Teflon Todd

[bobphilo]

Richiebee and Marcus,

The animal abuse approach is a viable one as well. I have always argued that this aspect of illegal drug use is its most despicable aspect. Unlike drugging in other sports, the athletes involved in racing are unwilling participants. Let's not forget the jockeys' lives are being put at risk as well. Almost all cases of death and paralysis in jockeys occur because horses break down and horses on pain killing drugs are the prime candidates for these breakdowns. These points should resonate well with the general public.
In addition there are animal protection agencies already in place, like the ASPCA that could act on this issue.

That doesn't mean that this approach and organizing bettors are mutually exclusive. Next to the government, the betting public can be the single most effective influence on the tracks' management. The whole product depends on the bettor buying it. As Jerry said, the organizing process would be a major chore but would be well worth it its effects.
No, I don't wish Jerry a seven-day workweek but there are other influential people in the game who could lead the effort. Just adding his voice to the issue would have a huge effect.
The success of the boycott at Golden Gate did not spread to other tracks because that was not its purpose. It was a group of local bettors wanting change at that track and it succeeded. If the movement was planned to work on the national level it could build on its momentum from the success at Golden Gate from track to track.

As Jerry said "The time is coming when we (horseplayers, owners, those of us who service and represent them) may have to take control of the game."
Given the effect of the \"juicers\" on both the horses and humans involved, that time should soon be at hand.

Bob

Bob

[PapaChach]

I agree with you. Playing the animal abuse angle will hurt racing. Everyone I know that dislikes racing -  in other words, almost everyone I know - dislikes it for two reasons: they assume it is totally rigged, and they see it as animal abuse. And I\'m not talking about militant vegans and PETA members. They know nothing about the issues we\'re discussing here, but they have a sense that the animals are poorly treated, forced to race (as a friend of mine put it when he heard or saw one of those flowery \"they\'re born to run\" type ads a few years back, \"oh, so leave them alone in a field and they\'ll start running races against each other?\"), overmedicated, etc. I\'ve brought \"newbies\" to Saratoga with me, and nothing turns them off faster than watching a horse limp into the van, or disappear behind the blue curtain.
The argument that removing all the juicing would make racing more humane might makes a lot of sense to those of us that like the game, but I don\'t think it would resonate with the general public.

[sighthound]

I would caution that the last thing horse racing would want is the active or targeted involvement of \"animal rights\" groups such as Humane Society of the United States, PETA (an FBI-documented domestic terrorist organization), etc.  

Witness what these groups have done in the last 10 years legislatively, especially in states such as California.  Their goal is to outlaw ownership of animals, all hunting, all pet ownership, etc.  They are well-funded and have quite powerful lobbies.

These groups have avoided horse racing in the past as they view it as being more powerful and having deeper pockets than they can overcome.

Do not welcome nor embrace any public comment or involvement from these groups regarding horse racing - they are bad news, and they are not on the side of humane treatment of animals.

[TGJB]

Bob-- If there is any serious movement on this front I will definitely get involved. This is going to be a wild year-- the most volatile in the history of this sport, I predict, with all kinds of changes taking place (for one, there is an extremely big joint venture in the works, and I ain\'t talking TG/Ragozin). I\'m trying to effect some changes right now without overthrowing the government, which some might say is a shocking sign of maturity on my part.  We\'ll see how it goes, we might end up in the streets yet.

[bobphilo]

Thanks Jerry, sounds reasonable. Let\'s see what develops.

Bob

[sighthound]

There is no \"general public\" for horse racing.  Gamblers view themselves on the outside, but they are not, they integral to the sport.  Gambling boycotts in demand of clean racing, good.  Tracks using \"private property\" to keep their local tracks clean, great.

The current business model works against clean racing.  There is more money to be made off the track (sales, shed) than on it.  Owners who want to race another year sell out to the breeding shed, they can\'t financially refuse. Big name horses appear and flame out.

So far it appears all we\'re talking about are methods to shift the power bases around within the current paradigm.  Great, but can racing survive on it\'s current income?  Doubtful.

That is what has to be changed.  More money has to be obtainable on the track, racing, than off it.  Clean racing will by necessity follow.

In this year of Barbaro, nobody on a national level in racing was smart enough to run with that and use it to advantage to ultimately push the turnstiles.  Not surprising, they didn\'t take advantage of \"Seabiscuit\", either.

Push the turnstiles = bigger purses and a fan base that demands to be satisfied.  They won\'t stand for their Barbaros to be defeated by a horse with a TCO2 >37.

There will be no large general public fan base for horse racing until racing embraces the public attending tracks and following the sport outside of gambling and handicapping, and enabling that involvement.

