In contrast to the complaints of its conservative political counterpart, the ideas of horse racing’s Tea Party seem mainly overlooked by the media. As a matter of fact, it may be that the movement is given voice exclusively in comments to HorseRaceInsider.com columns. It is here at the end of every written piece suggesting that horse racing is a sport that one will find the group’s steadfast manifesto.
The manifesto holds that horse races are held only so that gamblers can bet on them. It ridicules the proposition that the public is capable of telling one horse from another, except by the information that’s organized in past performances. It denounces the work of turf writers that bring the lives of owners, trainers and jockeys to inspection. Moreover, it propagates a jealousy of the several individuals who have managed to achieve repeated success in these professions, claiming their dominance, regardless of how fairly earned, represents a boredom that has caused horse racing to lose fans.
There is more to the manifesto, but its every point boils down to the very same thing. Horse racing’s Tea Party wants the world to view horse racing as the ultimate gambling activity. Woe to any thought that there could be more to the sport.
For what it’s worth, not many professionals in the press box of Churchill Downs, when asked, knew that there is a splinter group raising Cain over what they were writing about. They acknowledged that not all folks who followed horse racing were attracted to its offerings for similar reasons. But they don’t sense the passion with which some people embrace losing money, and they certainly don’t believe horse racing’s curators have organized the sport to downplay it.
That said, a lack of attention to the differences in opinion between factions may mean one of two things – that the turf writers aren’t truly in touch with what followers of the sport really want or that what is being thought in some circles – as small as they are – isn’t resonating on a scale big enough to be noticed.. There’s a reason to select answer B over answer A, and it has nothing to do with bias.
Horse racing is a unique activity because it can deliver three different experiences within one. It is that rare sport that enables the fans to be real participants through wagering. But under proper circumstances, such as the Derby, for example, it can serve as the perfect social setting, too. It is an exciting participatory sport that combines the spectacle of athletic prowess within a circumstance that allows people to gather for purposes of partaking in risk.
In addition, horse racing has its own culture, complete with a distinctive language, customs, heroes and history. It is rare among competitions in that its outcomes are incorruptible – you either win or you lose; there’s no doubt about what remains as history once a race is completed. Moreover, there is an endless assortment of ways that the winner of a race is determined; each event is a tableau of unpredictability. A man of simple means and little education has an equal right to opinion as one that is way beyond his station – a measly two bucks is the price for respect.
Within these contexts, it becomes impossible for anyone with imagination to neglect the sport’s myriad incomparable attributes for the sake of reporting on something as mundane as cashing a bet. It is fun to win money, but the rewards are fleeting and distant to most people. Nature blesses us with all that’s required to find interest in humans, places and animals. It doesn’t hand us the skills that are needed to master a Racing Form.
Horse racing made the critical mistake of tilting its marketing strategy toward wagering when off-track betting began and simulcasting took hold in the mid-1980s. Those in charge of the sport deduced that attendance was irrelevant so long as horseplayers could bet with convenience. Yet, the handle has risen to heights greater than ever imagined where being at the races provided a sense of belonging. This upcoming Saturday, for example, Pimlico Racecourse will present the Preakness Stakes and around 120,000 fans will jam the grounds and all-sources wagering should reach $90 million.
Yes, wagering revenues are what fund the activities (less each day with casino subsidies, by the way). But you can’t simply say horse racing is all about gambling when, in fact, that is only one-third of it. Betting is an irreplaceable component; we all get that. But that’s not to mean it’s appropriate to sweep away the rest of the gestalt that has fascinated people for centuries in order to further the gambler’s narrow agenda. .
Horse racing, of course, wouldn’t be the same without pari-mutuels. But if horse racing had betting and didn’t have great men and fast horses and spellbinding occasions at which people gathered, it would be of no interest at all. Hope that the racecourses will reduce takeout and create additional improvements in the ways that you can put money at risk. But pray that the sport can survive to a level that enables stories about it to be written. Optimism, escape and acceptance frame the sport’s definition. The majority of horse racing nation finds these qualities enduring and compelling.
Vic Zast offers more opinions on horse racing on Facebook and Twitter
10 May 2010 at 03:14 am | #
Vic,
I was probably two decades ago, when Paul Moran and myself were covering racing for Newsday, we had virtually the same discussion, ironically in the press box at Churchill Downs. And I’ve never forgotten Paul’s response in the context of your post. He said: “If we weren’t here to write about it, 50 years from now it will be like today’s race never existed.”
Having to write 3 or 4 pieces per week for HRI, if it weren’t for all the elements you discussed, the posts would be interminably one faceted, a great way to lose readership even while your audience is captured.
Thank you for celebrating the diversity that is horse racing. It was in the same period of time that Paul and I were having our discussion when, at another time and place, Jerry McKeon, the former president of NYRA explained, in a marketing context, “the point of purchase has changed.”
Indeed, it has. I now wager live, via phone and online depending up circumstance. But when I show up each Saturday during the off season here at either the harness track or Albany Teletheater, it is for the social component.
But whereever I might wind up placing a bet, for me, nothing compares with a day at the races, especially at the tracks steeped in history and tradition.
Good job.
JP
10 May 2010 at 03:22 am | #
well done,
you pulled together in a balanced way why we all love the sport. expressing the courage of one’s conviction (the $2.00 wager); the social experience of the racetrack (gambling, drinking, & kibitzing); and finally, an appreciation for the beauty of the horse and its role in the sport’s tradition.
