Perhaps distraction was the goal of the messengers for the timing of two extraordinary extracurricular events that took place in the last seven days. Nevertheless, in the week that was – the week that had everyone glued to their tellies watching William and Kate instead of sitting in front of a laptop – the only place for horse racing news nowadays, they bear mentioning.
The most obvious, of course, was the announcement that two member of Congress were preparing a bill that would regulate race-day medications. The less obvious was a TVG-sponsored research study on what exchange wagering would do for the sport. As one would guess, the topic that is influenced by politics received the attention. Few observers chose to speak to the one that was politicized.
Knowing that the intervention was coming, the Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI), The Jockey Club, Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association (TOBA), Kentucky Thoroughbred Association/Kentucky Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders and the Thoroughbred Racing Association (TRA) began clamoring a week in advance of the pols’ grandstanding. They created the façade that work was seriously underway within the industry to address Udall’s and Whitfield’s concerns – that the bill wasn’t necessary. The leap to move forward was too little, too late, obviously. It was a nod, incidentally. But, at least, it took place.
The tax revenue realized from horse racing as a percentage of all money paid to government from gambling enterprises has fallen off so precipitously in the last several decades that, as tribute, the money's no longer worth chasing. Legislators see the stands empty, rarely read about the sport in the media, hear too often that the sport can’t support itself; they write it off as lost source of votes. What a relief it is now to know that there’s someone who cares, even if that someone is viewed as an enemy.
If you wish, give the back of your hand to Udall and Whitfield for meddling. Or embrace them for doing what horse racing’s grandees should have done long ago. Still, remember this. With the source of the proposed legislation being Washington, it’s okay, then, to say that you favor the bill but not its consequences. Republicans, who are voting for Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget plan, feel entirely within their rights to proclaim that they’re not voting against Medicare. Truth, be damned.
If, however, you truly enjoy politics, there was none better on view than the open-faced lobbying displayed brazenly by Betfair Group, Ltd, the world’s leading exchange wagering Internet bookmaker, posing as one its subsidiaries. Here, too, it matters not on which side of the issue you fall on. What was fascinating to witness was how skilled people were at employing the conceit of research to pull off a sales promotion and how gullible audiences became when told they were being let on to scientific findings.
Betfair’s TVG division commissioned Christiansen Capital Advisors, LLC to produce a 141-page “independent study” – wink, wink - that concluded that exchange wagering was all good; in fact, a must for the sport if it wanted to attract younger bettors and a compliment to the traditional tote system. If you saw the Academy Award-winning documentary Inside Job, Christiansen’s shameless report comes across like the film’s many examples of made-up reports written by professors and experts who were paid to pimp the questionable practices of financial institutions that led to recession.
If you come across Christiansen’s report cold, it will seem like a media guide. The report offers numbers, graphs and narrative ad nauseam. It is also jam-packed with factoids, probably to make it seem weighty. You can learn, for example, that all but two of 60 British racecourses were established before 1927. You can read an endorsement in support of exchange wagering from a former British Foreign Secretary that was proffered in 2004.
The report blames the recession for the drastic declines in British horse racing from 2008 to 2009 (figures for 2010 weren’t made available) and downplays a coincidental change in the way the UK collects taxes from bookmakers by claiming the significant rise in Levy Board revenues of prior years was connected to Betfair’s emergence. Everything you’d expect from a sales pitch is there. The material just isn’t presented to be that, and that’s what’s wrong with it.
Ironically, exchange wagering – a far more risky proposition for horse racing than drug policy adjustment – will be instituted almost immediately, while Udall and Whitfield’s bill will receive opposition until it’s beaten down – put to rest by the inclination of the majority to view the intervention of government into business as bogeymen stuff. In addition, all the alphabet soup organizations that rose collectively to say they were in favor of a ban on race-day medications are more likely to disperse than to organize.
The thought that Feds couldn’t do a better job than the industry at governing the sport is convoluted. In prior years, it made more sense to hire Christiansen instead of a car salesman for finding out the truth – but no longer. So, it is in the week that was.
