The local horseman association here in Ontario called for a boycott of the box at Woodbine because of the lack of a racing contract. It appears that the sticking point is the fact that Woodbine can use their private property rights to exclude, or put restrictions on trainers and/or owners who they deem are bad for their business.
The horseman's executive seems to have thought this a good idea, but the rank and file have spoken against them. Woodbine received over 90 entries today for the 'supposed' boycotted card. There will be racing on January 1st.
Similar
Carryovers Provide Big Reach and an Immediate Return
Sinking marketing money directly into the horseplayer by seeding pools is effective, in both theory and practice In Ontario and elsewher...
Popular
-
One of life's many mysteries on gambling twitter is the Jackpot Bet. Oftentimes people like @shottakingtime, echoed by others, will pos...
-
Yesterday we wrote about some (many?) inside the business who don't quite understand what we bettors do each day to try and scratch som...
-
There's something going on in horse racing today , but I have not really followed it. Instead, I've been thinking about two words we...
-
Innovation and horse racing. Put together, the two of them elicit feverish reaction in this sport. One one side you have the customers, alon...
-
Unless you are off the twitter grid (God bless you), you've no doubt witnessed the feud of the month(s) between ITP and some public raci...
3 comments:
Well if they run tonight I'll throw my support behind them. My method will be betting Mark McDonald till he has a winner. Hopefully it will be Urban Rainforest in the 2nd.
I don't have a program so maybe you could tell me where those Buter horses have been running.
RG
Hey RG,
Buters horses have been in the Niagara here the last couple of times. They were from BLMP before that.
The one thing which should be non-negotiable is the rule of exclusion; that should be up to the track to decide who is welcome and who is not. Certain racing commissions such as NJ can't be trusted with banning 'undesirables'; the tracks need to be able to protect their interest and the interest of horsemen in general who will not police thier own. That being said, the track should be required to cite an instance where the horseman's activity in the past necesitates their banning (criminal conviction, fines, suspensions, etc.). They should not be allowed to ban a horseman because they are a leader of a horsemen's organization and the like.
Let's assume the horsemen boycott the entry box. I assume the slots stay open. Lay off the racing office staff, tellers (assuming simulcasting stops) and the track probably will come out ahead in the long run. Who is hurting who?
Post a Comment