10 May 2010 at 03:53 am | #
Vic:
I have to disagree. Without $2 or $2000 bettor and parimutuel system, horse racing would not exist as we know it. Just recall what happened in New York in 1911-1912 when all forms of wagering on horse racing were outlawed. No Belmont. No Saratoga. No social scene. No dresses, hats or cocktails. What we would have is 2-3 weeks of “hunt meet” racing, probably all steeplechase, and aristocracy slugging it out with each other on various courses. There is no need to be ashamed of it - gambling at its heart is a mechanism of settling who is right and who is wrong. Gambling is 95% of horse racing. Tote board is way more important than bridle or whip. I remember very well how I feel whenever my selection wins the race. And I know that I would not feel the same without that mutuel ticket in my pocket. I can only speak for myself but in this case I feel that most people would agree with me.
10 May 2010 at 04:13 am | #
One thing is for sure – catering to a dwindling segment whose attraction is the insider-betting thing is a slow and certain death. If the Derby teaches anything it’s future success means less from an expended base, not more from the old guys.
10 May 2010 at 04:13 am | #
Of course there’s more to horse racing than betting, but Allan Goldberg is right. In the US, if you couldn’t bet on it, there would be no horse racing. Hart-Agnew proved that.
10 May 2010 at 04:59 am | #
Yesterday, Mother’s Day, there were an awful lot of people at Churchill Downs to whom betting was a part, only a small part, of the reason they were there. They cheered more for Calvin Borel running third than they did for the winner of the race when the horses came back. Making the race track a “destination venue”, where the gambling aspect is certainly respected, but not deified, is the future of racing.
10 May 2010 at 05:41 am | #
Interestingly, Ace, my mother-in-law, who’s 94 God bless, wanted to spend her Mother’s Day at the Saratoga racino yesterday, which she did. The group needed to take the second seating in the dining room as the first was sold out. Indeed, there’s lots of room to celebrate just about anything at a racetrack, providing that venue has the proper amenities. Could it be that Stronach’s vision indeed might be the future? Tell you what: So far it’s working nicely at Gulfstream.
JP
10 May 2010 at 05:42 am | #
“But you can’t simply say horse racing is all about gambling when, in fact, that is only one-third of it.”
This is exactly the position that the horse racing industry took when other forms of gambling were in their infant stages here in the United States, thinking that the other two thirds would maintain its position as the sport of kings. How did that turn out? Not so good!
Yes, there is more to racing than gambling, but we go to the track, watch the Derby, or stream over our PCs races for overwhelmingly one reason...TO BET ON THEM!
10 May 2010 at 06:00 am | #
Whoa,Vic.
Your article correctly points out that there are many reasons for people to be attracted to Horse Racing. Horse racing is a unique participatory sport with many things to enjoy.
That being said, can we agree that things have not been going so well for our game and the trends have been on the downside? Can we agree that some changes are necessary or are you for the status quo? Can we agree that customers (or gamblers as you put it)have been denied for too long and should have some input,and what other way is there for them to express themselves?
You described anyone who had any problems and dared to respond as invited to a professional writer at HorseRaceInsider.com columns as a “small representation of angry horseplayers has emerged as the Tea Party of horse racing nation.Its constituency appears to be senior in age,recklessly single-focused,anonymously vocal and endowed with a dose of testosterone-aided certitude that will cause hardening of the mental arteries.” In other words, if they take issue with you or with the status quo, you give them your special treatment. I have news for you… horseplayers have always been rather contrary...even in the days of “Seabiscuit”
You go on to create and assign to this imaginary few horseplayers that comment on what you say a “Manifesto” that no one has ever heard except you that horse races are held only so that gamblers can bet on them.
Do you know anyone who attended the Kentucky Derby who did not make a bet?
There are some who go to the press box,with free passes and eat free food and discuss subjects to write about with their pals and enjoy the social content and wish it to never end...and perhaps feel threatened by the obvious decline of racing.
Thats O.K...but do not critic those who want the game to grow in a positive way.
Yes, horseplayers are opinionated, but I think you have been drinking too much of the establishment Kool Aid.
Horse racing has been marketed wrong for too long as “Go Baby Go” and “Friday Night” racing and “Concerts” afterward and the gambling component has been ignored and what has this brought us but a downsizing of our passion sport?
Is it not the time to reflect and recognize that horse racing is primarily fueled by gambling? The gambling aspect of the game must be made more attractive, and we must send home a few winners(which we are not doing now) or those who go for social reasons will become more lonely at the track...while the competition (Poker,etc.)laughs.
Yes, let me speak those words that are so uncomfortable for those who live by the take out, and can not grasp simple economics...Lower the Take out,and compete in the real world with the greatest game in the world,and see the trend line go up instead of down.
If this makes me a member of the angry,recklessly-focussed horseplayers “Tea Party” according to your rant above,and gives you a hardening of your mental arteries(and yes I am a senior too)so be it.
If I am not a member of your imaginary “Tea Party”, Where can I sign up?
10 May 2010 at 06:00 am | #
My email and all racing and non-racing usernames includes my first and last name KEN WOODALL. I am older now, a member of the group, want takeouts reduced (especially in Pennsylvania), gamble very little, work mostly on racehorse injury issues and had my “15 leg injury warning signs” audited by and added to by “Seabiscuit” movie trainer Michael Chew and distributed at the 1st Welfare and Safety Conference. I support females in the sport and root for female horses to beat the males. I learned of this article on another discussion site. I was a public handicapper on Trackside Broadcasting for 3 months, picked at mid-sized tracks, had a positive first choice ROI by using some of my original handicapping methods.
I constantly email various tracks and racing organizations with ideas to promote rcing more and better, I email general media like AP to advocate for more racing stories. I have several articlea posted on the Animal Liberation Front website; I lobby them and PETA to try to improve animnal welfare in racing, not just shut it down.