Vic Zast posts daily on Facebook and often on Twitter. Find him there after you've commented on this column.


02 May 2011 at 08:09 am | #
The Betfair-TVG issue with advance wagering is one of interest because of their commissioning it, but in my own personal research, I do think advance wagering is needed as not everyone can always find time to wager on a specific day, especially people who micro-manage their time in ways unthinkable even 10 years ago. There are a lot of people who like the convenience of being able to place a wager instantly and sometimes days in advance. While with the horses there are some risks to it, this is something that may need to be more seriously looked at, at least independently.
Now, as this is Derby week, I had written a post late Saturday night (before finding out about the record crowd for any card other than the Derby, Oaks or Breeders’ at Churchill that happened earlier that evening) on the Too Smart To Fail message Board (http://www.toosmarttofail.com/forums/showthread.php?2452) asking if this year’s Derby will be the last contested in daylight. As explained in my post I think that will be the case on two fronts:
The first one has nothing to do with the US, but the Asia-Pacific region. Japan, Hong Kong and Australia can no longer be ignored as potential markets for new simulcast revenue, especially since such for both the Derby and Oaks (and undercard races) has the potential to reach the hundreds of millions of dollars, with the same also being true on the Breeders’ Cup, where the potential could actually be for $1 BILLION or more in new handle. Make post time for the Oaks on Friday night at 10:40 PM local time in Louisville and that translates to 11:40 AM Saturday in Tokyo and 1:40 PM Saturday in Melbourne and Sydney, while making the Derby post time 9:35 PM in Louisville on Saturday and that translates to 10:35 AM Sunday in Tokyo and 12:35 PM Sunday in Melbourne and Sydney. This is the main reason I think we could also very well see this year’s Breeders’ Cup at Churchill Downs wind up being the first fully contested at night.
The second reason has to do with the TV rating for the Derby itself. Since NBC first took over carrying the Triple Crown races from ABC in 2000 (excluding the period of The Belmont Stakes being back on ABC from 2006-’10), they have slowly moved back post time on the Derby past 6:00 PM, to where it usually now is around 6:30 PM ET for the most part. The ratings have risen considerably on the Derby, and the last few years, the Derby TV rating has completely bucked the trend of severely declining ratings for television programming overall (with prime time TV ratings in particular seeing as much as a 70% decline in ratings just from the end of the 2003-’04 TV season as choices on cable TV have greatly expanded). The 10.3 rating the Derby has gotten the last two years (2009-’10) have been the highest since 1992, and are remarkable numbers in an era where overall numbers have declined so much to where if the Derby had qualified for the prime time ratings each of the last two years, it would have been at worst in the top five TV programs for the week of the Derby.
For a network like NBC that has been severely ratings-challenged in recent years, the Derby suddenly has become ratings gold for them, so much so that this year, with Comcast having just taken over NBC, they are also taking over what had been previously the coverage that ESPN produced leading into all three Triple Crown events. If Comcast had not just officially taken over NBC a couple of months ago, it’s very possible this Derby coming up on Saturday would have been the first contested at night, and I would think the people taking over at NBC are going to insist that next year’s Derby at Churchill Downs is at night, most likely from 7:00-10:00 PM ET so the rating from the Derby qualifies for the prime time TV ratings. The Derby is now one of the few events that can generate ratings on a Saturday night, and if the 10.3 rating of the last two years held up in prime time, it might very well be enough for NBC to possibly escape the basement that they have occupied in the TV ratings outside of the Olympics in recent years for the “May Sweeps,” the last of three such periods that take place during the official TV season in the US that determine local ad rates (the others in the US TV season are in November and February, plus there is a fourth such period in July that is more for daytime and local programming).
Even without the situation with NBC, the fact the Asia-Pacific region can no longer be ignored is why I think we will see the Kentucky Oaks and Kentucky Derby at night for the first time in 2012, with the Oaks telecast likely moving to NBC in 2012 and airing on Friday from 10:00-11:00 PM ET and including a Derby preview. While people in Louisville may not like the idea of the Oaks and Derby becoming nighttime events, international simulcasting and major changes in television viewing habits I think are going to force those changes for 2012 no matter how much they like it or not.
