In part, that story recounted that when the Commonwealth of Kentucky installed a parimutuel system in 1906, the takeout rate was 5 percent. The only place where you can bet into a similar hold these days are head-to-head proposition wagers made at Betfair.
This British-based wagering company is currently in the midst of trying to do in America now what Magna Entertainment and Churchill Downs Inc. have attempted to do over the course of the last two decades; corner the American racing market. Magna, of course, failed miserably.
In any event, a reader commented beneath the HANA story indicating that he was going over to Colins Ghost to check out the takeout story of yesteryear, adding: “And we know racing needs to go ‘retro’ in many areas.”
Before addressing the retro issue, a word about Colin for those of you that might have joined the ranks of American thoroughbred racing fans via the exploits of Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta:
Colin was in racetrack parlance “a freak,” extremely high praise in racing circles. He had such a badly curbed hock--a condition that leads to faulty action and, eventually, worse--that many believed he might not make it to the races. But make it, he did.
Legendary Hall of Fame trainer James Rowe Sr. worked with him and eventually the colt made his first start in May of 1907, the year after Kentucky initiated pari-mutuels. As the 6-5 favorite, the well bred maiden won his debut over 23 rivals. Three days later he won the National Stallion Stakes in track record time.
Now either he was the gamest horse who ever lived, or the story becomes completely apocryphal at this point. But four days later after the National Stallion, he won the Eclipse Stakes in the slop with bucked shins carrying 125 pounds.
Subsequently, he was freshened 24 days and won the Great Trial Stakes easily under 129. His swollen hock was being well managed by Rowe but he needed to overcome a cough to win the Saratoga Special later that summer. After his cough cleared up he won the Grand Union Hotel Stakes four days later.
“His defeat in the Grand Union would have been looked upon in Saratoga as a public calamity,” wrote “The Thoroughbred Record.” When Colin returned downstate, 50,000 fans showed up at Sheepshead Bay to see him win the Futurity in record time.
He won four more stakes races as a juvenile: the Flatbush, Brighton Produce, the colt division of the Matron Stakes, and the seven furlong Champagne setting another record. Prior to Champagne, The Thoroughbred Record stated "the more one sees of him, the more firm is the conviction that he is the best horse ever bred in America, or ever raced here."
At 3, Colin won the Withers, Belmont and Tidal Stakes, was sent to England to race, but injured himself in a workout and retired an undefeated winner of 15 career starts. Inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1956, Bloodhorse magazine ranked Colin at #15 on the list of America’s Top 100 Horses of the 20th Century.
Speed and stamina both. Hard to imagine I know, but that’s how it was back in the day. Can you imagine sending a horse into the auction ring with a curbed hock these days, much less have him purchased at all?
Several times this past year, blessed by the presence of two great fillies but cursed by the perception that thoroughbred racing has devolved into an anachronistic pastime, concerned fans approached me and asked: “When did racing begin to slip?”
Without hesitation I said “the day tracks decided to relax the dress codes in the clubhouse.”
Exaggerated nonsense? Perhaps. But going racing died a little that day because going to the racetrack became a little less special, a little less important.
Perception is reality. Everyone knows self-esteem rises when you look your best. And this has nothing to do with social climbing, never my game, nor does it have to do with being elitist. Well, maybe a little.
For me, that day was like Lou Pascal saying how gambling now was “so goddam legal” as he walked the “Atlantic City” boardwalk, probably for about the ten-thousandth time, before peering out over the Atlantic and lamenting: “you should have seen the ocean in those days.”
Louis Malle’s anti-hero in the 1980 latter-day noir film knew the difference, realizing just what the modern gambling scene lacks: Style. “Floy-floy,” Burt Lancaster’s character called it.
So, what has racing to lose? It already has lost market share. Maybe by bringing dress codes back, attendees will have a little spring in their step when they attend the races. Because that’s what experiencing a day at the races was like, and can be again, especially those making the scene for the first time.
Big-market tracks from New York to Miami to Chicago to Los Angeles used to be cool places to spend an afternoon. There’s no reason why they can’t be again. Then, who knows? Maybe breeders will infuse stamina back into pedigrees--a possible positive by-product of synthetic-surface racing--in search of the next Colin.
If racing’s destiny is to become little more than an upscale, niche pastime, it should look and feel like one when you enter the clubhouse gates. There’s still the grandstand for the tee-shirt crowd, and a place for families to gather.