In California, the state Lottery takeout is 50%; bingo is 25% takeout; indian casinos are not required to post their takeout rates.
Every consecutive year since 1990 (as per Jockey Club website), total Tbred racing handle has decreased, and it is not due to lowered takeout.
If you look on the group’s website you will see that takeout is not the only thing listed on one of their webpages; It also includes handle, field size, other things, and a rating based on many factors.
I am a promotions person by trade; I wrote a book entirely available free on my Myspace called “130+ free and low-cost advertising and promotional ideas” which primarily focuses on better customer service AND small discounts to improve PR and visibility.
Lowering prices (takeout) is just one way to bring in more customers- but new customers of racing will never know about lowered takeout unless they are interested in coming to racing to begin with. It must be promoted to the general public, and in-fighting and negativisim by unfairly and blanketly stereotyping is NOT a good way to bring more racing “fans” to the sport! Thank you for your time and webspace! KEN WOODALL, , .
10 May 2010 at 06:07 am | #
Vic,
As JRP and you say, there is more then just the wagering, something which the tracks lost sigt of years ago. A while back, there was a discussion about Hialeah. during the ensuing discussion. I brought up the fact of how the little guy was able to rub shoulders and discuss one on one, their convictions as to the races on an even basis with the gentry of the world. I was even taken to task in it for bringing up the fact that folks like Mickey Rooney and other celebrities should be people we try to use to further the sport.
Paul Moran’s statement in JRP’s first comment is absolutely a hit on the nails head. There is more then just wagering. The graduer and beauty of this sport is an amazing thing to behold. And as others mention. The social element is still alive and well. The industry just doesn’t realize it.
10 May 2010 at 06:09 am | #
FYI- In case you have not noticed, I just noticed your header banner for Belmont.com says “8% rebate” as one of their main selling points. What is that if not effectively lowering takeout?
10 May 2010 at 07:36 am | #
Humans are born with an overwhelming urge to compete and win. As children we were racing our horses against all comers for the glory of bragging rights. In all corners of the globe somebody is racing against somebody whether its a camel, boat, lawnmower or jumping frog.
Gambling is a vital part of the sport, but it is not the reason why we raise fast horses to run against each other.
10 May 2010 at 08:14 am | #
What Mac said. There will always be horse racing, with or without gambling. It just probably wouldn’t be at the same level, but it will still exist. Look at Dubai, where it is illegal to bet.
10 May 2010 at 09:43 am | #
“Horseracing, of course, wouldn’t be the same without pari-mutuels”. Absolutely correct. In fact, it might be a whole lot better! I am not advocating a ban on betting. I believe the gamblers should have more choices that competition for their money would give them.
Offer fixed odds betting. To get that we should bring in bookmakers or let the tracks figure out their own way to offer fixed odds. There is not any difference between the concepts of fixed odds and guaranteed pools.
The essence of the pari-mutuel as the French saw it was - the masses should only exchange money with each other. No wicked capitalist, like a bookie, should be permitted to steal money from the simple-minded public. Better that they steal from each other - after their paternalist
rulers took their cut. It is Socialist dogma. Another tax.
Fixed odds and the atmosphere of the betting ring would surely appeal to all who are looking for something new.
10 May 2010 at 10:08 am | #
I like your suggestion, Garrett.
10 May 2010 at 10:43 am | #
Mr. Vic Zast,
There is a movement in Thoroughbred Horse Racing that is largely ignored by the Racing Media. Though this movement is not confined to the “Single-Issue Manifesto” that you write about, nor is it limited in membership to those senior in age. You are writing about a few individuals who have only one thought, on one aspect, with one agenda, and one solution for the problems that confront Thoroughbred Racing.
Unto themselves, they are not a movement. They may well be a small part of the movement I see beginning to swell in it’s infancy, but they are not the entire composition of the movement.
In my conversations, in my daily contacts, I see a movement ignored. This movement has multiple issues, and is comprised of all ages, man and woman, of many races. They comprise the complete economic spectrum of racing’s population. It includes every fan profile and top to bottom, every level of those who work within the industry.
What joins this movement is the love of the Thoroughbred Horse, the passion for Thoroughbred Racing, and the respect for the history of both. What is starting off this movement is the realization that all that joins, (horse, racing, history), is now threatened.
To attribute this singular complaint as the basis for a “Tea Like Party Movement” in racing is not correct. The article as written, (though granted not meant to), does a disservice to this infant beginning, and (without intent to malice), it does harm to the “Tea Like Party Movement” that is beginning to form from among us all.
You Mr. Zast, along with Mr. Pricci, Mr. Christine, Mr. Paulick, and others such as yourselves, realizing it or not, can and maybe should be among the leaders of this movement. The potential of your individual media bully pulpits would help to change and preserve when warranted and needed. All or any one of you could play a role in, and be a big part of any success realized.
10 May 2010 at 10:51 am | #
Interesting premise Garrett (even more so as I work on the tote side of things. Well researched and presented.
I’d like to get back to Vic’s original premise for a sec which I see others are somewhat in sync with. I mention above the granduer of the sport. As someone else noted, people love competetive sports and horses in full stride are cetainly the definition of athletes in action. As such, I find it quite interesting that the L.A. Dodgers have apparently adopted Zenyatta as one of their own.
From the Paulick Report: The Los Angeles Dodgers today announced that Zenyatta, the wildly popular undefeated thoroughbred horse who calls Los Angeles home, will be the newest high-profile Angeleno featured in the 2010 “This Is My Town,” Dodgers marketing campaign.
This supports my premise that there are things in racing, like the Derby, the jockeys, trainers and horses that transcend racing itself. The fact that the Dodgers are smart enough to capitalize on this while racing itself doesn’t is certainly baffling to say the least.