02 May 2011 at 10:51 am | #
“The less obvious was a TVG-sponsored research study on what advance wagering would do for the sport.”
Advance wagering is legal and used at all tracks.
Did you mean “exchange wagering”???
HUGE difference. I am for it. It may or may not be adopted. I don’t think USA racing will survive long enough for it to matter. All the chages that need to take effect almost immediately WILL NOT BE ADOPTED; even over time.
Look at the bullshit lower take single gimmick bets being created at one track then maybe one more, etc. They don’t have another 50 years to try and figure out a bobble head program that will divert the attention of bettors from the theft going on daily nor will it attract today’s tech savvy crowd to even try it.
CHANGES NEEDED IMMEDIATELY:
Takeout dropped to 10% on W/P/S wagers…
Takeout dropped to 15% on ALL other wagers…
Legal theft of customer’s change (breakage) ELIMINATED…
Exchange wagering for Americans legalized…
Wagering system modernized/comparable to NYSE software…
Full races (10 or more starters) that can run (maybe fewer days/tracks)…
No drugs in the starting gates. NONE!!!
Final odds before the gate opens; not after the race ends…
All information displayed in REAL TIME…
Race related data freely accessible to ALL…
Enforce all rules/laws across ALL jurisdictions…
3 strike rule; NOT hundreds of chances…
Guilt by association for those working with cheaters; use (Federal RICCO model)…
The ENTIRE damn list at ALL tracks. Do it or die. SIMPLE… Gotta love the way reality continues to bite racing in the ass…
Who are we kidding? Status quo maintained until it dies completely in the middle of some “new” round table meeting or online “fantasy” game…
Like using an outhouse where everyone else craps on top of the lid rather than under it. This industry is putrid and its’ fate is completely in the hands of greedy, ignorant, shortsighted fools and their media. RIP…
02 May 2011 at 12:09 pm | #
Thank goodness for careful readers like you, SimplyNotSureRU. Why, of course, I meant to type exchange wagering, not advance wagering. I’ve made the changes.
02 May 2011 at 01:28 pm | #
Figured. Well aware of the study you blogged about and it was their topic and primary business.
It is too bad this industry can’t recognize and make a change as easy and fast as this.
In spite of my position on the mostly unpopular “glass half empty” side, I enjoy almost all of the commentary by everyone on this site.
I think John, you and others do a good job providing this very public forum open for discussion and opinions.
Thanks very much.
02 May 2011 at 01:34 pm | #
Please stick to the racing business Victor and leave your snide political asides for another forum.
02 May 2011 at 04:02 pm | #
SimplyNotSureRU,
My television partner Tom Amello and I did a Kentucky Derby seminar at the National Museum of Racing last Saturday.
Tom asked the crowd (perhaps 70-80 people) to raise their hand if they wanted the odds displayed as the gate opened to be the final odds. At least 90 percent raised their hand.
This is an issue which resonates with horse players and must be addressed by the industry. To date, it hasn’t been.
Vic,
Please continue with your political asides, snide or otherwise. You’re not doing your job if you aren’t ticking off at least a few readers.
02 May 2011 at 05:07 pm | #
“… Udall and Whitfield’s bill will receive opposition until it’s beaten down – put to rest by the inclination of the majority to view the intervention of government into business as bogeymen stuff.”
“The thought that Feds couldn’t do a better job than the industry at governing the sport is convoluted.”
VZ,
Can you describe how Federal oversight might be structured to effectively impose and maintain the necessary reforms within the racing industry?
02 May 2011 at 06:22 pm | #
Nick,
Add me to the 90%.
Nothing more infuriating than seeing your selection win, and finding out the 5/1 price is now 5/2.
Please tell Tom Amello to send regards to his brother Jerry. Haven’t seen him in a few years, but a good guy.
02 May 2011 at 09:49 pm | #
I’m bad on this too, because I thought Vic meant advance wagering as well, which I do think is important as noted in my earlier post.
