Saturday, June 30, 2012
A Pat on the Back (and a Healthy Dose of Self-Denial)
The SOA of New York has issued a press release promoting the second to none overnight program Yonkers Raceway has. I can't help but notice only a fleeting mention of their stakes program and no mention of their late closing series. The stakes program, while offering nice size purses are poorly received by horsemen, mostly due to the expensive payment schedules involved in getting to the starting gate, so the track ends up carding short fields, some requiring to be scheduled as non-wagering events. Yonkers management has finally heard the complaints by many who say it is too expensive to race in the stakes races at Yonkers, and are laying down the gauntlet to horsemen next year by cutting sustaining fees in half for the Yonkers and Hudson Filly Trots as well as reduce the starting fees to challenge horsemen complaining about the payments to enter.
As for their late closing series, by the end of April their late closing schedule has concluded for the year as there is only one late closing event for green (Sagamore Hill) horses and (Petticoat) fillies, followed by the Levy Memorial (Matchmaker) series for FFA (mostly winter FFA) horses.
That being said, I have no problem with anyone tooting their own horn and as a fan of half mile track racing, I would be following Yonkers' racing much more if they moved their starting line back close to its original location, but the real reason I bring up the SOA's press release is it exemplifies the self-denial racino horsemen are going through. First of all, wouldn't you think with a self-described ‘second to none’ overnight program, their handle should also be 'second to none'? Of course, this is not the case. A strong overnight program with marginal wagering (compared to a couple other tracks) is an example of an artificially propped up racing program which suggests all is not well in the racing industry. But like horsemen all over, not just the SOA of NY, it’s the purses which matter.
The SOA of New York in their press release does bring up a very important item of concern, in particular, how the NYSRWB has decided in a cost-savings move to no longer do post-racing drug testing of claimed horses. Without the knowledge of knowing your horse is definitely going to be tested if claimed, some unscrupulous trainers may decide to ‘assist’ a horse get through a race, hoping to get him/her claimed away. A successful claiming system requires the potential purchaser to know the horse being raced is what they are buying, not a chemically-supported fake who immediately falls apart after the claim.
Friday, June 29, 2012
Meadowlands Progress Report
Talk about the Meadowlands fall from grace is greatly exaggerated. Need proof of this? Let's take a look at the Meadowlands' key numbers year to year through the first 57 days of the 2011 and 2012 meetings:
As I discussed in a previous post, the past is the past, but if you compare the first 57 dates under the New Meadowlands LLC management compared to the first 57 dates of 2011 which were under the management of the NJSEA, notice the increases. Name me another American track that has seen an attendance increase of 13% or on-track wagering on their live races of over 17%.
In addition to these figures, you will see the Meadowlands export signal increased, albeit at a slower rate (4.7%), resulting in an overall handle increase of 6.3%. It is true to the gambler handle is handle and bigger pools are always more attractive for wagering, but with regards to benefiting the track's bottom line and the horsemen's purse account, the export signal handle would have had to increase 116% just to equal the benefit the on-track handle increase achieved, plus on-track wagering increase contributes to programs such as the NJSS and breeder awards while the export signal contributes nothing to these other programs. Of course, you want on-track and export wagering to grow as much as possible, but as you see, there is a valid reason in attempting to maximize on-track wagering.
Is the Meadowlands doing that bad? I think they are making good progress and moving in the right direction. If you need proof of this, name another track which releases its daily attendance and total handle figures without having to pry those figures from track management. No, the purses aren't as big as some racino tracks, but what would those racino horsemen be racing for if not for slot subsidies?
Detractors need to take a reality check.
| Live Racing Attendance | On-track Wagering Meadowlands Races | |||
| 2011 | 2012 | 2011 | 2012 | |
| 136,155 | 153,976 | $14,760,910 | $17,332,056 | |
| Increase | 13.10% | Increase | 17.40% | |
| Export Wagering Meadowlands Races | All Source Wagering Meadowlands Races | |||
| 2011 | 2012 | 2011 | 2012 | |
| $103,738,392 | $108,623,179 | $118,499,302 | $125,955,220 | |
| Increase | 4.70% | Increase | 6.30% | |
As I discussed in a previous post, the past is the past, but if you compare the first 57 dates under the New Meadowlands LLC management compared to the first 57 dates of 2011 which were under the management of the NJSEA, notice the increases. Name me another American track that has seen an attendance increase of 13% or on-track wagering on their live races of over 17%.