10 May 2010 at 11:26 am | #
What is good or is not good for and about racing can fuel many a conversation, on the apron, in the press box, in the clubhouse.
What has not been addressed, though, is how the sport will be funded without focusing on the gambler. In order for racing to continue, money has to come through the windows (or the machines in the casino). Without that, there will be no tracks at which to congregate to drink, socialize, and watch the horses.
10 May 2010 at 12:22 pm | #
Mr. Vic Zast,
Read Mr. Rob Whiteley’s (Liberation Farm) article on the Paulick Report. Everyone who reads this should read it.
He has expressed the need for change and preservation. He has presented a reasonable outline to bring solutions forward to the problems and help in reversing the decline that is so prevalent in the thoroughbred industry.
Mr. Zast, When I wrote earlier, I had not yet read Mr. Whiteley’s article. He has lay down the gauntlet for you, I and everyone, lets all pick it up and walk with him. We should all encourage and give courage to those that might hesitate.
I ask that you act, and that you urge your fellows in the media to act in publicizing his proposal. All differences must be put aside, the horse, the racing, the history, are at stake. You, I, all of us, are at a threshold, we must
endorse and take this chance with him.
Always I Thank You for printing my thoughts/comments/ideas.
Kevin
10 May 2010 at 12:41 pm | #
Dear Theresa: Gambling proceeds, license fees, sales commissions and casino subsidies are the sources of revenue available to horse racing, and a good manager should know how to protect these sources and grow them. But it does not necessarily follow that promoting gambling as a feature of horse racing accomplishes that. What you’ve argued is like saying that a company that sells cans of corn should promote the price of its stock price instead of the delicious taste of the vegetables because shareholder investments keep the filling lines operating.
Horse racing’s most popular and financially successful venues are those which play up all three cornerstone features of the sport - the social aspect, athletic competition and gambling opportunity, e.g Saratoga, Keeneland. The record’s clear on that. Nevertheless, the topic of revenue generation is a good one for another column.
For example, we can be certain that once NYRA gets its $17 million loan from the State, it’ll be back begging for more in the spring. Once the sport begins living larger than its casino subsidies provide, what happens next? What exactly is the proper size of the business? What should horse prices be? What should purses pay? How should the sport be re-configured to sustain long-term stability, etc.? These are all good questions.
10 May 2010 at 02:18 pm | #
My wife and I have attended Saratoga races for many consecutive years. She has never bet on a horse in her life (prefers jewellry instead) but loves to go to the morning workouts. She’s up and ready to go at 6 am. There’s a beauty and poetry to the morning activities that is captivating and unforgettable. Maybe the tea partiers might want to attend then if they are able to make the mornings.
10 May 2010 at 02:30 pm | #
Arnold, that is great your wife enjoys horse racing as a non betting hobby. I sometimes wish my wife would show interest in horse racing too.
However, how much does your wife contribute to the purses the horses run for? Admission and concessions? If horse racing depended on that, they would be running for Beulah like purses at Saratoga.
Vic, I have to admit, this column is a disaster.
Horse racing has been running the show with the way you portray horse racing in your column, forever. And lately, it has been swirling in the toilet as they’ve completely lost out by not being competitive for gambling dollars.
The day of putting on a show and expecting fans to show up and bet are long long gone, and it will never come back. Times have changed, but horse racing hasn’t.
Garret, thanks for the laugh. Your comment is hilarious. You have a phenomenal sense of humor.
10 May 2010 at 04:03 pm | #
Churchill Downs Oaks/Derby weekend attendance 250K.
Pimlico Preakness Saturday expect 100K plus.
Belmont Park on Belmont Saturday with a Triple Crown on the Line expect 125K plus.
Breeders Cup attendance over two days at Santa Anita 150K plus.
Saratoga on any given Saturday 30K plus.
I could go on, ie the Queens Plate, Santa Anita Derby Day, Opening Day at Delmar, Arkansas Derby, Canadian Derby at NP.
Oh what am I thinking? Comment 23, the world renowned legend in his own mind, Can’t Gamble, says the days of putting on a show and expecting fans to show up are long gone.
Please take your ignorance and go play a slot machine, there are adults here actually having a civilized discussion.
10 May 2010 at 04:33 pm | #
Chalkbuster, any idiot obviously knows that there are some big days that attract people. So what? Handle has dropped off the map, while purses for big races have climbed to millions of dollars, horse racing handle can’t even keep up with a bigger population and inflation, in fact, horse racing handle can’t even keep up with handle numbers from 6 years ago.
Horse racing is all about gambling. Sure, there are other attractions to it, but nothing that pays the bills, and nothing that grows the handle.
Keep thinking that it isn’t takeout, and horse racing will continue to swirl down the tubes.
10 May 2010 at 04:53 pm | #
Any Idiot except you Can’t Gamble.
Now back to your slot machines little boy.
10 May 2010 at 04:58 pm | #
You expressed very clearly what it is that makes horse racing unique. It is a three-legged stool - take out one of the legs and it falls. Gambling is what pays the bills. The social aspects are what bring people tothe track. The love of the horse and competition are what keep people interested. Tell all the fans who came out last year to see special horses like Zenyatta and Rachel Alexandra that horse racing is only for gamblers because they pay the bills. Tell all the gamblers that instead of live horses, there will just be computer programs and they can pick a number. Tell all the people going to the track with friends and family that there will be no food or beverages served. Any one of those would kill racing very quickly. I think Gulfstream is on the right track also. It has a little something to interest anyone and a lot of fun for everyone. Since it also has shopping and restaurants nearby, it exposes people to the idea of racetracks as entertainment who would never have given that idea a thought. The more people exposed to the sport, the more fans and supporters. No down side to that!
