Beyond Provincialism, Audacious Monmouth Plan a Blueprint for Saving an Industry?
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY, March 9, 2009--If New York racing knows what’s good for it, and if the racing industry in general wants to grow instead of subsisting, withering and, eventually, disappearing, it had better wish Monmouth Park and New Jersey racing all the luck in the world.
Virtually since the day after hosting the Breeders’ Cup, Monmouth Park and its horsemen began thinking about a new model that would ensure its existence going forward. Like every other racetrack in this country, big and small, it’s in survival mode.
But that’s what happens when you fall out of favor, are no longer a part of the fabric, and betting revenue drops nearly 25 percent in the last two years. To be provincial about Monmouth’s grand experiment this summer would miss the point at best, myopic at worst.
This is bigger than whether Monmouth can effectively compete in a racing environment in which it finds itself surrounded on all sides by slots-infused competition. It is bigger than seeing how negatively Monmouth Park’s incursion into the high end of the “good horse circuit” negatively impacts Saratoga Race Course this summer.
And so all with a vested interest in this industry needs to root for New Jersey to succeed in 2010. If it doesn’t, there won’t be a 2011 in the Garden State. If it doesn’t, then the rest of racing has no future, either. Monmouth Park has created a new paradigm, a model that finally--
finally--addresses the state of the modern game.
As Monmouth Park vice president and general manager, Bob Kulina, and trainer John Forbes, president of the New Jersey Horsemen’s Association, expressed so clearly on an NTRA conference call Tuesday afternoon, the public has spoken: “Racing has got to change.”
“We’ve gone from a local sport to a national sport with simulcasting,” explained Forbes. “Fans want larger fields and better horses. We decided to concentrate on the big picture rather than worry about the provincial aspect, focus on what the customer wants.
Rachel v. Zenyatta: Where’s the Network Coverage?
SARATOGA SPRINGS, NY, February 25, 2010--To paraphrase a convalescing Vito Corleone from Godfather I, who admitted to liking wine more than he used to, I feel the same way about the winter Olympics: Well, I’m watching it more, anyway.
Back in the day, I felt the same way present-day sports talkers feel: How modern era Olympics exist as a made-for-TV event, appealing to a contrived sense of patriotic nationalism performed by pro athletes, not the amateurs of yesteryear.
You could easily blame the old Communist bloc countries for that, especially the U.S.S.R., for subsidizing the Olympic program so their athletes could train full time to earn propaganda points they believed Gold medals provided.
Finally, when we sent Charles Barkley, Larry Bird, Clyde Drexler, Patrick Ewing, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Christian Laettner, Karl Malone, Chris Mullin, Scottie Pippen, David Robinson and John Stockton to Barcelona to play basketball in 1992, all pretense of amateurism was gone forever.
The age of innocence is long gone, too, and so is the time we ask modern day athletes to perform athletic feats that once were the purview of mere mortals. It’s not so much that modern athletes are better, which they are, but technology has made the achieving of excellence that much more difficult.
Forget about whether you think that Snowboarding or the Biathlon or Aerial Skiing are legitimate sports. The more relevant question is why would athletes subject themselves to such risks.
Was there really a need for the world’s fastest luge run? And won’t there will be a point where humans cannot ski jump any farther, traverse a Giant Slalom faster or perform a quintuple axel from the time you leave the ice until the time you return?
Anyway, I was thinking about all this as I watched the Olympics last week and this on NBC when late last week it occurred to a friend of mine to ask: “Where are the ads for the $5-million Apple Blossom starring Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta?