A Look Back, Reviewing Progress (Part 2)

Continuing on our discussion on how the various parties involved in harness racing have changed over the last seven years, we resume talking about racing commissions.  Part 1 of this entry was posted yesterday.


Like many governmental agencies, the racing commissions tend to be friends of industry participants, seemingly considering the wagering public as an afterthought.  When proposals are made by the general public, the road to consideration of rule adoption is a circuitous route to travel, typically defeated if tracks and/or horsemen oppose it regardless of the validity of the proposal.  However, if a proposal comes forth from the tracks, they tend to travel at high-speeds to adoption.

Love the Canadian fair-start rule?  You better stick to Canadian tracks because such a rule in the United States will not happen, racetracks and horsemen groups will not allow such a proposal to get adopted.  Oh sure, they will go through all the motions required of them but with no representation by the wagering public on the commission board, it is a foregone conclusion it will be defeated despite the fact it would be beneficial to all in the long run.  As long as the composition of racing commissions is limited to racing insiders, nothing will change.

With regards to the racing public, the industry continues to fail the majority of the public.  Sure, there may be a few changes in the game, but typically, the moment tracks attempt to put a horse in the second tier or have added distance racing, you will see drivers squawk and trainers reluctant to enter their horses in those races (an exception being Yonkers when their races being sent to Europe for simulcasting) despite the fact these races offer more wagering value to horseplayers.  Rather than having a trailer or two in a stakes race, we offer the public two or three elimination races of of five horses or less for their wagering consideration.

Exchange wagering, only in New Jersey despite the fact it is legal in California.  Tracks fear new forms of wagering to the point of embargoing exchange wagering despite the fact it may pay horsemen and track operators twice what they get now.  

Horseplayers want large payoffs so the tracks give them new wagers which offer high rewards to whales but otherwise sucks the money out of the gamblers' hands which kills churn and speeds the eventual departure of most players.  Yet, while tracks offer these jackpot wagers, there is no attempt to offer new wagering propositions which would allow horseplayers to make more money and recycle those wagering dollars through the wagering pools.

It's no secret racing is not the fastest game around with the breaks between races so what does the industry do?  It drags the races out even longer with post crawl that only those with the patience of Job are able to watch a single racing program. 

Is racing on its deathbed?

As I said seven years ago, harness racing is hurting but not on its deathbed.  Tracks have closed during these seven plus years but for the most part, it is business as usual for racing operations.   There will continue to be some downsizing and the sport will go through some heaves, but when all is said and done it will remain albeit changed and smaller in size.  So what will racing look like?  Let's take a look at some items through my futurist hat:

National Regulation -  The feds will mandate a national effort to regulate drug testing and the industry will comply.  Cheating via medication violations will be treated seriously with nationwide bans for those cheating multiple times.  As for the rules of racing, cost savings for the states will give rise to a national regulatory agency to establish and enforce the rules of racing which may eliminate the presence of individuals in one state after they have been banned in others.  

Animal Welfare - It may take some kicking and screaming but eventually animal welfare will become the rule.  Whipping if not banned will be restricted more than ever.  Feet will remain in the footholds on sulkys and the industry will be forced to deal with the unwanted horse problem, far more than it does now.  This effort will make racing more palatable to the American public.

Wagering Changes - Exchange wagering, now restricted to New Jersey will be expanded into other states.  Don't be surprised to see fixed-odds and other new wagering options to come to North America's shores as wagering will be outsourced to TAB organizations.  Eventually you will see sports wagering in the United States expanded and with gambling becoming more acceptable, tote companies will be cutting takeout rates to compete.

Less Racing - Depending on TAB for wagering, racing dates will be cut.  With fewer races, purses will be more lucrative and meets will become more boutique instead of run of the mill.  Becoming events, attendance will recover (though the large crowd of yesteryear will never be seen again) while handle will increase as wagering will be focused on fewer tracks at any given time.  