10 May 2010 at 04:59 pm | #
Chalkbuster:
Out of 250K attending the Oaks/Derby weekend this year, I guarantee that 150K were there for drunkfest in the infield, who could not name one Derby starter (let alone Oaks or any other race participant) if they had a program in their hand.
10 May 2010 at 05:00 pm | #
Chalkbuster, obviously you didn’t get what I meant about people in the stands. You probably have too much sand in your eyes because of where you and your ilk stick their head regarding horse racing’s problems and the obvious ways in which to correct them.
The days of consistently getting people into the stands of tracks across North America are long gone (I didn’t think I’d have to spell it out here, but obviously I need to for at least one doofus).
Never play slots by the way. That must be one more or your sharp observations and conclusions. LOL.
10 May 2010 at 06:03 pm | #
You are probably correct Allan in your observation that many in the Preakness/Derby infields are not too interested or knowledgeable about the races. However when you have these special days, you can’t deny that not only is handle up, other forms of revenue are greatly increased. Ticket Sales, Concessions, Parking, alcohol, programs, and in some cases TV and advertising.
We all know that handle is the biggest portion of the financial pie for all stakeholders in racing, with slot revenue a big factor at some tracks. When looking at all of the problems with the racing industry, it never hurts to look at some of the positives also. So while it would be a good thing to lower the takeout, if nobody knows about it, the gains will be most likely be localized, while national market share of the gambling dollar will remain constant. Lowering the takeout should be encouraged, but not in a vacuum.
If the goal is to increase the overall income for horse racing in general, then the pageantry, history, the Horse and gambling all need to be considered.Look no further than the NFL for an example of how gambling and pageantry, history, culture and competition make for increasing revenues year after year. The NFL without gambling would be a shell of itself. Without the multi media promoting the game, the culture etc to the fans the gambling would drop off significantly. And as we all know the NFL does not derive any direct revenue from the gambling that takes place on it’s product.
IMHO.
10 May 2010 at 07:29 pm | #
Vic,
Thanks for writing this piece. Comparing these tunnel vision “angry horseplayers’ to the Tea Party wackos is spot on.
10 May 2010 at 09:28 pm | #
I like Vic Zast’s writing most of the time, but I detected some confusion in the above article. Is Vic suggesting that the dining rooms at Churchill Downs would have been available for social gatherings if the regulars didn’t bet every race every day of the meet? It’s great that people can use the dining facilities and bars at racetracks to be entertained, but do not ignore the fact that a racetrack’s impressive dining facilities are wholly dependent on the people who play exactas, trifectas, pick-threes, pick-fours and other wagering gimmicks; in other words, the guts and the heart of the operation!
11 May 2010 at 01:17 am | #
I disagree with those that believe gambling is the only reason for horseracing. I handicap races I never bet or even watch. I read everything I can to improve those skills and compete in higher levels every passing year. My first “win” was from a “hot tip”. Cashing the ticket did not alter the course of my finaces, but when the clerk announced to everyone, steak dinner tonight”, I felt great. I did not know why, but I felt pride. Now after years of study of this amazing sport, I can predict how races are going to run, I’ve learned to recognize winners when others haven’t. I am proud of my ability and I earned it. Horseracing is about competition. It’s not about cashing in, it’s about being right.
11 May 2010 at 01:29 am | #
Dear Carol: Stay on the lookout for a future TrackWords column on HorseRaceInsider.com about how people get started in the complicated task of handicapping. It’s not by taking classes at the track’s education seminars. By the way, of course, “it’s about being right.”
11 May 2010 at 02:03 am | #
Carol, yes it is about the competition. Personally I get the same kick emotionally playing Scramble on Facebook for free as I do playing a race where I have $100 riding on it. That is the problem. If I didn’t feel I had the ability to beat the game in the long run, I wouldn’t be playing.
Now I have been handicapping horse races since I was 8 which is over 40 years ago. There used to be an edge using speed figures before they were produced in the DRF and at a time when the stands were full of dummy money (because of lack of slots competition), but things have changed, and takeout has become very important, because now there is very little dummy money in the pools, and it makes it impossible to have any sort of edge unless one is getting a good rebate.
What I’m trying to say is that back when most people got started, there were visible winners at the track, or at least many perceived winners....long term. Now there are none.
There is no incentive for newbies to start up and play. The learning curve costs to much, and for what? Guaranteed losses? Why not play a game on the internet for free, or online poker where you know if you are good enough you could make a living playing?
Another thing, if nobody made money as an owner, there would be very few owners in the game....only the very rich. And that would be horrible for growth as well as new small owners not only bet, but they also bring newbies to the game. The reality is that they are all about being right, but there is a carrot stick out there.
11 May 2010 at 04:00 am | #
Would all you commentators above please answer the following questions: 1) What has caused Thoroughbred racing’s decline is popularity since 1980? 2) How many of you would visit a racetrack if there were no wagering on the horses allowed?
11 May 2010 at 04:35 am | #
Thanks Vic, I’ll keep an eye out for it. Oh, by the way, Cangamble, I bought a filly last year and she’s a two year old in training near Grand Praire now. It’s not practical or profitable, but it sure is fun. Tapping emotions is the key element in any advertising campain. When I show her picture to people at the track, their eyes light up, they write her name down, they ask about her trainer. They don’t do that because they believe they’ll hit it big on a bet. They are excited because I’m excited. They want to be part it. Slot machines are gambling, horseracing is so much more. I pass the rows of lifeless faces gazing at the machines and enter the sportbook to find excited chatter, good natured banter and thoughtful conversations about the heros. We cheer, curse and cry over each play of the day. The money, a win, isn’t a gamble. The gamble is my real job. Am I paid what I feel is my worth? No. Do I always get praise for doing the job right? No. But, at the track, I am rewarded for my efforts. If I’m better at it than others, I reap that reward, emotionally as well as financially. And I’ve only begun to experience all the new and exciting possible twists and turns of this new world. I truly wish everyone could know even just a taste of it, and they would really feel the passion. They would know that it was so much more. They would know that it’s rare and important and worth saving.
