Only 17,148 fans attended Keeneland’s opener and 11,057 on Sunday. But a crowd of 22,953 showed up for the races on Saturday, for an average attendance of 17,053. Over the span of the first three days of the annual fall meet, the fans wagered $4,246,373 on track. Counting all places where money’s bet legally, it was a $25,466,994 weekend.
Perfect weather played a big role in the track’s numbers. There were plenty of tourists in town. The price of a room at the two Red Roof Inns rose to $149.99 – that’s if you could find one available. The World Equestrian Games and the Auburn at University of Kentucky football tilt contributed several thousand warm bodies to the swell of humanity.
Regardless, for the first time in a long time, the playground at 4201 Versailles Road experienced what it feels to be one of several attractions to choose from. Expecting to break records, Keeneland’s numbers were down. Still, the racecourse fared well in comparison to Sam Bush in concert and Big Red at the cinema. Racetracks elsewhere used to be like this – people having fun, betting dough, enjoying themselves.
Underlying the bliss, nonetheless, runs a current of troubled waters. Keeneland’s first weekend, called Fall Stars Weekend, featured all but the lone remaining stakes race that has impact on the Breeders’ Cup fields. The Queen Elizabeth II Challenge Cup for turf-racing fillies and mares this upcoming Saturday is a $400,000 Grade 1 race. But with only three weeks between it and the Breeders’ Cup, the QE2 without “Win and You’re In” consequence.
Openings are usually a set-up for grand finales. But, in Keeneland’s case, the finale comes first. Visiting the racecourse will constitute a rare treat for everyone that pours through its turnstiles in upcoming days. Yet, the track’s greatest feature – the chance to see champions at work – has passed. Fans will have to wait a few weeks and then drive 80 miles west for that.
Nevertheless, a conflict of purpose with the Breeders’ Cup is the least of the track’s problems. Lexington is the capital of the Thoroughbred industry. Horse racing is a strand of the city's DNA to the same extent that technology identifies Silicon Valley or wine defines Napa. How the sport goes, so goes Kentucky. But a few more years of economic hardship commingled with self-interested politics can make it the next Maryland.
Shamelessly entrepreneurial, Churchill Downs, led by P.T. Evans, relied on theme parties to boost Friday night attendance. There was horse racing under the twin spires only four days a week in the spring, often bringing together five to seven horses per race. The owners of Ellis Park hang out a “going out of business” sign routinely. Turfway Park, a racing plant that Keeneland co-owns with Harrah’s, ran only one stakes this September, cancelling the last three of six Kentucky Cup races that weren’t scrapped the year before. The Sport of Kings, on the surface, may appear healthy to people out for an afternoon at Keeneland. But up and down the Commonwealth, from one end to the other, the once-mighty enterprise is struggling.
To economize, Keeneland has issued buyouts to employees and has downgraded its racing program. Like Saratoga, Keeneland’s facing the nationwide horse shortage by carding races of marginal quality. Unlike Saratoga, it dropped two stakes in spring and two in the fall while lowering purses. Although the cutbacks won’t harm the tailgating or ruin the burgoo, they are nothing to leave unattended. Meanwhile, the situation throughout the state has been met with a puzzling response by people who could help it.
Without doubt, Kentucky’s woes are common to all in the business. Therefore, a good portion of blame belongs to industry individuals who have resisted a central authority. The NTRA wielded power and promoted the sport via advertising the last time that horse racing grew in attendance and handle. But like patients with a mental disorder that stop taking meds once they start to feel better, it took only one disagreement over something that was meaningless for some to conclude that the high they were on wasn’t caused by bricolage. The sport needs a commissioner; a strong compact, at least.
In regard to the specific, Kentucky deserves financial help from its government. The politicians are quick to lean on the racetracks, breeding farms, sales agencies, transportation and feed companies to fund their campaigns. But money hasn’t flowed in two directions. Kentucky horse racing is watching idly as its revenue is being fleeced by neighboring states. The brightly-lit casinos on the borders and rivers are drawing gamblers from Paducah to Pikeville. Indiana Downs’s purses grew 30 per cent this year.
Hope exists in Kentucky’s horse racing community that the installation of instant racing games will contribute to raising purses, thus keeping horsemen in the state. There are people who believe the tough times will pass as the economy revives – that life is cyclical and the power of that which is good will prevail over the long term, just as rain will turn the grass green again. A day at Keeneland with a picnic in the parking lot, a spot on the apron, beautiful horses and people – such perfection will last forever. Won’t it?