Exchange wagering, a bill for which has already passed in New Jersey and is supposed to become active later this summer may be a game changer on the other hand, as it will change the way people will bet on horses.
The drug issue on the hand I’ve talked about previously, including a five-year plan that I noted commenting in Mr. Zast’s earlier post, “Why Not Cheat?” (http://www.horseraceinsider.com/Zasts-TrackWords/comments/2011-03-14why-not-cheat). If you have not read that previously, I strongly recommend doing so.
02 May 2011 at 09:58 pm | #
And just to clarify:
What Mr. Zast wrote in “Why Not Cheat?” is why I’ve linked people to that column many times, as it really showed some of the real problems this sport has.
03 May 2011 at 08:41 am | #
Dear Indulto: Please don’t short-change your enjoyment of the piece by pulling out two disconnected sentences and concluding that there’s only one point to the writing. Nevertheless, in regard to the specific two sentences you cite in your comment, let me offer these ideas.
We should wait for Udall and Whitfield to reveal their bill to see how they propose to “effectively impose and maintain the necessary reforms.” That is their job, not mine. Regardless of what some people might believe, an op-ed columnist doesn’t need to offer solutions to problems he criticizes.
On occasion, the federal government (especially at times when the lobbying money makes its impact felt on enough Congressional votes) has produced legislation that protects people’s rights and creates an improvement in the status quo. In comparison, the horse racing industry has done nothing to address the sport’s problems as felt by most fans, making life for the fan and the horseplayer miserable.
This suggests to me that it’s possible the Feds could do better than the industry in enacting change – an entity that’s done something versus one that’s done nothing. Or, at least, it tells me that to argue the point isn’t baseless.
Ironically, my thinking might be the same as the thousands of horseplayers who crave exchange wagering. They don’t care that its implementation might cause irreparable damage; they’re just frustrated that nobody’s done anything to make their game more affordable.
My column doesn’t conclude that the intervention of the federal government would be good for the sport. It praises Udall and Whitfield for creating a perceived threat that might lead to industry action. I could present you with two sentences that illustrate this point. But you can find them yourself if you read the column again more carefully
03 May 2011 at 08:53 am | #
Dear Nick Kling: Although I believe that most horse racing fans would prefer having the final odds up before the horses break from the starting gate, I wouldn’t give much validity to the mother-in-law research that Tom Amello conducted by asking 80 people what they thought.
Consumer researchers are very careful about how their questions are written because the way a question’s asked can determine an answer that isn’t indicative of true feelings.
This issue, by the way, while a big thing to many horseplayers, is not a very big thing to casual horse racing fans. In fact, I’d bet a very small percentage of casual fans realize it or care.
I’d encourage Tom Amello to ask Charles Hayward when he holds his Saratoga Open House why NYRA doesn’t change the timing of posting final odds. He’d get a totally different view. Racetracks make decisions in favor of horse owners, not the betting public, and there’s more money being made for purses with the way it is.
03 May 2011 at 09:26 am | #
Yes, Vic. Let us listen to the industry. They have done a bang up job with racing so far. I would always take the concerns (or lack of any) of the casual fan over any regular players (the few that are left).
Ignore my list. It is almost inconsequential at this point. The ultimate outcome is no longer relegated to a future event. It is happening right now. And those with their heads up their collective asses cannot see or smell it.
By the way, they don’t change it for the same reason they don’t do any of the other suggestions from real players, like lower take out or bring in exchange wagering. MONEY… They TAKE theirs before the wager is pooled. As high as 30% and this approaches 50%/60% in many carry over pools that are raked over and over.
If they accepted our suggestion, then all that late (past post) money would not get raked… Most casual fans do not know that private wagering software is given full access to the pool money and odds as it flows from one point to another. All ADW’s allow this, too. It is how the rebaters monitor ALL race pools and decide which pool to raid. Any perceived overlay becomes an underlay after the race is over and the wagers from this private software is counted.
They get their cut and F__K the rest. That is why they do not do anything the regular player wants. And that pool of players is declining fast. Casual interest is almost gone. Welfare from government and casino sources is almost gone.
