Quote:
Originally Posted by JustRalph
Ten years ago another member and I (BillW) were sitting at Churchill Downs or maybe Keeneland (I’m getting old) when somebody at our table started talking about how much Racino money was going to be flowing into the game. The guy was celebrating the new money.
BillW explained how in five years the Casino guys won’t give a damn about racing, the field sizes would dwindle because the big trainers would be the only ones with horses etc
He pointed even further down the road and told us how the little guys won’t be able to compete in 10 years, at the windows or on the track. The celebration of new money continued.....
BillW was right.........
|
I admit I didn't give it much thought when racino's came on the scene but it hindsight shouldn't this have been obvious? Meaning, wouldn't larger purses inspire trainers to run less? $100k Maiden Special can be treated like a stakes race where they train up to the "big race". In yesteryear, wouldn't smaller purses required horses to earn more by racing in volume?
It seems like major decisions are made to the benefit of owners and trainers but the detriment to the game as a whole. A big percentage of races I see during the week are very small fields won by very low prices. It feels like public workouts where the connections get paid but makes the product extraordinarily unappealing.
I'm certainly not saying trainers and owners should prosper in the game but the incentives for a healthy game just don't exist in many areas.