You’re invited to read more from Vic Zast on Facebook and Twitter.
11 Oct 2010 at 06:04 am | #
Karen Sweatman’s comment #15 is the Comment of the Week. Karen Sweatman’s main point that Zenyatta may be under-rated instead of over-rated was an interesting observation. The mare’s detractors want to downplay her record because of the lack of competition and the preponderance of synthetic track racing on her resume. But will we ever see one like her again?
11 Oct 2010 at 06:51 am | #
Thanks for the honesty Vic; haven’t felt so melancholy about Kentucky since reading the lyrics of the great American songwriter, Stephen Foster, in “My Old Kentucky Home.”
12 Oct 2010 at 05:54 am | #
Your description of Keeneland’s woes could fairly be applied to every racetrack in the country. And your commenting, “but a few more years of economic hardship commingled with self-interested politicians can make it the next Maryland” isn’t the root cause why racetracks all across the country are clinically dead, kept alive by extraneous income: slot revenue, casino dole, and state loans. No racetrack is operating profitably, and their expenses of operation and purses are paid from the extraneous income. Without slot revenue, casino dole, or state loans (or massive infusions of cash from corporate owners) not one racetrack would still be functioning.
Monmouth Park, Finger Lake, Delaware, Fairgrounds, Philadelphia, Charles Town, Calder, Laurel, Mountaineer, Zia, Louisiana Downs, Delta Downs, Turf Paradise, Presque Isle would be faded memories, as NYRA, Arlington, Turfway, Kentucky Downs Suffolk, and the remaining hang on by a thread.
So, why the slow decling of Thoroughbred racing? What is the root cause, the real root cause, the cause that has placed Thoroughbred racing in such a precarious position? It’s not lack of purse money, nor politicians, nor the economy, nor the weather (always the primary reason stated by track executive), nor the foal crop, nor sales of thoroughbreds, nor the excessive takeout on handle. The sole reason is simply that the people in this country now prefer to GAMBLE elsewhere. Once Thoroughbred racing lost its monoply on gambling, the tailspin started; which should translate to turf writers (but didn’t, and still hasn’t) that Thoroughbred racing’s popularity at one time was not the abundance of ‘quality’ thoroughbreds and stake races, but that people had no other place to legally gamble.
What to do now? Isn’t it obvious? Start promoting Thoroughbred’s true attraction.
And the beat goes on and .....
12 Oct 2010 at 09:25 am | #
The turf writers understand that horse racing declined when the sport lost its exclusivity as the one place where people could gamble legally. But it’s their responsibility to write about topics that are newsworthy and on subjects that people find intriguing. It’s not their job to promote the business of horse racing. Moreover, they know audiences care only to read about a gambler’s success when there is something interesting associated with the gambler or the circumstance. (See http://bit.ly/byAJOM)
The racetracks, whose job it is to promote horse racing, spend a lot of time and money to make people aware of the sport’s gambling opportunities. They staff teams of professional handicappers to assist people with selections. They sponsor handicapping contests and offer lucrative player rewards programs. They subsidize guaranteed Pick-4s and Pick-6s to encourage bigger investments from players. As a matter of fact, even in decisions that affect the sport’s presentation, such as writing conditions for races without concern for quality (i.e., the more horses, the more betting), the racetracks bend over backwards to encourage gambling.
You engaged my interest for about 90 percent of your comment, wmcorrow, until you allowed your boner for the media to interfere with your observation of what really happens vis-a-vis the promotion of horse racing and your confusion about what the role of the journalist is. In any case, thanks for reading and writing.
12 Oct 2010 at 12:43 pm | #
I’ll quibble with wmcorrow’s root cause of decline thesis and suggest that deeper digging is required. If industry leaders and racetrack operators were not indifferent to customer’s needs and preferences they would have known what portion of their market was likely to be lost to other forms of gambling and been able to respond. Does anyone in racing really understand who the customers are today, or more importantly who the customers were yesterday and where did they go and why won’t they come back? Smart companies and industries are customer-centric and insatiable in their desire for knowledge about their customers and market. So in that sense the deep root cause of decline is years of management apathy and indifference, a sadly self-inflicted cause.
