Beyer on Maryland Racing

[justindew]

http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do...8&subs=0&arc=0

In this article, Andy Beyer suggests that the only racing in Maryland should be a short meet at Pimlico from early April through the end of May. He feels racing at Laurel should end completely.

Here's my question (note: This is a question, not a criticism. I want to make that clear since there seems to be a problem here with interpreting questions as jabs):

If Maryland only conducted live racing for 7 or 8 weeks a year, would that actually help the industry financially? It seems that even with better racing and increased purse money per race, there would be less revenue to go around. Am I wrong?

I actually like the idea. I think we would see much better horses in MD. But would it do much to help MD racing?

[brianwspencer]

I disagree.

[Scurlogue Champ]

I mostly agree. I would only run Pimlico for a week though.

[slotdirt]

I'd run from Pimlico for at least 45 minutes or so if we're being safe about things.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

i agree,finger lakes needs more horses..

[phystech]

Originally Posted by justindew

http://www.drf.com/drfNewsArticle.do...8&subs=0&arc=0

In this article, Andy Beyer suggests that the only racing in Maryland should be a short meet at Pimlico from early April through the end of May. He feels racing at Laurel should end completely.

Here's my question (note: This is a question, not a criticism. I want to make that clear since there seems to be a problem here with interpreting questions as jabs):

If Maryland only conducted live racing for 7 or 8 weeks a year, would that actually help the industry financially? It seems that even with better racing and increased purse money per race, there would be less revenue to go around. Am I wrong?

I actually like the idea. I think we would see much better horses in MD. But would it do much to help MD racing?

No, this would not help MD racing or MD horsemen. Opening Pimlico for a short meet would help bring Pimlico back into the spotlight, assuming purses would be raised and many more stake races would be funded. Obviously, the building would have to be upgraded also.

The losers would be the MD breeders, since there would no longer be a need for MD-breds, and the average MD owner/trainer. A short but sweet Pimlico meet would mostly attract better horses from all over - and while that's great for the fans, most of us longtime MD owners would be shoved aside because most of our stock couldn't compete during the high end meet.

Closing Laurel won't solve MD racing's problems. If anything shortening the Laurel meet so it runs from mid-Aug to Jan 1, with the niche being turf racing, seems like the best idea to me. MD would also need to develop a circuit with Delaware Park and Colonial.

My 2009 circuit dates would look like this:

Apr 18 to Preakness Day - Pimlico
May 20 to July 4 - Delaware Park
July 5 to Aug 16 - Colonial Downs
Aug 21 to Jan 1 - Laurel

Bowie Training Center needs to be closed. Pimlico would close a few days after the Preakness - no training. Laurel would stay open year round for training.

[Port Conway Lane]

If Laurel were to remain a simo facility I see no reason why they shouldn't have a similar shortened meet in the fall and feature the DC International,DeFrancis Dash,Laurel Futurity and Selima Stakes as post breeders cup races.
Open the meet when Delaware closes and run 5 weeks through Christmas.

[Pedigree Ann]

The DC International's traditional day was the first weekend in November, but the Breeders' Cup Turf stole its place on the calendar and its field of international horses with its bigger purse. And by that time of the year, the turf at Laurel was as often as not rather soft and swamp-like; if they tried to run it even later, to get BC runners in the field, bog-like conditions would be even more likely.

[Danzig]

i think doing that type of change would hurt the industry in the long run. like phystech said, what about the breeders? you can't just look at the racing side-the industry includes so many more people than just the folks working at laurel or pimlico.

[Scurlogue Champ]

Originally Posted by phystech

The losers would be the MD breeders, since there would no longer be a need for MD-breds, and the average MD owner/trainer. A short but sweet Pimlico meet would mostly attract better horses from all over - and while that's great for the fans, most of us longtime MD owners would be shoved aside because most of our stock couldn't compete during the high end meet.

I understand that it would be bad for the longtime MD owners personally, but how would the presence of a much higher quality product hurt racing overall?

[Port Conway Lane]

Maryland breds could still have their state bred stakes races and Maryland Million day.I haven't followed racing in Maryland closely for 5 years but there hasn't been a race restricted to Maryland breds for the average maiden or claimer for almost 30 years. The state bred program is geared to allowance horses.
There are plenty of races in Delaware and Charles Town for Md. bred claimers to run in throughout the year when Pimlico and Laurel close.Virginia racing has been littered with Md. bred horses for years.
I feel two shortened meets is worth a try at least for one year.

[steve]

maryland could become another ohio.

[Left Bank]

Originally Posted by steve

maryland could become another ohio.

It already is,I can't decide which is worse.

[Heels1989]

ESPN OTL piece on Pimlico and the Preakness

http://espn.go.com/horse-racing/

[Thunder Gulch]

How long have we been hearing about the sad state of racing in Maryland? Seems as if every year some prominent writer pens an article like this just before the Preakness, and nobody does a thing until next year.

[smuthg]

What would be wrong with making Pimlico a meet similar to Oaklawn? I think a 12-13 week meet would be more practical than a 5 to 6 week Saratoga/Del Mar type meet if that's the only racing that would be in Maryland.

[Travis Stone]

Whether or not it happens via Maryland, Louisiana, New York, Kentucy, Illinois etc. etc. etc., a consolidation of the overall racing product is a good thing. In my opinion its basic supply/demand. If there demand isn't there, decrease the supply.

--

Scenario: Racetrack A has 1,000 horses on the grounds so they schedule a 90-day race meet. They will struggle to make big fields and struggle overall, but probably get by. They'll handle $500,00 / day over 9 races for $55k a race. If you figure a blended take-out of 20%, then a 50/50 split with horsemen, their gross revenue is probably about $50k / day.

Now consider this...

Scenario: Racetrack A has 1,000 horses but they schedule a 30-day race meet. Instead of an average field size of 7, they're in the 10-12 range. Because of the larger field size, they handle more per race... say another 20k / race. so now they handle ~$680k which breaks down to $68k in an estimated gross revenue.

Even though the second scenario does better numbers, is better for racing etc, it's hard to justify the spreadsheet which shows money is being made, albeit little, on the first scenario.

When you have a giant racetrack not generating income and lots of red numbers, those black numbers, even if they're small, are hard to ignore.

Basically at LAD the more we race the more we make. But the more we race, the worse off we (and the region) are. It's a tough balalnce, and the industry has not found it yet.

[Thoroughbred Fan]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

The DC International's traditional day was the first weekend in November, but the Breeders' Cup Turf stole its place on the calendar and its field of international horses with its bigger purse. And by that time of the year, the turf at Laurel was as often as not rather soft and swamp-like; if they tried to run it even later, to get BC runners in the field, bog-like conditions would be even more likely.

Ann,

In case you didn't know they completely replaced and enlarged the turf and main tracks at Laurel a few years ago. The turf course there is considered to be as good as Colonial Downs. It drains better than a major league ball park. The turf would be fine, but they still couldn't draw good horses to that track.

-TF

[dagolfer33]

This question brings me straight to the fundamental principle that handle, wagering, is the lifeblood of any and everything to do with this sport. As a player, 5 and 6 horse fields dont interest me at all. And while I may wager every so often at the aforementioned tracks, the short fields are a deterrant and may cause player to not bet the tracks at all even when they may have some good races carded. Bottom line, fuller fields generate more handle. They should do what they can to achieve that, and if that means shortening their racing dates then sobeit.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Whether or not it happens via Maryland, Louisiana, New York, Kentucy, Illinois etc. etc. etc., a consolidation of the overall racing product is a good thing. In my opinion its basic supply/demand. If there demand isn't there, decrease the supply.

--

Scenario: Racetrack A has 1,000 horses on the grounds so they schedule a 90-day race meet. They will struggle to make big fields and struggle overall, but probably get by. They'll handle $500,00 / day over 9 races for $55k a race. If you figure a blended take-out of 20%, then a 50/50 split with horsemen, their gross revenue is probably about $50k / day.

Now consider this...

Scenario: Racetrack A has 1,000 horses but they schedule a 30-day race meet. Instead of an average field size of 7, they're in the 10-12 range. Because of the larger field size, they handle more per race... say another 20k / race. so now they handle ~$680k which breaks down to $68k in an estimated gross revenue.

Even though the second scenario does better numbers, is better for racing etc, it's hard to justify the spreadsheet which shows money is being made, albeit little, on the first scenario.

When you have a giant racetrack not generating income and lots of red numbers, those black numbers, even if they're small, are hard to ignore.

Basically at LAD the more we race the more we make. But the more we race, the worse off we (and the region) are. It's a tough balalnce, and the industry has not found it yet.

What factor in scenario 2 would make the horses race more often? I like the idea, but wouldn't the horses just run somewhere else? This only works if a lot of tracks cut back on days I would think.