International Racing - Racing will be imported into and exported from North America to maximize the infrastructure of TABs.  Domestic racing will need to change to conform to the tastes of foreign markets to maximize revenue.  This means races of variable distances and more horses per race meaning second tiers.


These are scary times for horse racing, but the future will be exciting for those willign to conform to the changed environment.


    

A Look Back, Reviewing Progress (Part 1)

This week is often a week for being nostalgic and as such, I went back and looked at some blogs entries.  In particular, I came upon my first blog entry from May 18, 2009; hard to believe it has been more seven and a half years since I started this blog.   In particular, these part of the entry are worth re-exploring.

"Harness racing, as other forms of pari-mutuel racing, faces many problems. While many people in the industry are offering suggestions to deal with issues the sport is facing, they are approaching the issues from their own perspective. Breeders, owners, trainers, drivers, racetrack owners, and gamblers are representing their segment of the industry as they should, but without concern for other stakeholders. This is a problem; to work through the problems harness racing has requires cooperation".

"I refuse to believe harness racing is on it's death bed. Yes, there are problems but there are great horses and stories to be told".


So what has changed over these seven plus years?  Breeders still seem to be out in the cold with little concern for them other than an attempt to attract new owners; though the effort seems to be involved with ready to race horses.  As a result, foal crops continue to decline in the United States.  In fairness, the effort to get new owners is young, it is going to take more than a year or two to develop a base of new owners, it takes success for owners attracted to relatively low cost/low risk racing syndicates before they graduate to individual ownership and hopefully on to yearling buyers.  While some tracks have increased purses for lower level non-winners, purses are still too low when compared to claiming races; there is a need to offer more reward in maiden, non-winners or 2, 3, or 4 races to give yearling owners a chance to recoup much of their investment before they move on to big stakes, or if necessary, put their horses up for sale at auction or via the claiming route. Until then, foal crops will continue get smaller, forcing smaller tracks to close, chronic horse shortages, and poorer racing.

At some tracks there seems to be a genuine partnership between horsemen and track management in an effort to improve interest in their racing product, Yonkers Raceway being one which comes to mind.  Whether those efforts will be successful remain to be seen but the fact they are trying is encouraging, but don't be misled.  While efforts are being made, they tend to be superficial, avoiding some of the more serious issues, such as too much racing, takeout rates, new wagering options, post time lag (very annoying), and to some degree whipping and kicking.

Now before anyone sees red about whipping and kicking, I realize I left an important segment of the industry out of the initial article; the regulators.  While I think the industry has to go further with respect to whipping, it is true a big part of the problem racing has is regulators which refuse to enforce the rules consistently.  When it comes to whipping and kicking, judges must be unwavering and consistent in their enforcement of existing rules and penalties must be increased.  As long as the potential penalties fail to be significant, drivers will look at the risk of being called on kicking or excessive whipping as a 'cost of doing business'.  

I would argue contrary to public opinion, having judges who are former drivers is not a good thing, what we need are judges who are professional from the first day they are in the industry.  While I believe many of the judges try to do their best, being a former member of the racing fraternity unfortunately leads to giving drivers you formally raced with a break, whether conscious or not.  Judges should be hired from colleges, perhaps students from those colleges which offer racing programs; learn the rules and how to judge in the classroom with internships in the judges stand and upon graduation start judging at B-tracks, working their way up to the A-tracks.


Part 2 will be posted tomorrow.    

VFTRG Classics - December 24, 2010

Courtesy of Grand River Raceway and Standardbred Canada is their version of the Twelve Days of Christmas.






BTW, when I said "Plug Your Ears", I was referring to the off-key singing.  It is still cute.  I loved it.


Have a Merry Christmas!

VFTRG Classics - July 14, 2015

Admittedly not a title for Christmas time column, but while it a little less than a year and a half old (it would be unreasonable to expect many changes thus far), it is worth repeating.  I'll try to find a more suitable column for Christmas Day.