12 Oct 2010 at 04:21 pm | #
Mr. Needham is correct. I was not around, but have read that gambling was uniformly outlawed in the United States by the early 20th century, and that pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing was implemented sometime in the mid- to late-1920s. It was the only legalized gambling in the country; “the only game in town.” In 1931 Nevada legalized gambling, but that did not negatively affect the racetracks, or their handle. The racetracks thrived, and customer service was not even part of their vocabulary; and it is hard to teach an old dog new tricks. Then came Atlantic City in 1979, and other states followed suit, along with internet wagering, and the racetrack was no longer king of the hill. They just kept plodding along; business as usual, treating their clients like degenerates, which is what you can argue is the perception of many Americans of a person who frequents a racetrack for the purpose of “playing the ponies” (with the exception of maybe Saratoga or Del Mar, or the Kentucky Derby, etc., where for a short span of time a railbird can hold his head up high). But the perception of going to “Vegas,” or “Atlantic City,” is one of a swanky, sexy, sophisticated experience, and that is how they portray and market it. Unfortunately, it will be a tough climb back to the top of the hill, even if they were so inclined at an attempt. Mr. wmcorrow is correct with respect to slot dollars; as “the borrower is slave to the lender,” and unless it is a symbiotic relationship, horse racing as a whole will get a “bad trip.”
12 Oct 2010 at 04:47 pm | #
Mr. Zast: You make two comments: 1) “It’s their responsibility to write about topics that are news worthy and on subjects that people find intriguing”, and 2) It’s not their job to promote the business of horse racing.” My first thought is who defined the role of a turf writer, and who wrote the job description?
For over fifty years I have read nothing but turf writer commentary promoting stake races, a select few trainers, and a select few jockeys; if this isn’t a promotion of Thoroughbred racing and influencing the public to ignore all racing except what they designate as worthy of one’s attention, then I do not understand what ‘promotion’ means.
You comment that racetracks spend a lot of time and money promoting the gambling aspects of racing. Perhaps, but where are these promotions of racing held? In the Daily Racing Form, on daily programs at the track, in some newspapers, and now on websites on the internet; this effort is directed at the existing racetrack gamblers. Where is the marketing/advertising to Joe and Jane standing on a corner on Main St, USA?
Not ten minutes ago, on the local TV channel, the Mohegan Sun, once again, ran a spot commercial promoting the fun and excitement of being at their casino. When or where have you seen a similar spot commercial urging people to gamble on the horses?
BTW, does the current movie, Secretariat, show anyone gambling? Did the movie Seabiscuit?
I don’t care how you slice it, cut it, toss it, blend it, or massage it Thoroughbred racing is kept alive by extraneous income, unable to support itself, and racing organizations have failed, miserably, to understand that casinos are the sole reason they are in dire straits. People simply prefer to gamble elsewhere.
Stake races, with purses of six-figures are insane, yet turf writers do nothing but promote their relevance, while the public is gambling at casinos.
It is hopeless, as no one is promoting racing to the unknowing as a terrific alternative to casino gambling. All anyone hears or reads is how a horse is succeeding in being nominated as Horse of the Year. Who gives a damn? All anyone remembers is the pick three or pick four they won on their last visit to a racetrack.
Play it again, Sam: “It’s all about gambling”!
12 Oct 2010 at 05:12 pm | #
I agree with two things you wrote, wcmorrow. I agree with your statement that you “do not know what ‘promotion’ means.” I agree with your statement “People simply prefer to gamble elsewhere.” The rest is as everything else that you write, borne of your jealousy of and disrespect for success, professionalism and happiness.
12 Oct 2010 at 07:58 pm | #
Mr. Zast, have great admiration for turf writers who write about controversial subjects, such as yourself, John Pricci, Bill Christine, Nick Kling, Andrew Byer, Steven Crist, Cary Fotias, and others who are not afraid to speak the truth, even if it is not pleasing to owners, trainers, jockeys, track management, politicians, or the public. I do not agree with everything that is written by you, or the gentlemen above, but immensely enjoy and am entertained by your insight, your wit, your knowledge of the game, and your genius, and I’m sure that there are throngs of people that feel the way I do. I thank you and your colleagues for writing about all things racing (the good, the bad and the ugly); you guys are few and far between!