11 May 2010 at 04:38 am | #
1) What has caused Thoroughbred racing’s decline is popularity since 1980?
A: Rising forms of alternative gambling; failure of thoroughbred racing to compete with Las Vegas. Greed of racing jurisdictions in overcharging the patrons on admissions, parking, concessions. A general sophistication required to understand horse racing, which few people have an aptitude to attain. The fact that you will lose A LOT MORE TIMES than you will win as opposed to duality of sport wagering and most popular forms of casino gambling.
2) How many of you would visit a racetrack if there were no wagering on the horses allowed?
A: I can only speak for myself - I would not go if I lived acrossed the street
Here is a novice idea for any racecourse management - how about free parking, free admission, free program, free $2 voucher good for late double wagering (early double on the weekends) and free voucher for the beverage of your choice? AND TO ELIMINATE TURNSTILE SPINNERS ON WAGERING AND BEVERAGE GIVEAWAY, ONLY ALLOW IT WITH SOME KIND OF WAGERING REWARD CLUB MEMBERSHIP THAT EVERY CASINO HAS TO TRACK THEIR PATRONS. What a novel idea to cater to your most valued customers instead of treating them every day like some once-a-year infield visitor.
11 May 2010 at 04:44 am | #
wmcorrow;
1) There are multiple reasons for racing’s dec;ine= a) Other, easier forms of gambling have grown and gice better cuistomer service; b) Other sports have televised, marketed, and merchandised beter on a national AND local basis, with more possibility of the local team winning; c) Racing is very slow to react to and very lousy at marketing to the non-racing General Public (that is why very few of the Z vs. RA or TC fans watch any other days); and they have not made real attempts to market to a non-betting fan base, especially spotlighting trainers and jockeys who stay around decades while TC horses come and go in 6 months to 2 years. Interest was very good in the 1970’s when almost all of the KY Derby winners went off at less that 3-1 odds and several won TC. Lousy from a profit standpoint, but easier to bet the big races! Racing should be pitching the public Borel and Pletcher on a daily basis.
11 May 2010 at 04:49 am | #
The joys of the racetrack, and of the sport of racing, are myriad, and well articulated here. What can’t be lost, however, is that none of that would be possible, none of that would exist, without gambling money supporting it. Gambling may not be what drives people to like racing, but to keep it anything except front and center in the conversation about racing’s survival seems myopic.
11 May 2010 at 04:53 am | #
Prior to the late 80’s, more horseplayers went home with a lot more money each day collectively than they do now.
There were only 8 or 9 races to bet, not many exotics, so the average takeout might have been 17% that the horseplayer was exposed to, and because there was a limited amount of plays each day, there was a high likelihood that players would have cash on them to play again tomorrow.
This is probably one of the biggest reasons why attendance dropped off significantly. Players went broke too fast. Of course, alternative games of chance like slots and lotteries only hurt attendance, and it took a lot of the dummy money out of the game, making it near impossible for good churners to maintain their bankrolls like they used to.
11 May 2010 at 05:15 am | #
Vic,
Like one or two other commentaters I found the piece a little confused and confusing. If your point is that racing has other charms besides being the world’s greatest gambling game, no argument here. But to attack those who, I think, just want those who can make a difference in racing’s fortunes to focus on the undeniable essence of it’s appeal and it’s greatest strength, (something they think has been lacking and has led to racing’s decline), seems to make THEIR point. Turf writers are vested in racing as a SPORT. That’s understandable. But I think it sometimes keeps them from seeing the reality.
11 May 2010 at 05:16 am | #
Better payoffs won’t bring in more patrons. Casinos don’t payoff and they have no trouble bringing the people in. They do advertise and they play on people’s emotions of “you deserve it” “break from reality” “Escape”!! Where is the advertising for horseracing? Back of the sports page, end of the newscast if at all. In the 70s, there were heros and stories. The 80s were the “me” generation, the stock market, false gods of wealth--and where did it all go? Now is a great time to revisit the values, talk about, write about, dream about the heros again.
11 May 2010 at 05:32 am | #
Carol, the Breeders Cup came along in the mid 80’s. Horses could now race for millions, even a few times a year.
Along with the Breeders Cup came all sorts of human interest stories, and not only that, people from anywhere were able to bet from anywhere anytime.
Horse racing has tried your approach. Sorry, it doesn’t work. I owned horses too. At one point I went from half a horse to 6 and a third horses. At first it caused a gleam in my eyes, but that was replaced with the need for glasses from staring at the bills on the horses over time.
Casinos payoff a lot better than horse racing does. The edge on blackjack is less than 2.5%, same with roulette. And slots has a house take between 5-10% through North America.
Ask yourself, since casinos want to maximize revenues, why don’t they double the house take on all their gambling products? They would only need less than half the total money bet on it in the long run to make the same money.
The reason they don’t, is the market has determined the optimum takeout at casinos, and casino operators know it.
Horse racing operates way above the optimum takeout and this is why the industry is in trouble.
11 May 2010 at 05:39 am | #
Recently a poker tournament was held at Hawthorne to raise money for the Autism Education Project.
They had around 500 people attend.