Follow the KEE and SAR models for getting families to attend race days.   Develop a national magazine, website, TV programs of soft, mushy stories, following horses careers, trainers, the horses on the road to the TC and BC.

There are half a million people following Barbaros every move daily on websites.  Why don\'t they know Santa Anita opened this week?  Why aren\'t they there, pushing money at the sport?  Demanding clean racing for their horse stars?

[TGJB]

Sight-- I agree with the first half.

1-- Yes, the economics have to change. The way to do that is to increase handle. And that means dramatically lowering the takeout, which the tracks and state legislatures don\'t understand yet, despite getting hit over the head by rebaters.

Word is that Pinnacle handled just under $1 Billion on racing alone this year. Parimutuel handle in this country was 5-6 Billion.


2-- One of the mistakes racing has made is to go too far in the direction you want to go-- it markets itself as a sport. The difference between racing and other sports is that people (for the most part) go to sports to watch, not bet. If they do that here racing will go broke.

The model here should be poker, which is  a gambling game of both skill and luck (like ours), and can be played in your own house any time you want. Poker recognizes that the gamblers themselves are the players, AND BOTH MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO WIN AND PUBLICIZES THE WINNERS. Very important. Racing is pushing a gambling event that is almost impossible to beat at full track takeouts in the information age, taxes the crap out of winners, and regards them as pariahs.

To paraphrase a line from North Dallas Forty, we are the players. The horses and jockeys are the equipment. This doesn\'t mean we shouldn\'t be concerned about their welfare-- we should. But the industry is driven by gambling, and the focus has never been on the gamblers and their needs and desires.

[sighthound]

Your point on gate handle not being supportive of the sport vs. gambling handle is well-made.

[TGJB]

Sight-- in fact, casinos don\'t charge for admission or parking, and many (most?) comp a program or DRF to horseplayers.

[marcus]

I \"can hear you now\" on the Bet Strikes viability as an effective option  against juicers . A smart , well orchestrated and tightly controlled effort along multiple fronts that would incoperate All good options is the way to go ...

[Silver Charm]

Hopefully several things develop and quickly. Not to put too much of a \"blue sky\" on things but there has been progress, however there needs to be considerably more.

Racing is not the only sport with drug issues. Baseball reportedly had 8 of 10 players working out of a certain training facility test postive for steroids and yet did nothing about it. Football is going to have to \"blacklist\" a Defensive Player of the Year candidate because of steroids. But back to reality the Eclipse Award winning Trainer is serving 45 days, last years Trainer of HOY served 60 days, a perrenial nation leading wins contender is serving 180 days. Several off-the-charts win percentage guys are sitting or have already taken their seat in the penalty box.

The difference between Racing and the other two sports is racings income relys solely on pari-mutual wagering while the other two sports have considerable ticket sales income and even more from TV. All of this cheating effects the outcome of the events and historical statistics but only one sport suffers if the viewer thinks he was robbed out of a bet by results that were chemically enhanced.

Since the two biggest Track Mgmt companies are publically traded (Magna and Churchill) has anybody looked into what kind of exposure they may have under Sarbanes-Oxley by not having enough controls in place to effectively protect the integrity of the outcome of their races.

[TGJB]

SC-- those last two paragraphs are the real deal. When someone knowingly chooses not to shut down a cheater in this game or delays acting-- and I know for a fact that goes on-- they are allowing the cheating to continue, and allowing the public to be cheated by those betting with inside information.

The problem is not testing. It\'s enforcement.

[marcus]

So true - and I\'ve always suspected that  on a reasonable , common sense level , Magna + Churchill have considerable exposure in that regard . FWIW - Over the course of the weekend , I\'m going to ask a lawyer friend if she has any idea\'s  about what to do with that Sarbanes-Oxley asap  ...

[Caradoc]

Sarbanes-Oxley cannot be summarized in a sentence, but it has nothing to do with the quality or integrity of the products or services reporting companies provide.  Rather, Sarbanes-Oxley requires that reporting companies implement certain internal procedures which are designed to ensure that a reporting company provides accurate financial reports.

[marcus]

carodoc ,  church-mag probably got one helluva insurance policy too and granted , likely would skate on criminal implications , as would seem to be your understanding of Sarbane-Oxley   . But stock value and assetts can be greatly influenced by the actions and behavior of those reporting companies and venders etc . A reporting co\'s  hard copy documentation of insufficiant financing for enforcement of rules that are rendered useless or non exsistant as a result - if that is in fact the case it would open the door to potential civil litigation ...  hard to say exactly where it\'s all going at times , but a microscopic re-inspection and re-evaluation of every stage of the process at all levels of racing would be helpfull in getting a handle on the juicing problem ...