Fake Racing News? Talk to People

Yesterday we had an article about how great sports betting was at Monmouth, and how it was probably helping racing because handles were increasing. Crunktathol sent a tweet with some facts.

I ran the numbers *wrong*. Corrected numbers (it's a little confusing since MTH ran on Fridays in June last year). 6/16,17,23,24 of 2018 vs 6/17,18,23,25 of 2017. Handle +16% (+$368K) on 6 *more* races. Per race +2.6% (+$1.3K) on 96 *more* interests. Per interest -10.8% (-$769).

— o_crunk (@o_crunk) June 26, 2018

It's good to get facts, if you're not so entrenched to accept them. Monmouth has been stuffing the entry box and not having a great result; before or after sports betting.

And notice he didn't make some cemented conclusion about the numbers, he just presented them. No one knows exactly what's going to happen with sports betting over the next few years.

That's the way open discussion is supposed to work.

Meanwhile, we saw a tweet today with someone sharing an opinion (since deleted).

"Betting will ruin the sport because racing is not about betting, it is about the jockeys and horses... "

That tweet might've been about gun control or abortion, because the reaction was about the same as we see on twitter most days. The responses weren't Crunkian..... for the most part.

But someone set a high bar - our very own POTUS.

Claudia, with all due respect, we all love the sport and it’s all funded through pari mutuel handle. Without betting there is no sport. Period.

— Potu$ Capper (@POTUSCapper) June 27, 2018

POTUS speaks truth (I can't believe I typed that), and he did it in pure un-Potus like fashion.

Everyone knows that racing is tiny and small without betting. Those of us who enjoy watching horses race would not be able to see it very often without the couple of billion dollars in revenues to the sport from betting. Even overseas, the future of the Dubai World Cup probably depends on us not buying solar panels and electric cars.

Answering with facts with an absence of pure vitriol is so uncommon nowadays it sticks out, and in racing we had a couple examples of that. I think it's why most of us stay around the medium - a nugget or two of decency and truth make navigating the noise tolerable.

Have a great day everyone!

Be Like Mike - PED Use in Racing is About the Least Surprising Part of it

Mike let fly on the twitter today --

I will never understand people who aren’t at least mildly wary of PED use in racing. After Ben Johnson, Bonds, McGwire, Clemens, Lance & the Sochi Olympics you still think what we are seeing is normal? And that’s dismissing the 7 sudden deaths.

— Mike Adams (@GateToWire) June 20, 2018

Mike often talks about the past (and sometimes current) use of illegal drugs on horses in the sport. He gets worked up why some people believe everyone is as pure as the driven snow and would not risk performance enhancing for financial gain, while in other sports it's common.

Leaving aside any specific trainers, past or present, in the broadest sense, I think he makes a very good talking point.

In Scorecasting, the authors studied drug use in baseball from various angles. Although they concluded there are many reasons for using drugs in the sport, one stuck out - opportunity cost. If the player had little recourse in his life, he was more likely to use banned drugs. If he had other opportunities, he was less likely to.

This argument was buttressed with PED use stats from minor leaguers, many of whom were from other countries far less rich than the U.S.. They found the country's GDP was directly correlated to PED use.

So, these kids and those looking to make a buck through them put stuff into their veins at a higher rate to make it. The risk is worth the reward.

In horse racing (this at least theoretically) should be the case (pardon the pun) on steroids.

Not only does a trainer not fear reprisal (these things can take years to adjudicate, and finding blood builders in a test is very difficult in the first place), he or she does not have to inject something dangerous into himself, herself or another person, it's into a horse. An animal.

If he or she is caught, well, what's the big deal. Most of the people caught with EPO already who were given six figure fines never pay them. If they took care of their money they're sitting by the beach at the lake house.

Is it fair to think everyone will act like economics says they should? Of course not. Is it fair to say we're naive to believe at least some will act like economics says they will? I think so.

Have a great Wednesday everyone.

Horse Racing Attendance Facts,..... or Myths?

Monmouth was humming on Father's Day with attendance up over 5,000 from last year.  The prevailing reason given - and it makes sense since the lineups were long - was the introduction of sports betting.

With all those people with stuffed wallets looking to wager, it's supposed to be a good thing for horse racing (an on-track handle did have a little bump). But, overall handle was down over 28% per entry. 

Meanwhile, over at Churchill, Triple Crown winner Justify was paraded on Saturday. And it was reported the attendance - 21,053 - was through the roof to see him. However, on the same evening last year, the attendance was 20,669.

20,000 people at a hockey game is good. 20,000 people in the Arkansas Derby infield are a different kettle of fish. Their net worth is not from $100 seats; it comes from what they wager, and they don't wager much.

The 500 extra people (let's be generous and say it was 2,000) to see a Triple Crown winner at Churchill Saturday are, sadly, not worth a heck of a lot. The extra 5,000 or so people at Monmouth there to sports bet aren't worth much either.

It's curious to me that horse racing places so much stock in attendance numbers, and tries to develop policy based on driving them, rather than focusing on what does bring in the most money - more betting.