"Our Product Sucks"

"The ultimate problem is our product sucks" said Hanover Shoe Farms' Murray Brown at yesterdays USTA summit regarding the alarming decline of foals bred and the number of owners in the standardbred game.

Well, I don't think I would say the product 'sucks' but make no mistake, the product is severely boring, flawed, and quite honestly those who run the business abuse its customers, the gambler.  On second thought, 'sucks' may be an appropriate description.

Boring in it is the same thing every race, every week.  Same drivers, same horses, same basic race strategies, and long race meets where by the end of the season gamblers are thankful it is over for the year.  For an example, if you live in the market of Yonkers Raceway and are a patron of their product, you are thankful for the late Spring and Christmas breaks which are typically the only time you get to recharge your batteries.

The product is flawed.   Gamblers want larger fields, larger pools to wager into, variety in race distances, anything which makes the handicapping game tougher.  Not impossible, but tough enough so the rewards of selecting the winner is rewarded with more than an odds-on price.  Gamblers want larger pools to wager into so a $500 wager doesn't drop a 3-1 shot to 3-5.  The horseplayer wants to see something more (and less) than a mile race; anything to make the product less tedious.  In addition, odd distance races need to be properly reported in past performance pages so the data is more useful to the gambler.  How about a totally different style of racing, RUS?    I am sure RUS racing would be popular with punters if given a proper chance by track operators and horsemen with the approval of racing commissions to offer wagering.  Perhaps the ultimate in flawed is the infamous elimination races and post position preference to winners.  Racing just to qualify and giving preferential post position in the final, penalizing the horse who raced much harder out of an outside post to qualify?

The gambler is abused.  With the exception of a few wagers, the horseplayer is subjected to high take-out rates necessitating them to depend on ADWs which offer rebates to cut the real takeout rate, slowing their rate of burn (gambling money); and the industry wonders why you can't gamblers in front of their screen to the track?  If someone is a relative newbie unaware of ADWs, the burn rate is much higher, likely costing the industry a customer, and yes, possibly a new owner.  There is the refusal to offer free programs on websites as done in Canada.  No one is saying to provide 'enhanced' programs, provide the basic program patrons used to get in the 1970s.  Perhaps the ultimate abuse, nay insult is the playing with post times; the infamous post time drag with a race going off anywhere between 2 to 10 minutes after the listed post time.

Up to now, what has the industry done to solve these problems?  Too many tracks operate at the same time causing dilution of wagering pools thus guaranteeing small pools at all but a select few tracks.  Horsemen revolt at the idea of racing longer distance races (kudos to the horsemen at Yonkers for agreeing to this for those races being exported to France), owners revolting over the thought of racing with a second tier though harness racing was able to deal with it for many years.  Yes, it costs more to race these days but if racing at a slot track, horsemen are typically racing for far more money than they would have ever dreamed of years ago.  If willing to race at an added distance, the impact of the second tier is even less.  

Variety?  Forget about it.  Other than a rare odd distance race, it is vanilla as can be.  One mile, one mile, and you guess it, one mile.  The reaction to RUS, the one thing which has increased horse ownership both for RUS and traditional racing?  Some states show interest but many states look at it not as another form of racing for standardbreds, but a threat to their livelihood or are unwilling to invest the time needed to get racing commissions, and in some cases legislatures on board to approve that new style of racing.  

What ever happened to the heralded Exchange Wagering?  Cal Expo was supposed to debut it about a year ago; nothing.  In NJ, where it was approved by the legislature, it is still in the rule making process, a process taking so long, it is clear racetracks are not exactly clamoring for it.

Medication issues?  No easier way to get a newcomer playing the horses than having to figure out which trainers may be using 'the juice'.  When one track operator hires his own investigator and excludes trainers he feels doesn't deserve the privilege of racing at his tracks due to infractions, the mob is ready to draw and quarter him.  No, maybe the methodology isn't perfect but it needs to be asked why doesn't any other private track operator take similar actions.  

Cooperation between the states?  Forget about it; each state is an island to itself.  There's no coordination of race dates with a track 12 miles away in a different state.  Want to be an island is fine, that is if you want to be like trottingbreds with racing only in one state.  See how much wagering you will have then.

As Mark Loewe said, it begins with the gambler. Treating the gambler right is what makes him a horse owner which increases the demand for horses.  Racing has a lot to do in order to get racing into a desirable product for future owners and gamblers.  The time to act is now.

There were other great points brought up in the summit yesterday.  Read what was discussed.  If you love harness racing like me, you want to see this committee be successful.

VFTRG Classics - May 16, 2011

With the holiday season upon us, I will run a few oldie but goodie columns from years past.  This column originally ran on May 16, 2011.

The Feds Getting Involved In Racing

Steve Zorn, racing manager of Castle Village Farm, wrote a story in the New York Times on Saturday talking about how racing's drug problem is more complicated than it looks.  While he talks about the short comings of the legislation proposed by Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky and Sen. Tom Udall of New Mexico, which by the way is supported by some prominent horse owners, he admits racing's drug problem has gotten out of control.

Yes, being Steve Zorn is a thoroughbred person, the article is written from the perspective of thoroughbred racing.  However, make no mistake, standardbred racing has its own share of drug problems.  One issue Zorn brings up is Lasix's bad effects on a race horse.  Specifically he says,

But Lasix also causes a horse to lose 20-30 pounds immediately before a race, an obvious performance advantage, and that weight loss, in turn, requires more recovery time between races, perhaps accounting for some of the reduction in the number of races per year that horses run. Also, Lasix is reputed to be effective in masking the presence of some other drugs in post race testing

Zorn also cites how the career of thoroughbreds has been greatly reduced.  The average season of a thoroughbred has been reduced to six races a year down from eleven fifty years ago and the average racing career of a thoroughbred is only eleven races down from forty-five races in the timeframe.  Well, not mentioned in the article is the average number of starts a standardbred makes.  When I started following this sport, back in the 1970's it was not uncommon to see a standardbred race forty plus starts a year and they tended to maintain their class level a lot more longer.  Now you are lucky to see a horse race thirty times a year and when they re-appear the following year, how many times do we see that former $20,000 claimer racing for $10,000 or less?  As for the our top three year olds, we're lucky to see them race between thirteen to twenty times during their sophomore year.

What happens to these horses with reduced racing careers?  If they are lucky they head to a career at the stallion barn, but far too often, we find them working all too fast down the chain of race tracks to outposts like Thunder Ridge Raceway, or they find themselves in sales; a precursor to a possible road trip to Canada or Mexico.

My guess is a ban on medication would result in a couple of things.  Some of the super trainers will be finding new careers outside of racing.  While horses who are hurting will find themselves in the barn recuperating instead of racing through the pain, the overall population of available races horses will increase and horses will have longer, more stable careers.  Race times will decrease, and we will find some of our stallions will end up being frauds as their speed will not be passed on becasue their speed was chemically enhanced.  On the other hand, less of our future stallions will run into fertility problems at stud as the use of less medications will mean a reduced impact on horse fertility.

No, the Whitfield-Udall legislation is somewhat simplistic and needs refinement.  As Zorn indicates, it does not provide for environmental contamination.  But for how many years has racing looked away from the medication problem and continued to allow horsemen to continue operating with minimal penalties and allow stables to remain intact with horses just being transferred to a beard?

Maybe time has run out on the racing industry to police itself and it is time for the federal government to do what the industry has lacked the will to do.  Rather than fight federal legislation, it would be better to work with the bill's sponsors to educate them on the realities of regulating medication so things like incidental contamination and thresholds are accounted for.  The rooster has come home to roost.