And if it’s only convenience that interests modern fans, they can stay at home, bet on their computers and watch the races in their underwear. The consensus is that only technology that will save and grow the game. But why not something for everyone? What is there to lose?
The industry says it’s considering new business models and wants to re-brand racing as something special. Then it should make it racetracks special places to go again, attracting the kind of clientele that cares about the way they and the people around them look. Like begets like.
The racetrack was a place to see and be seen, real horse racing fans with a few discretionary bucks in their pockets, beyond the turf club types and the corporate suits ensconced in luxury boxes.
Who knows? Upscale fans might even bet on a few winners. And they’ll already be dressed to go out for dinner. Sounds like a nice way to spend a weekend afternoon.
And for those New York sports who might be reading this, when you drive across the Hudson on your way to Monmouth Park, be sure to tip the toll booth attendant on the New Jersey Turnpike.


17 Dec 2009 at 04:52 pm | #
JP,
Your answer to the slide, “the day tracks decided to relax the dress codes in the clubhouse.” Couldn’t have said it better myself!
Back to Hialeah. when I first went there in the late 60’s, you had to wear a jacket in the clubhouse. And my God, the people an 18 year old ( Couldn’t go to the races there legally until 21, but as long as you had a license, groom or whatever, you could get in) kid. Mickey Rooney, Steve Lawrence Imagine coming fact to face and meeting Liz Taylor. And the list goes on. The point is, the race track was one of the few places where the common guy could not only rub shoulders with the “gentry”, but actually talk to them one on one on a subject they all enjoyed. Never got that feeling at Gulfstream. So I fully agree, retro can be quite good.
As I travel around, I have noticed one thing. The young folks that do frequent the tracks seem to do so for the same reasons we did all those years ago. The love of the sport and the tradition involved can be an intoxicating elixer.
Kids get that, if presented to them correctly! As this sport didn’t bother to go after two generations of could be patrons, we are re-starting from behind. but as I said about Hialeah. It can be dne. It will take an industry that is willing to put aside egos and work together and promotion reminding people of the good that is racing.
17 Dec 2009 at 05:40 pm | #
The atmosphere mentioned in JP’s blog, and by JB, captures the allure of racing back then. Note that neither writer mentions gambling, per se, as their reason to attend the races. That the conviviality, shared comradery, and racing observations of the great and not so great might be shared is indicative of the democratization which being at the track extended to everyone. The horse was the center of attention, and in discussing the horses, people found their commonality with each other. A sense of community and shared interest drew a person back for multiple visits.
Then the gambling was a motivator for attendance, but other amenities of the experience drew in new bettors, and kept those who knew returning for more. The love of the sport, the tradition, and the horses, all are indeed “an intoxicating elixir”.
Do the slots have that allure, or something similiar? Will marketing the gambling alone recapture that large market share?
17 Dec 2009 at 06:34 pm | #
Fine, I’ll wear whatever you want me too. Can you start writing more pieces about the actual racehorses now? The ones not pimped as victims or only notable due to whatever controversial person is around them?
17 Dec 2009 at 06:53 pm | #
Great point, R. Hill: it’s the horse that matters.
Got to go. Horses to feed, hay to haul, and the exercise rider gets upset when I am on the computer. Besides, my clothes stink like manure. Such allure.
The Horse is why we go to the races, and we bet on them because we think we have insight which others lack.
What about that ‘Lucky’ colt?
17 Dec 2009 at 07:50 pm | #
I could not agree more, I have thought for some time that racing needed more dress codes not a further relaxing of the few that do exist. Dress codes help to create a more aesthetically pleasing environment because how people are dressed and the manner in which they carry themselves contribute to the overall vibe, energy and attractiveness of a location and therefore the enjoyment of the overall experience. This is important because at the end of the day, racing and wagering are supposed to be fun (which unfortunately I think we all have a tendency to forget on occasions since there it is a tough game filled with brutal beats). Don’t get me wrong I can still have fun at the track cashing some winning tickets surrounded by guys who look like they just rolled out of bed and/or who are sporting the hobo look. However, this is scarcely the type of attire that spruces up the landscape making it more enticing for any newcomers to come back more often (if at all) or heaven forbid actually attract some more women to the track.
