Mansion's and Hambo's

There has been a lot of chatter on the interwebs about Churchill Downs' $9M expansion (or upgrade if you will) called the "Mansion". Some find the project a little bit anachronistic, or worse, looking back a the history of the south.

• Pick the adjective that would best describe Churchill Down’s notion that this particular image is a coveted entertainment experience. Arrogant? Insensitive? Tone-deaf? They can appeal to the rich all they want, and probably successfully, but surely, there are better exemplars of contemporary luxury than one that recalls an era that we should overcome, not replicate.

I'm less introspective than that, so it flies a little over my head.

What I think Churchill is doing is being loyal to its brand, and that's what they should be doing, in my opinion.

Writing for Harness Racing Update today (pdf), a similar notion was put forth about the success of the Hambletonian:

•  The Hambletonian has never, ever run away from its history. It has not gone for flash, it has not tried to be something its not. It has not changed to try to be a race at Ascot or Dubai, or to be a Breeders' Cup. This makes perfect sense, because it is not an Ascot or a Dubai, or a Breeders' Cup. Harness racing is beer in paper cups, and so is the Hambletonian. Harness racing is paddock parks, and high school bands, and cotton candy, and hot dogs, and country fairs, and so is the Hambletonian. Harness racing is American history, and so is the Hambletonian.

The Hambo is a "rural race" and always has been. It's what they are. Sure they could've tried to modernize, make it flashy, turned it into something its not, but they'd be breaking a golden rule of marketing - be always who you are.

I guess it all depends on your world view, or what you associate with something. Churchill, I think rightly, is playing into their historical significance as a "non-east coast" destination for east coast blue bloods, back in the day. It's playing into the rolling hills, instead of the concrete and cement of New York or Baltimore. It's playing into the atmosphere we all know is different in Lexington and Louisville to many city tracks we've all been to. It's also, of course, playing into the rich angle of thoroughbred racing, because, well, that's a part of the sport as well.

The Hambo, when moving from rural Illinois to New Jersey in the 1980's never lost its rural charm. It never tried to be big city. They weren't and aren't making a political statement, they simply are being what they are. Churchill, in my opinion, is doing exactly the same thing.  Some folks may see connotations regarding the use of the word "Mansion", but I see a few walls, some pictures and high class food and drink for a high class clientele at a southern, historically different racetrack, which is exactly what Churchill Downs has always been.

Willmot Retirement & Racing's Chasm

This week former Woodbine Entertainment CEO and current Chairman David Willmot called it quits. A man who dearly loved the "OJC", Ontario racing and racing in general certainly deserves to enjoy his retirement, and everyone involved in Canadian racing wishes him good health.

When we look at what Mr. Willmot did for Canadian racing, the list is very long.

Along with offering and promoting our big races with verve, Woodbine has heavily invested in racing, totalling over $385 since slots were introduced. Compare this to some slots tracks who are purely balance sheet driven. There is no comparison.

When you sit in the finish line bar, head upstairs to Champions, or visit the paddock, or turn on your television to watch racing, you see what Woodbine has invested.

Harness racing participants are some of the most conspiracy minded folks you'll ever see, and with David Willmot running the show (and being a thoroughbred guy), this was shown again and again. But when you looked at the facts there was no evidence for them to feel that way. Million dollar stakes races, big purses, a huge upgrade at Mohawk, a new paddock, a weekly show on the Score network for both breeds that they pay for.  He even invested his own money buying harness horses.

I don't think you'll find anyone in racing who does not respect his love of the game, and the willingness to want to grow it.

However, on the flip side, the betting side of the game is a different story.

When the parimutuel tax was taken off pools in the late 1990's (close to a 7% reduction on takeout), where Canada could've had either the highest rebates or lowest takeout in North America with a vision towards the future, Woodbine and the horse racing industry took it for themselves.

With hundreds of millions in slot money funding the game, Woodbine could've been a betting leader all on its own, cultivating their customers, but instead we saw 28.3% takeouts for trifectas, one of the worst takeout rates in North America.

With betfair making noise early in the 2000's, a partnership, or a Canadian betting exchange could've been on the radar. It wasn't even a thought.

When offshores were taking betting handle in the early 2000's, it wasn't a wakeup call that your customers were telling you something, instead we saw a PR offensive, trying to crush them.

I don't type the above to hammer Mr. Willmot. Each of his decisions and his teams decisions regarding betting are not malicious. They didn't want to hurt racing handles by not helping the bettor more. It wasn't a conscious decision. It just lacked the vision that was seen on the racing end, from this fine organization.

This was done like it always is in racing: Because time and time again, the person running the organization that loves the sporting end, has his or her expertise in that part of the business.

This is not a David Willmot only phenomenon. Think Mr. Stronach for a corollary:

It's who they hang around with in the Woodbine Club - breeders and owners. It's who they deal with on a daily basis - horsemen groups, government agencies, breeders and owners. It's their world view.

Conversely, few executives - David Willmot or otherwise - are overly at home sitting upstairs with a bunch of guys betting $40 across each night. It's not who they are.

I give Mr. Willmot high marks for his work for Canadian Racing - it would be silly not to, and the proof is in the pudding. However, one area he failed, in my opinion, was trying to handle betting issues himself, or with a hand-picked team which fit his wordview.

The Hong Kong Jockey Club has Presidents and some VP's that handle the racing side. Conversely, they have a VP who is a head of wagering that receives little interference from those racing VP's. North American structure does not do this, nor do they have it. That's why excellent executives like Mr. Willmot will get, and will deserve praise, but in my opinion it will always come with an asterisk.

The Badminton Federation is Hired

Last evening a few teams, for rather complex reasons, decided to tank their badminton matches at the Olympics. If you watch the video of the event, it's comical and a little perturbing, because the Olympics is supposed to be all about the passion of athletics. The crowd was pretty upset and it really put a black mark on their sport.

What happened next was eye-opening, however. The Badminton Federation let them have it, booting the teams out of the Olympics.

On Wednesday, the Badminton World Federation ejected eight doubles players from China, South Korea, and Indonesia for trying to lose on purpose. The federation charged them under sections 4.5 and 4.16 of the organization’s Players’ Code of Conduct: “not using one’s best efforts to win a match” and “conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport.”

"You cannot allow a player to abuse the tournament like that, and not take firm action,” Craig Reedie, International Olympic Committee vice president and former badminton federation chief, told the Associated Press. “So good on them."

Afterwards, the expelled teams went home. All is said and done.

Hmmm..... “Conducting oneself in a manner that is clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport.” Where have we heard that one before?

If this happened in racing, we'd likely see a different result.

The players in question would immediately appeal, so they could play the next day, allowing their ruse to come to fruition, angering both opponents and the fans. If another injunction came where they might not play the next day, the players would've likely contacted the Badminton's players union, and they would've come to their defense with gems like "you can't deny their ability to make a living". Other badminton players who think like they do would've probably rallied around them with excuses like "They're nice people and maybe they didn't really mean it" or "the commission rules are unfair, so I agree with what they did".

In the end, if it were racing, two teams probably would've been playing for the Gold medal and both of them would be on the podium to get their medals, with an incredulous public wondering who in the hell is minding the store in this crazy sport.

But it's not racing. The Badminton Federation kicked them out. Out meant out.

They're hired.