In addition to these figures, you will see the Meadowlands export signal increased, albeit at a slower rate (4.7%), resulting in an overall handle increase of 6.3%. It is true to the gambler handle is handle and bigger pools are always more attractive for wagering, but with regards to benefiting the track's bottom line and the horsemen's purse account, the export signal handle would have had to increase 116% just to equal the benefit the on-track handle increase achieved, plus on-track wagering increase contributes to programs such as the NJSS and breeder awards while the export signal contributes nothing to these other programs. Of course, you want on-track and export wagering to grow as much as possible, but as you see, there is a valid reason in attempting to maximize on-track wagering.
Is the Meadowlands doing that bad? I think they are making good progress and moving in the right direction. If you need proof of this, name another track which releases its daily attendance and total handle figures without having to pry those figures from track management. No, the purses aren't as big as some racino tracks, but what would those racino horsemen be racing for if not for slot subsidies?
Detractors need to take a reality check.
Friday Miscellanery
Sunday afternoon, this year's monté season opens with two divisions for open trotters competing at Historic Track in Goshen, New York. There are a few notable in both divisions as the 3rd race, as both Casis and Grain of Truth are making their maiden starts under the saddle while Ray Schnittker makes his (race) riding debut aboard Grain of Truth. In the second division, carded as race ten, Lemon Pepper and Dream Kid make their maiden debuts under the saddle. Being these races are not conditioned, I am not sure if the horses match up but hopefully these races successfully kick off the 2012 monté season as the effort is made to eventually offer these races for pari-mutuel wagering.
From a Red Mile press-release, it appears the Lexington, KY oval is beginning to embrace the untapped overseas market by scheduling their race cards to accommodate foreign wagering. Week one has Thursday-Saturday racing at 1pm to tap into the Australian and New Zealand markets. Sunday afternoons have a 1pm first post to allow fans in Scandinavia to wager on trotting event through their wagering systems.
With Googoo Gaagaa not being eligible to the Hambletonian, an invitation to the Nat-Ray has been promised providing the horse continuing to perform at the level he has been. At the same time, people are starting to talk about the need for the Hambletonian to accept supplemental entries. I for one, think accepting supplemental entries in the Hambletonian would be a big mistake. It is a question of fairness. Why should people who pay the nomination and sustaining payments of $2,775 only to fall to the wayside, not even going in the Hambletonian, when someone can just show up a few days before the race if they know they have a world beater and pay their way at the last moment. Harness racing is a gambling sport, there is no reason why owners/trainers should be able to be able to traipse into a race like the Hambletonian while countless others make their payments and fall by the wayside. If you want to get into the big races, prepare to play the game like everyone else.
Kudos to the PHHA for making a significant contribution towards the purchase of state of the art equipment for the University of Pennsylvania so they may continue the campaign against the use of illegal drugs. Perhaps the most important decision made is to support one lab to detect those drugs not yet identified. It may not be a politically popular decision as typically each state tries to support their own state's testing labs, but the fact is if you want to make a dent into the use of illegal drugs, you need to support one lab to achieve the biggest bang for the dollar; especially when the financial resources are limited.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Look Forward, Stop Living in the Past
I must confess, I am sick and tired about hearing how racing at the Meadowlands has declined as well as the complaints about racing not being like the good old days. What is the sense bemoaning about the good old days? It is a brand new world in racing and in this world, slots rule when it comes to racing. Unless the Meadowlands gets slots or the surrounding states were to yank slot revenue from racing, there is nothing the Meadowlands can do in the immediate future about improving the quality of their racing program, short of racing even fewer days or gutting their stakes program. So there is no sense complaining about the quality of racing; it is what it is, which by the way is a lot better than most tracks in the nation, even those with racinos.
I also don't understand the complaint about the drivers. Many of the top drivers have remained loyal to the Meadowlands but of course, there are those who will go where the money is. Is this the fault of management? People complaining how the drivers leave for the big money events elsewhere; that has always happened even when the Meadowlands was the top dog when it came to overnight purses. Yes, there are unfamiliar drivers at the Meadowlands, isn't that what happened each year when the Meadowlands first began operating when racing secretary Joe DeFrank used to comb tracks to get some of their top drivers to come to the Meadowlands? Some made it, some didn't. This is not a new phenomenon. Personally, I look at it as an opportunity for better payoffs. Here is a chart of the drivers with the highest ROIs.
All the other drivers have a negative ROI.