Hawthorne, which isn’t even conducting live racing right now,charged these poker players( who already paid a fee to enter the tournament) admission and parking to get into the building.
You would think, that having 500 gamblers in their facility that Hawthorne would think it’s an opportunity to introduce some of them to horse racing.
Here’s a crazy idea,give them some vouchers for future admission food etc.
Did Hawthorne do that? NO
What a wasted opportunity and its a microcosm of what’s wrong in racing today.
This game/sport is so screwed up and management like the kind they have at Hawthorne isn’t going to help right the ship.
11 May 2010 at 06:03 am | #
NFL, MLB, NBA, and I think the other major team sports all have not a grou[ but 1 commissioner who rules strongly.
What saved professional wrestling was Vince McMahan. Wrestling was a localized or regional minor sport including Sting, Hulk Hogan, and Ric Flair. Vince McMahan took over and bought out regionals and highlighted ENTERTAINMENT and expanded on story lines and personalities. And as far as I know no legalized gambling on Pro Wresling!!
What saves sports is a massive fan base with major TV and merchandising and trading cards, local following, and personalities. But just as with soccer, interest has to build to a certain point first.
11 May 2010 at 06:04 am | #
The lack of attendance at the track is the reason for higher take outs to support the industry, not the other way around. Lower purses push the owners, jockeys and trainers away. I’m suggesting a more rounded approach to appealing to people than focusing on the money. Market it as true family entertainment. You can’t take your kids to the casino, but watch their little faces at the rail. The future of horseracing depends on how it is presented to them. My son cares about the competition, picking the winner, cheering him on, celebrating with family and new friends. He’s six and he carries a picture of “his” racehorse in his wallet. To him, it’s not gambling at all. That is a future worth pursuing.
11 May 2010 at 06:07 am | #
This column is a good exhibit of how out of touch some people are with reality. If you asked where the purse money for the winners comes from on the backside of the track the majority would say I do not know or I do not care.Some would say the owners pay all the bills and they would race and pay the bills if there was no purse money.
How naive!
Horse racing is a game supported by gambling and this aspect of the game is being denied by uninformed people who enjoy the ride provided by others...The gambling portion of the game is no longer attractive when compared to other gambling activities.
Join the rest of the world and compete or continue to unwind.
Leadership is not leading.
11 May 2010 at 06:31 am | #
Carol, you are just plain wrong. Do you understand what optimum takeout means exactly? I say you don’t. Not even close.
11 May 2010 at 06:44 am | #
I’m going to explain this one more time. If a player lasts longer, they are more apt to come back and more apt to feel they have a chance. This is why slots have an 8% takeout and not a 16% takeout. They make more money at 8%, and it isn’t that the slot players are aware of the house take. It is a psychological situation and that is what optimum takeout is all about.
11 May 2010 at 06:51 am | #
I agree with most that this is a strange column - it is almost childlike in its naivete.
If racing were a sport, Churchill Downs Inc would not have to pay NBC $2M to show the prep races for the Derby. Real sports have television pay them for the rights to show the product, not the other way around.
Without the $2.4B generated from betting last year, we as horse owners would not be here. The feed men would not be here. Vets would be plying their trade on dogs and cats instead of horses. Breeding farms would not exist.
It’s nice to think things would be great for the “love of the animal”, but people buy horses for purses, not ribbons or trophies.
No betting - no purses.
Until someone can show us how that $2.4B can be bridged with sales of Zenyatta hats, Calvin Borel shirts and hot dog sales, that’s the way it is.
Peter
11 May 2010 at 07:42 am | #
I understand marketing and to promote horseracing as nothing but a gambling opportunity is foolish and short sighted. If you want better payouts, you have to get more people interested in going to the track in the first place. There has to be value in it more than money to motivate people. Where do you think the industry will get the money to lower takeout? If that’s the cure all, isn’t it the cart before the horse?
11 May 2010 at 07:58 am | #
Carol, a lower takeout does not mean the tracks will have to take a pay cut, nor will the horsemen. You aren’t even trying to understand the concept of optimum takeout, and I’m finding your stance to be very frustrating, because you just don’t get it.
11 May 2010 at 08:21 am | #
Dear VZ,
Nicely done. As usual, your style inspires your loyal audience; energizing its component vocal opposition, and once again making me bristle when you paint with too broad a brush. Mischaracterizing the causes, sources, and nature of discontent won’t shut off the spigot on dissent. Rather it suggests that arteries are hardening on both sides of the issue. By the way, is it just me that experiences subtle disrespect when industry insiders refer to racing’s customers as gamblers rather than horseplayers or bettors?
“The manifesto holds that horse races are held only so that gamblers can bet on them.”
Your alleged manifesto must apply to more than just “angry horseplayers.” How else do you explain the entire Aqueduct winter meet and weekday racing at non-boutique venues? As most of HRI’s dedicated readership already knows, there is only one individual who actually “ridicules the proposition that the public is capable of telling one horse from another” and “denounces the work of turf writers that bring the lives of owners, trainers and jockeys to inspection.” That person is decidedly not anonymous and seems to have no connection with any horseplayer’s organization. Yet you ascribe his rants to an entire “movement.”
Someone far wiser than me once observed that name recognition on the internet involves more risk than benefit unless one’s intention is to profit from that exposure. Since HRI indeed invites commentary from readers, and enables them to do so anonymously, why do you criticize contributors for playing by the rules? That said, I don’t approve of the drive-by insults and name-calling that seem to have increased with HRI’s readership.
”There is more to the manifesto, but its every point boils down to the very same thing. Horse racing’s Tea Party wants the world to view horse racing as the ultimate gambling activity. Woe to any thought that there could be more to the sport.”