17 Dec 2009 at 08:17 pm | #
Ah, all great minds thinking alike (LOL here).
Nothing to add to any of you who commented re: ambiance at the racetrack. And here that, boys? Theresia thinks we could attract more women to the racetrack if only we helped “spruce up the landscape.”
R. Hill: I’m really glad you asked. Sometimes the people that comment here are only engaged when we’re taking on issues. So how about next Wednesday I’ll try to find a couple of live, soon-to-be three-year-olds? And I’ll try to remember, too, that writing about the horse need not put the “horseplayers” and disenfranchised among us to sleep.
JRP
17 Dec 2009 at 08:41 pm | #
You wrote: “Maybe breeders will infuse stamina back into pedigrees--a possible positive by-product of synthetic-surface racing...” Why so? What is it about synthetics that might encourage breeders to care about stamina? Because synthetic tracks are slower, so no point in trying to breed speedballs? Or are there other reasons?
17 Dec 2009 at 08:56 pm | #
Yes, Noelle, the speed of the surface is relevant but then so is the need for stamina. Empirically, late runners do better on synthetics than speed types on balance, especially going long, where stamina is, of course, essential.
And if breeders start fashioning pedigrees for synthetic-surface success, they’ll probably concentrate on bloodlines producing success on turf, in routes and on synthetics. Only a minority of the best turf horses are bred for speed--unless we’re talking grass racing at Saratoga, of course.
JRP
17 Dec 2009 at 09:13 pm | #
I have one additional point to add while we are on this subject and that is this is one of several areas where horse racing could learn a thing or two from Vegas. When you receive a promotional e-mail or flyer in the mail from the top Vegas casinos (Bellagio, Mandalay Bay/THEHotel, Venetian, Wynn, etc) there is more often then not a glitzy, glamorous, sophisticated twist to it because that is part of allure that Vegas is selling. When you compare how Vegas dresses up and packages its gambling product from a marketing perspective to how horse racing markets its gambling product, its a pretty stark contrast. The image of a slickly dressed guy in a tux playing Baccarat or Craps is a more appealing sell then an overweight bald guy playing nickel slots while chain smoking. How does horse racing create more allure of the former rather then the later in terms of marketing wagering on races and being a horseplayer as attractive as possible?
17 Dec 2009 at 09:19 pm | #
My first time at a racetrack was a Saturday in March at Aqueduct. I know, but wait - listen.
It was thrilling and alive with excitement. And, fans of every ‘rank & file’ made for good people watching. I recall being glad that I’d worn my nicest outfit, too. That’s what it was like in 1968.
I miss it.
17 Dec 2009 at 10:04 pm | #
I think there should be a dress code for trainers. They are in the publics eye. They shouldn’t let a trainer near the winners circle wearing Levi’s and a T-shirt. You never saw Charlie Whittingham, Lucien Lauren, Woody Stevens, etc. without a coat and tie on race day.
17 Dec 2009 at 10:44 pm | #
Carol, people should have seen what Jamaica Bay looked like in those days!
Lorenzo, agreed. It might not play at Zia Park but if you race in prime time for deep pocketed owners trainers should respect the sport’s history.
Thanks folks.
JRP
17 Dec 2009 at 11:06 pm | #
The sport had a rich history, but I know what it’s future is:
None--it doesn’t have a future. It’s finished.
Enjoy the funeral!!!
18 Dec 2009 at 12:53 am | #
To all above: Please answer the following question: Until 1980 Thoroughbred racing was extremely popular. Since 1980 racetrack patrons have departed in droves. Why?
18 Dec 2009 at 02:11 am | #
WM: I know somewhat of were you stand on this issue because I have read some of your posts. And you make a lot of valid points.
Up until the mid S or so Horse Racing was the only form of legalized gambling outside of NV or NJ that a person could engage in. Then came the Lottos, soon followed by Indian Casinos, now we have Internet Gambling and so on. I think you get the point. The competition for the gambling $$ has become fierce.
Back in the day playing the horses was pretty simple. You Had WPS, a Daily Double and a few Exactas. A novice could grasp it fairly quickly.
See it is pretty simple to buy a scratcher and play it. Buy a lotto ticket wait for the numbers to be drawn. Walk into a casino push some buttons wait for the reals to stop.