Let's take a look at the drivers who have a UDR of at least .200 and ten starts or more:
I also don't understand the complaint about the drivers. Many of the top drivers have remained loyal to the Meadowlands but of course, there are those who will go where the money is. Is this the fault of management? People complaining how the drivers leave for the big money events elsewhere; that has always happened even when the Meadowlands was the top dog when it came to overnight purses. Yes, there are unfamiliar drivers at the Meadowlands, isn't that what happened each year when the Meadowlands first began operating when racing secretary Joe DeFrank used to comb tracks to get some of their top drivers to come to the Meadowlands? Some made it, some didn't. This is not a new phenomenon. Personally, I look at it as an opportunity for better payoffs. Here is a chart of the drivers with the highest ROIs.
| Name | Starts | ROI |
| Tony Morgan | 1 | 960% |
| Daryl Bier | 26 | 278% |
| Victor Kirby | 1 | 130% |
| George Brennan | 22 | 73% |
| Harry Landy | 32 | 52% |
| Tony Hall | 36 | 44% |
| Corey Callahan | 181 | 43% |
| Stephen Smith | 73 | 42% |
| Dan Noble | 50 | 19% |
| Mark Lancaster | 10 | 9% |
| Yannick Gingras | 484 | 3% |
All the other drivers have a negative ROI.
Let's take a look at the drivers who have a UDR of at least .200 and ten starts or more:
| Driver | UDR |
| Jimmy Takter | 0.500 |
| Daryl Bier | 0.453 |
| Tony Hall | 0.420 |
| Brian Sears | 0.335 |
| Yannick Gingras | 0.315 |
| Tim Tetrick | 0.289 |
| Bret Holland | 0.285 |
| David Miller | 0.265 |
| Trond Smedshammer | 0.250 |
| Ron Pierce | 0.241 |
| James Morrill | 0.236 |
| Corey Callahan | 0.229 |
| George Brennan | 0.227 |
| Mike Lachance | 0.227 |
| Andy Miller | 0.227 |
| Mark Lancaster | 0.222 |
| Dan Noble | 0.207 |
Out of the seventeen drivers with a UDR of .200 or better with at least ten starts, five of the drivers (Daryl Bier, Tony Hall, Bret Holland, Mark Lancaster, and Dan Noble) can be considered 'newcomers'. The point is some of these 'non-Meadowlands' drivers make things interesting for the horseplayer, and potentially profitable. Also, while the cast of drivers has changed, this is nothing new for the Meadowlands.
There is no sense worrying about the past; the future is what counts. Embrace the current product for what it is and look ahead. The new grandstand, the new ideas to get more people in the track, and a crack team working on getting the betting handle up. The handle didn't get to the level it is overnight, it is going to take time to build it up once again.
There is loyalty to the Meadowlands by at least one driver. Tonight Yannick Gingras will be driving in the first two races at Yonkers Raceway in NYSS events but instead of deciding to spend the night at Yonkers to take advantage of the more lucrative purses at the Westchester oval, he is making the infamous Yonkers-East Rutherford commute to resume driving at the Meadowlands card starting with their fifth race.
The Next Big Problem for Racing
Remember the story in Harnesslink a while ago, where the horse dealers were operating on the backstretch at Monticello Raceway? The racetrack evicted the dealers from the backstretch and threatened to take action against the license of horsemen found to be taking part in the practice of selling a horse for slaughter in an effort to solve the problem. All's well that ends well? Let's just say rumors suggest otherwise.
This is not a Monticello Raceway problem. It's an industry-wide problem which needs to be addressed. Tracks need to step up and offer surrender stalls for those owners/trainers who have horses whose racing careers have reached the end and they need to kick the horse dealers off the backstretch. Yes, they may just do business elsewhere, but you don't have to make things easy for those who want to unload their horses and put them in a precarious situation. Perhaps most importantly, tracks need to take action against those who deal with those dealers who ship horses to slaughter, directly or indirectly.
The USTA, Jockey Club, and state racing commissions need to develp a system to track the movement of race horses so when one 'disappears', questions may be asked of the last registered owner and if the trainer/owner can't come up with a satisfactory answer, action needs to be taken against them. In addition, once a horse is sold, the owner must be required to show the horse has been sold and to whom.
Right now medication is the big issue, but once that issue is resolved, the unwanted horse is going to be the next issue which will bite racing in the proverbial butt. For once, can't we be proactive instead of reactive.
This is not a Monticello Raceway problem. It's an industry-wide problem which needs to be addressed. Tracks need to step up and offer surrender stalls for those owners/trainers who have horses whose racing careers have reached the end and they need to kick the horse dealers off the backstretch. Yes, they may just do business elsewhere, but you don't have to make things easy for those who want to unload their horses and put them in a precarious situation. Perhaps most importantly, tracks need to take action against those who deal with those dealers who ship horses to slaughter, directly or indirectly.
The USTA, Jockey Club, and state racing commissions need to develp a system to track the movement of race horses so when one 'disappears', questions may be asked of the last registered owner and if the trainer/owner can't come up with a satisfactory answer, action needs to be taken against them. In addition, once a horse is sold, the owner must be required to show the horse has been sold and to whom.
Right now medication is the big issue, but once that issue is resolved, the unwanted horse is going to be the next issue which will bite racing in the proverbial butt. For once, can't we be proactive instead of reactive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)