Of course there should be room for all interests. The problem is that those seeking reforms in the conduct and presentation of wagering activity are being ignored by the existing power structure which itself is losing money to the detriment of all factions. So it is frustrating when journalists like yourself defend the status quo in the name of culture and tradition, while suggesting that it is only horseplayers who are viewing it as an either/or condition.
“A man of simple means and little education has an equal right to opinion as one that is way beyond his station – a measly two bucks is the price for respect.”
There’s as much arrogance as truth in that statement, but that man also has the right to receive payment in truly equal proportion to the amount of his wager and not have to compete against favored bettors subsidized by management.
You are certainly free to continue discrediting horseplayers who advocate reform, but it doesn’t do you any credit to misrepresent their positions. The Derby and the Breeder’s Cup could and should be attractive, entertaining, and satisfying to all segments comprising “horse racing nation.”
“Make it so, Number One.”
11 May 2010 at 09:23 am | #
Cangamble, don’t be frustrated. I understand your point of view, I just don’t agree that it’s the only point of view. As for casinos offering optimal advantage on slots --they don’t build those big beautiful buildings by paying out to the patrons. The take out no matter how high is something a skilled handicapper not gambler must beat.
11 May 2010 at 10:11 am | #
Carol, someone told me that it costs the Ontario Lottery Gaming Corp 25-30 million in costs and salaries just to run the slots portion of the Fort Erie Casino. It really is irrelevant what the cost is though, because with a 93-91 percent payback, customers lose 40 million there in a year. If payback were only 85 percent (a 15% takeout), they know that customers wouldn’t lose 40 million, because they would lose their enthusiasm to come back so quickly because they would be losing too quickly.
That is what optimum takeout is all about. The cost of the show doesn’t matter, it is the house take that nets the most money for the house in the end of the day.
Now do you honestly think that racing has even tried to figure out optimum takeout? How can takeout be 19% at Keeneland and Churchill but 25% at Gulfstream, and 30% at Philly Park on triactors?
Is the optimum takeout on triactors 19%, 25%, or 30%....it can’t not matter, or everyone should just up their takeout to 30% on everything. The reality is that the optimum takeout is much less than even 19%....but the industry is full of the give it to me now mentality. And that is why it is spiraling downwards.
11 May 2010 at 10:28 am | #
All very interesting. I believe we could learn a lot from other countries. Here is a table from France Galop (http://www.france-galop.com/) in their press section: amount of money wagered in 2008 in billions of euros.
1 Japon 19,0
2 Grande Bretagne 16,5
3 Etats-Unis 10,0
4 France 9,0
5 Australie 7,7
6 Hong Kong 6,2
7 Corée du Sud 4,7
8 Irlande 4,0
9 Italie 2,7
10 Canada 1,2
What stands out for me is the discrepancy between the amounts of money wagered (in proportion to population) in most countries relative to the US and Canada. What are they doing right?
If you can read French their statistical document has very interesting observations.
11 May 2010 at 11:52 am | #
Brother Indulto: Your above commentary is the best yet from you.
11 May 2010 at 01:38 pm | #
Why, wmc, because I pointed out that our host zestfully and Zastfully indicted some 2000 horseplayers solely on the basis of your repeatedly expressed, but never endorsed opinions?
11 May 2010 at 02:10 pm | #
Vic: My criticism of your article is that your reference to a “single issue manifesto” begins the debate with a false premise, that bettors have no interest in the actual racing, but only in the wagering aspects of a day at the races. That is an insult to most horseplayers, who have the same likes and dislikes, preferences and aversions as the general populace. On opening day at Churchill Downs one week before the Kentucky derby, I walk into the track eager to test my handicapping skills aginst the people ahead of me and behind me, but I always admire the fresh, beautiful tulips bordering the walkway from the parking lot. I always appreciate the elegance if the matt Winn dining room and the sumptuous buffet tables waiting for me. I enjoy meeting and talking with other handicappers in the dining room and in the wagering areas, and I appreciate the beauty and grace of the horses in the paddock and during the races. I am enjoying myself tremendously! BUT I AM THERE TO BET THE RACES! If there were no wagering, I would not have driven 250 miles to be at Churchill Downs because Churchill Downs wouldn’t even BE THERE! Why should management operate a racetrack for the benefit of people who won’t be fair and BET! Carol and others like her just don’t get it!
11 May 2010 at 02:40 pm | #
Europe--limit the races per day and per season. Less is apparently worth more. Maybe a more defined season would make a better sell. And save the quality. Don’t get me wrong on the lower takeout angle. I’m sure a national standard of a max of 10 percent would have an impact, I just believe the troubles run deeper and all angles need attention.
13 May 2010 at 03:22 am | #
It has been asked above, what caused the downfall of racing in the 80’s. Back on my soapbox. People did come out just to watch the horses in droves. some in turn became casual gamblers. Then the lotteries started kicking in. Don’t think for one moment I’m going to blame just the advent of outside gambling activities for the decline. No sir! The decline began when the tracks, who up until then had a captive auduance so to speak, reacted with not only their usual arrogance, but with a stupidity that was unmatcehd in it’s sheer idiocy! The tracks were quick to cry for help1 They were quick to point out they couldn’t survive against the other forms of gambling. So they did what they still do now as can be shown with the Churchill lack of grasping it’s history discussed on another post here. They ignored their customer base. They let their facilities run down while grabbing every penny they could. They, even then, decided their history didn’t mean a thing. I’ve said this I don’t know how many times, but here goes again. To this day, I can only remember one add showing how much better the odds are at winning a horse bet then any other form of gambling. Racing went into a steep decline because the corporate hacks running it were blind to everything except the linings of their pockets.