So how did the Thoroughbred Racing Industry try to compete with this new competition and Exodus. By raising prices on anything and everything they could. From Parking, to Programs, to Admission, and Concessions to the Take Out. Now a novice walks into a Race Track or OTB and they have to try and figure out whats the difference between a P-3 and a trifecta is, a P-4 or a superfecta, a P-5 or P-6, what the hell is a high five, do I need to slap your hand or what. What does it mean to key a horse, or wheel, rolling P-S, rolling doubles. They might feel it would take a month of Sundays to learn all this and they haven’t even begun to handicap.
But I fully agree with you that the Thoroughbred Racing Industry had done an abysmal job of marketing Horse Racing as an alternative form of gambling.
18 Dec 2009 at 02:19 am | #
Corrow’s been right all along.
Wendell, I don’t know why you bothered posting here again. Didn’t Mr Pricci tell you to take a walk?? Enjoy yourself,wmcorrow!! Too bad future generations will think of horse racing the way we think of dinasours!!
Meanwhile guys like Pricci and Kling can keep writing about who should be Horse of the Year!! As though anyone truly cares.
18 Dec 2009 at 10:13 am | #
Theresia wrote:
“… Dress codes help to create a more aesthetically pleasing environment because how people are dressed and the manner in which they carry themselves contribute to the overall vibe, energy and attractiveness of a location and therefore the enjoyment of the overall experience. …”
“… Don’t get me wrong I can still have fun at the track cashing some winning tickets surrounded by guys who look like they just rolled out of bed and/or who are sporting the hobo look. …”
“… The image of a slickly dressed guy in a tux playing Baccarat or Craps is a more appealing sell then an overweight bald guy playing nickel slots while chain smoking. …”
IMO, Marie Antoinette, it wasn’t the loosening of dress codes, but short-sighted simulcast signal pricing that started racing on the road to ruin. It’s the resulting disparity in effective takeout between the subsidized “haves” and the unrebated “have-nots” that—in the face of exorbitantly high direct takeout— continues to send players to the sidelines early and keeps many there; away from the track and, worse, the game. To what extent their attire and coiffure might satisfy the fastidious and fashion-conscious, I refuse to speculate.
As attendance continues to decline, and the average age of non-BC track-goers increases along with their weight and recession of their hairlines, one can only hope there will be enough Madame De Farges left to witness the guillotining (figuratively, not literally) of the establishment elite and executives whose exposed excesses and/or incompetence have enabled off-track bet-takers to exploit the existing dysfunction among racing jurisdictions at the expense of players, horsemen, and track operators.
18 Dec 2009 at 03:54 pm | #
AGain, the key difference between the track and the casino--the horse. Otherwise, all you guys proclaiming the death of the sport would be on another site, arguing casino rules. Gambling is the key ingredient of profitability and sustainability, and marketing the aspects of chance in racing has only been done in limited ways. Here in Colorado, Betcha Love It was the promotional slogan, and people stayed away in droves as a sequence of ownership ensued and the physical plant deteriorated. Some days the toilets run all day--next to the main office.
Why in the world is it a universal rule of race track management to demean the customer? Some tracks do a good job, and Marie Antoinette might be comfortable there today.
Handle requires live butts in the seats, the casual fans as well as the dedicated ones. Virtually the only national advertising is for the Breeders Cup; there is no synchronized analysis of the developing season on sports shows. No one cares, except a few of us.
Now the BC people wish to make a permanent spectacle of the event. Think the Grammies, CMA, the Golden Globes. See and be seen; that will not include horsemen, or punters. Will they even race horses? Who will know which horses? Where did those horses come from?
But they will be well dressed. Maybe Bravo can carry the signal, with Baba Wawa at the head table.
Sell lotto tickets with the numbers of the winning horses, and a big BC logo embossed upon the ticket.
Seriously, what is the program to market the gambling aspect? How about the signal spreading to entities which don’t contribute to purses or to the track (in a significant way)? Who is using who? Will dressing better contribute to handle?
18 Dec 2009 at 04:17 pm | #
I think they should only let White people into the racetrack to really keep it nice.