Then and only then; will these fools act like it just happened and they just noticed it. How many frigging round tables saying the same thing for decades does it take???
Yeah. Ignore the 80 regulars. They sure as hell can’t know what they want. The puppets are those who still have faith in the industry and support the current staus quo.
GIVE ME A BREAK… Or maybe a poker game with 5% rake.
03 May 2011 at 01:54 pm | #
I’ve always wondered why I never heard anyone happy about the fact that their odds went from, say, 7-2 to 5-1 during the running of the race while heading for the window to cash out. I’m sure it happens.
Re federal legislation or the threat of it - back in 1983 or close to it, the Humane Society made a big push to have the feds oversee/control the use of drugs in the racing industry. It came to a halt primarily because of the work National HBPA president Ed Flint (the only good thing he ever did in his life), and the testimony of Tom Tobin and the late Alex Harthill along with the work of lobbyist David Vienna (Darryl’s brother).
The first University of Arizona symposium I attended was in 1977 and the main topic on the agenda was MEDICATION. It’s been on many agendas at many different industry meetings since that time and basically nothing significant has been accomplished. So what makes anyone think that the threat coming from Washington will make anyone in the hinterlands react today? We’d have a better chance of fishing up bin Laden than hoping this industry’s leaders will accomplish anything.
03 May 2011 at 02:55 pm | #
VZ,
Nothing could shortchange my immense enjoyment of this piece. That was guaranteed by shadow/shedrows, Feds in faces/donkeys off their asses, and Christiansen/car salesman.
I was trying to ascertain whether or not you were, in fact, breaking with earlier-stated warnings by your colleagues, Steven Crist and Paul Moran, against Federal involvement. Student of politics that you are, it’s now clear you can’t be accused of being either in favor of, or against, Federal intervention.
The “threat” of intervention posed by Udall and Whitfield is baseless without support from “horse racing’s commentariat.” I guess we’ll have wait for the bill’s specifics to see if you still claim your lack of “responsibility” is justified after writing, “… the horse racing industry has done nothing to address the sport’s problems as felt by most fans, making life for the fan and the horseplayer miserable.”
05 May 2011 at 10:01 am | #
If not the Feds, then who, these people???
These are the very same people who are going to change and clean up the industry (NOT).
Excerpt from the Bloodhorse website News article:
CHRB Whistle Blower Sues Agency
By Jack Shinar
Updated: Wednesday, May 4, 2011 5:26 PM
Posted: Wednesday, May 4, 2011 4:17 PM
...
...
...
According to his lawsuit, Atashkar’s problems began in 2006 when he informed Fermin of illegal computer activity by Roy Minami, who was then the agency’s assistant executive director. Minami eventually resigned and was replaced by Smith, whom Atashkar also alleges used the CHRB system for “problematic email.”
He said his initial complaints to Fermin went nowhere.
“I was very naive,” he said. “I didn’t know who my friends were.”
Beginning in July 2006, Atashkar alleged he became aware of improper activities by Fermin, Shapiro and others, including “misappropriation of taxpayer funds by CHRB executives; backdating of contracts in favor of friends of CHRB executives; the illegal collection of funds for the benefit of Shapiro and Fermin; pornography and inappropriate video stored in CHRB computer system.”
He claimed, in an interview, that he has the documentation to prove that Fermin and Shapiro misused the testing system for Total Carbon Dioxide (TCO2), known as “green sheets,” to target individual trainers for prosecution. They also used insider information to warn favored trainers of upcoming tests for particular medications, he charged, and circumvented state hiring practices to employ trainer Darrell Vienna as a board consultant and Dr. Rick Arthur as the CHRB’s equine medical director.
Once the defendants were informed of his charges, Atashkar said hostility on the job forced him to take an illness leave in late 2006, In February 2007 he and Frank Moore, then the CHRB’s head of investigation, took Atashkar’s allegations to the California Highway Patrol. As a result of that, he contends in the lawsuit, Fermin, Shapiro and Smith “began a campaign of retaliation.”
...
...
...