About ten months ago the NYSRWB instituted a security barn for the Belmont Stakes. At that time the headlines said "Detention Barns Unwise Move" and "Belmont Stakes Trainers Bristle at Extra Security" and "Security Barns Irk Trainers"
Fast forwarding one year, the Derby, the Preakness, and presumably the Belmont again will add security protocols. This, on the heels of the Santa Anita Derby instituting their 72 hour surveillance initiatives. There's nary a peep from the usual suspects, who complain, sometimes only for the sake of complaining. It's likely you'll see more and more of these surveillance barns for years to come.
Change is hard in racing but sooner or later that change happens.
In 2004 or 2005 rebates were being given by offshores, much to (they had a point) racing's dismay. When bettors like me and you said "your customers are telling you your prices are too high - offer your own to compete and get them back", you were told it was "too expensive" and "never gonna happen". Racing hung their hats that shutting them down with things like the UIGEA would get those customers back, but that never happened, because it was the price, not the avenue that was the issue. Fast forwarding six or seven years, rebaters are here, and a couple shops are now owned by companies like Magna and CDI. Other than in backwards California, you can get a rebate if you are a big player, or a small one, virtually anywhere. Handle is probably $2B higher today with them.
The whipping debate in Ontario was tantamount to the hand-wringing of a woman getting married to another woman while drinking a large sugary drink at a gun shop; you'd think the world was ending. Now? The whipping is what was prescribed and those who use them use them within the rules.
Many other changes, like a six month ban for a class I, with horsemen groups fighting like hell to make them less penal, are long gone. Now, get caught with frog juice, you're getting ten years and your horsemen group commiserates with you in comforting silence, not on the front pages of the DRF.
I think this is why so many were upset with the Breeders Cup backing off their lasix initiative. It would've taken time, but some consensus on lasix would've been achieved much quicker if they held firm. The status-quo protectors won that round, but I doubt they'll win the entire fight. Because in racing change takes a long time, but sooner or later it comes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Most Trafficked, Last 12 Months
-
Standardbred Canada has a poll up asking who is the greatest trotter who ever lived. These questions are fun, but really it is impossible t...
-
There has been a lot of discussion of late via #simocon about racing, betting and signals and all the rest. The main theme is that racing ca...
-
The news hit the wires today that TVG is in search of a new CEO. This news assures a shake-up in programming at the huge ADW, especially w...
-
How do we differentiate ourselves from thoroughbred bettors? What are the pros and cons of being a harness bettor? In a recent article at R2...
-
A lot of you have seen this Portnoy post about his beat in the Pick 6 at Del Mar yesterday: I made it to last leg of pick 6 at Del Mar. I h...
-
In 1996, most know that the pari-mutuel tax on wagering was reduced from 7.5% to 0.5% as part of the slots at racetracks program. The indust...
-
I saw this tweet by Nick yesterday. Nick is the morning line maker at Keeneland. I promise I’m not being a smart ass. I clearly made a horr...
-
Harness racing is a unique bird when it comes to driving styles and driving colonies. Whereas in Thoroughbred racing, a jock does not race a...
-
Sitting outside, or in the grandstand at Greenwood brings back many memories. Racing was super-popular and we usually had a packed house and...
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...
No comments:
Post a Comment