18 Dec 2009 at 04:56 pm | #
Indulto,
All good points, but I disagree with the main cause of decline. As I stated earlier, the tracks themselves caused this porblem, and not only by not going after the next two generations of potential fans. I can relate to this from personal experience as it happened in Fla, NH, Mass and so on. The lotteries came into business. The tracks, having had the only game in town for ages started crying about how they couldn’t compete. “Help us! The lotteries are going to ruin us!” and so on and so on. Not once did they try to help themselves. They let their facilities rot, citing the loss of revenues fron the lotteries. As I have stated in past posts, I cannot to this day remember seeing one ad to the effect of “your best odds are at the races! 33% of favorites win!” I did however see ads crying about how the lotteries would ruin the tracks.
The decline definitely started then.
Combine that with the political BS, the greed of the tracks, assinine egos and the mistaken belief the faithful would take whatever they threw at then and you have the recipe for the disaster we have now. A side note: I just saw in Fla. the commission says the Hialeah/Gulfstream date permit request is rejected due to the permity being revoked. If you want to get a glimpse at why racing started dying, just look at Fla or better still, look at the moronic stuff going on in NJ, or KY, or Maryland.
Personally I’m sick and tired of the industry crying about their problems to a great extent as they in fact were self incurred. However, we must not ever forget the political side of this and the posturing idiots, many of whom do not know jack about our sport, voting the way their palms are greased. Simulcasting aside, no one in their right mind wants to go to a run down dingy derilect of a track. But, look at the few successful rtracks. The Spa. Keeneland. The potential to bring the sport back is there. The will and a co-operative effort from the industry? That’s the million dollar question.
18 Dec 2009 at 05:06 pm | #
Indulto: Question?? I do remember when simulcasting came to the for front that attendance for live racing pretty much imploded. What do you mean by “short-sighted simulcast signal pricing”? Are they paying to much for the signal or not enough?
18 Dec 2009 at 06:43 pm | #
I think what you’re talking about is what Magna tried to do, but did poorly by biting off way more than they could chew at one time and then not managing very well what they had. Personally, I would not write off Gulfstream Park just yet. They are still developing that whole site, a shopping center is doing well at getting stores committed and there are still plans for hotels and other entertainment.
My two sons are in the target demographic - young 20’s, single, in the Army (lots of discretionary income). One of mine did the whole ‘Casino Royale’ thing last month - a bunch of friends went to a casino in Atlanta wearing their suits, even had ties and cufflinks.
They had a great time because they made it special. You are right - horse racing lost something when it quit being a special event.
18 Dec 2009 at 07:50 pm | #
I agree. There is room for both. Not sure there are too many tracks left where you would want to wear nice clothes. Many are now surrounded by neighborhoods one wants to only drive through quickly. And maintenance leaves sitting as a long shot…
Horses of old, bred to run short and long, with hearts bigger than their bodies… Hell yeah! I can think of a couple of females that would make great broodmares for this beginning. The DNA still exists.
My fear? The powers that be will be happy to institute these changes. The impact will be small on the economic tragedy that is racing. Serious players play the races for profit. They will do this using technology.
If they want a night out, then they will be looking to eat, drink and ogle the opposite sex (lol maybe). The money still has to come from real fans.
Racing has always been penny wise and dollar foolish. Dress codes would be an easy cheap policy change. And I hope you get your wish.
I am going to hold out and watch for changes suggested by players for decades that are still being “newly” discovered at industry meetings they are not being invited to attend, dressed up or not.
Real world, look out, here we come…
19 Dec 2009 at 12:05 pm | #
mhm,
I suspect that if racing could attract additional people who were well-dressed as opposed to better-dressed existing players, handle actually would increase. However, if such people think as well as they dress, would they bring their presumably better scents there, if it didn’t make bettor sense to be there, and make more cents for them in the process? But if the live butts in the seats were there to be seen, they wouldn’t be dressed at all.
JB,
I agree there are many reasons for racing’s decline. IMO the disappearance of live racing from network TV was the next most critical error in judgment. Obviously they couldn’t see what could happen when they didn’t want to be seen.
Lorenzo,
Based on the assumption that new simulcast business would supplement their existing business—and without a clue that it might eventually replace it—host tracks let themselves be convinced to accept a price for their signals that subsequently proved too low to maintain their net share of handle on their own races despite subsequent gross handle increases.
19 Dec 2009 at 05:09 pm | #
Indulto,
Good point on the disappearance from TV. Certainly didn’t help the situation for sure, but that ties back into my main point. the tracks allowed his to happen. They didn’t want to spend the moeny publicizing the sport as they should have, instead they cried and relied on the diehards to bring in new blood.