may depend on it.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Sports Betting - Hypocrisy and Parochialism
The Record of New Jersey reports that Governor Corzine backs a lawsuit against a federal ban on sports betting which a state senator has brought against the federal government at the behest of NJ horsemen from both breeds. The current federal ban allows sports betting only in Delaware, Montana, Nevada and Oregon. The lawsuit claims that by denying New Jersey the opportunity to offer sports betting it discriminates against New Jersey and the 44 other states who are not allowed to offer it. Understandably, the NJ horsemen from both breeds want the ban overturned so additional revenue will be brought in for purses.
The statement that Governor Corzine made in wanting to join this suit is hypocritical. The Governor claims that Delaware's entry into sports betting and table games are a severe threat to New Jersey casinos and racetracks.
Really Governor? If you are so concerned about the long term viability of racing in the State of New Jersey, how come you have never attempted to bring VLTs to any racetrack in New Jersey despite the studies that show it would benefit racing and the state? Aren't slot machines in NY, PA, and DE a threat to the long term viability of racing in NJ? Wouldn't it be better to allow VLTs in the NJ racetracks rather than allow the money to flow out of state? Not once did you even attempt to expend political capital and introduce legislation to allow VLTs. Surely you would have had to fight the casino lobby but you didn't even try. By freezing the operators of Freehold out of the negotiations for the most recent casino supplement bill and have not invited them to be represented on your blue ribbon committee on the future of racing you have clearly indicated that you don't consider Freehold Raceway important enough to save; especially as long as they are owned partially by Penn National Gaming.
Whether this suit is successful remains to be seen. First of all, being the legislation that eventually banned sports betting in NJ gave the state a one year window to approve sports betting so the state had the opportunity to legalize it. I am no legal scholar but that may mean unless another state gets involved, the court may find that NJ has no legal standing to bring the suit as they did have a chance to get sports betting in the past and decided not to; the state in fact brought the harm upon itself.
Let's assume the suit is successful. What happens one the genie is out of the bottle?
According to earlier reports, it will require a constitutional amendment to permit sports wagering in NJ. The first time NJ tried for a casino gambling amendment it failed; it only passed the second time when casino gambling was limited to Atlantic City. While I assume it would not be a problem, who can say for sure sports gambling doesn't follow the same route?
Hypocrisy aside, this parochial approach by NJ horsemen from both breeds concerns me. There should have been a decision made at a national level by the USTA, AQHA and The Jockey Club whether or not to attempt to support a fight against the federal ban on sports wagering. While this attempt may be beneficial to the NJ horsemen in the short term, in the long run it may hurt racing.
Assuming NJ's efforts are successful, consider this:
The statement that Governor Corzine made in wanting to join this suit is hypocritical. The Governor claims that Delaware's entry into sports betting and table games are a severe threat to New Jersey casinos and racetracks.
Really Governor? If you are so concerned about the long term viability of racing in the State of New Jersey, how come you have never attempted to bring VLTs to any racetrack in New Jersey despite the studies that show it would benefit racing and the state? Aren't slot machines in NY, PA, and DE a threat to the long term viability of racing in NJ? Wouldn't it be better to allow VLTs in the NJ racetracks rather than allow the money to flow out of state? Not once did you even attempt to expend political capital and introduce legislation to allow VLTs. Surely you would have had to fight the casino lobby but you didn't even try. By freezing the operators of Freehold out of the negotiations for the most recent casino supplement bill and have not invited them to be represented on your blue ribbon committee on the future of racing you have clearly indicated that you don't consider Freehold Raceway important enough to save; especially as long as they are owned partially by Penn National Gaming.
Whether this suit is successful remains to be seen. First of all, being the legislation that eventually banned sports betting in NJ gave the state a one year window to approve sports betting so the state had the opportunity to legalize it. I am no legal scholar but that may mean unless another state gets involved, the court may find that NJ has no legal standing to bring the suit as they did have a chance to get sports betting in the past and decided not to; the state in fact brought the harm upon itself.
Let's assume the suit is successful. What happens one the genie is out of the bottle?
According to earlier reports, it will require a constitutional amendment to permit sports wagering in NJ. The first time NJ tried for a casino gambling amendment it failed; it only passed the second time when casino gambling was limited to Atlantic City. While I assume it would not be a problem, who can say for sure sports gambling doesn't follow the same route?
Hypocrisy aside, this parochial approach by NJ horsemen from both breeds concerns me. There should have been a decision made at a national level by the USTA, AQHA and The Jockey Club whether or not to attempt to support a fight against the federal ban on sports wagering. While this attempt may be beneficial to the NJ horsemen in the short term, in the long run it may hurt racing.
Assuming NJ's efforts are successful, consider this:
- Once again we are introducing another form of gambling to our fans in an effort to increase revenue without attempting to improve the racing product. As a result, we may be diverting money from our handles to sports betting.
- If handles decreases because less interest in racing, will we be giving opponents of racing another excuse to convert racinos to casinos?
- Any state with a casino will attempt to get sports wagering. Will they allow sports wagering their racetracks or only their casinos? This may be the final nail to harness racing in those states without racinos.
- Harness racing is regional enough as is. If racing becomes more regional, can it survive?
I am not saying racing should or should not support these efforts. What I am saying is we can't keep making major policy decisions on a local level. Each state is not an island; what happens in New Jersey will impact racing throughout the country. In the long run, those in the sport will prosper or wither on the vine together.
When will we wake up and realize this? Hopefully before it is too late.
FREEHOLD UPDATE: Here is a press release from the SBOANJ regarding a horsemen's meeting on the last day of the spring meet.
Arguement Against Slots at New Jersey Tracks: I disagree with this article but thought I'd share it with you. Please remember this article was printed in an Atlantic City newspaper so realize the article is biased towards the casino industry.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)