Dubai Esc. Out

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by pgardn

And her campaign was set up to win, not compete.

so if that is a problem, then what are all these other owners doing trying to win races? they may as well enter then in way above their heads for the sake of "competing."

damn right her campaign was mapped out to WIN, not to compete. no matter how much you want it to be otherwise, it is a business, plain and simple. and that business is winning races.

sorry if you wanted to see her up against males as a five year old. winning races is more important than the industry-wide standard of excellence: being sporting in the eyes of pgardn.

any smart owner on earth would agree, this business is about winning races, not about making people happy. ****, i don't even own horses and i can understand that.

boo hoo dude.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

so if that is a problem, then what are all these other owners doing trying to win races? they may as well enter then in way above their heads for the sake of "competing."

damn right her campaign was mapped out to WIN, not to compete. no matter how much you want it to be otherwise, it is a business, plain and simple. and that business is winning races.

sorry if you wanted to see her up against males as a five year old. winning races is more important than the industry-wide standard of excellence: being sporting in the eyes of pgardn.

any smart owner on earth would agree, this business is about winning races, not about making people happy. ****, i don't even own horses and i can understand that.

boo hoo dude.

Yes, you are exactly right. When I'm looking for a spot to run a horse, in general I look for the easiest spot with the biggest purse. If the horse is a really good horse, she is probably going to take on the best horses eventually and I would want her to. But I would want to map out a realtively easy schedule to get there. For example, even with a gelding like Lava Man, I think the owners have handled him perfectly the last few months. They have kept him on his home turf and won some big purses against moderate competition and now they will take on Bernardini in the $5 million race. There would have been no reason for them to ship back east and take on Bernardini in the Jockey Club Gold Cup. What for? They'll take him on in the $5 million race. There was no reason to try to face him sooner. That is the same type of strategy I would use with almost any horse. That might not be a great example because it was pretty much a no-brainer to run LM in the Pacific Classic and the Goodwood. That was pretty much just common sense. But from the way some people talk maybe not. Some fans almost sound like they would want to ship all over the country and look for the toughest spot every race. You obviously don't want to do that beacuse you want your horse to be 100% for the big race, which for LM is the BC Classic.

[SniperSB23]

From today's Times Union:

Dubai Escapade won't run

When last seen, a 4-year-old filly named Dubai Escapade was dominating the Grade I Ballerina at Saratoga Race Course.

She won't be running Saturday against the boys in the $2 million Sprint.

Dubai Escapade has inflammation in her front ankle, but it seemed as if the filly wouldn't race even if she had been healthy. That's because of Henny Hughes, the favorite for the Sprint.

Henny Hughes is owned by Zabeel Racing International, run by Sheikh Rashid from Dubai. Dubai Escapade is owned by Sheikh Mohammed's Darley Stable. Mohammed is Rashid's father.

"If Henny Hughes wasn't in there, it would be a no-brainer, we would definitely be running," Eoin Harty, Dubai Escapade's trainer, said.

Harty knows his filly would have to run the race of her life to beat the boys. Dubai Escapade has won six of eight career starts, all against fillies.

Fillies won three of the first 22 runnings of the Sprint. Before he left for Lexington on Tuesday morning, Harty allowed a visitor to go into the stall and take a look at his muscular filly.

"She is a huge physical specimen," Harty said. "If that is what rocks your boat -- looking at impressive race horses -- this will rock your boat."

The defection of Dubai Escapade allows Lewis Michael, who has one win in eight starts this year, to get into the Sprint.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

so if that is a problem, then what are all these other owners doing trying to win races? they may as well enter then in way above their heads for the sake of "competing."

damn right her campaign was mapped out to WIN, not to compete. no matter how much you want it to be otherwise, it is a business, plain and simple. and that business is winning races.

sorry if you wanted to see her up against males as a five year old. winning races is more important than the industry-wide standard of excellence: being sporting in the eyes of pgardn.

any smart owner on earth would agree, this business is about winning races, not about making people happy. ****, i don't even own horses and i can understand that.

boo hoo dude.

You made my point exactly. The reason this sport is not near as popular as it once was is this short-sighted pea-brained attitude. This is why slots have been put into supplement purses. This is why tracks get into trouble. The game is not as enteraining like it once was. Of course owners try to win races. But what if the races provided challenges that pit good horses against each other. No entertainment. This is an entertainment industry going down the tubes.

Its good you posted this. It will not last as a viable business if it does not provide entertainment. Thats what you guys dont get. Short term view. You look at a business and of course as an owner you try to find easy spot. But who pays for the GD purse in the long run smart guy? If people dont find the betting entertaining, then good by purse money.

Can you imagine. Delware offering 60K Md Sp wt. purses because of slot supplementation. The industry cant survive on its own unless it is sliced up a great deal. Wonderful. The industry is having trouble standing on its own merits and thats sad. If you cant fathom that, I feel for you.

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Yes, you are exactly right. When I'm looking for a spot to run a horse, in general I look for the easiest spot with the biggest purse.

And you think the patrons enjoy this. And dont say the patrons dont matter because they do in the long run. The patrons would want your horse to go into a competitive race, not one your horse rolls. And of course you find and easy spot. But what if every spot was competitive. Your patrons, the bettors will bet your race. And purses will rise.

WTH do they need slots at tracks Rupert? Why cant the industry stand on its own? Such sort sided views. Of course I understand your position. It is totally reasonable. But... Is it possible to look at it from a broader perspective with the future of the industry in mind? Nah. You dont need to save racing. You cant save racing. The decline continues. You play with the cards you are dealt and dont worry about what you cannot control. Better racing with larger purses.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

As a fan and bettor, I would want them to retire Bernardini next year assuming that he wins the BC Classic relatively easily. The reason being that I do enjoy betting big races and when a horse like Bernardini is running, the race usually becomes unbettable for me. I couldn't see anyone challenging Bernardini for at least the first half of next year. Even if there is some freakish 3 year old next year, that horse would probably not run against older horses until September or October. So we would probably have nothing but four and five horse fields every time that Bernardini runs and he would go off at 1-5 every time. That would pretty much ruin those races for me from a bettor's point of view.

For goodness sake, Rupert, there are so many OTHER races you can bet on if you don't like the short fields with Bernardini. Be a fan! Watch him run for fun!

And your attempt to predict the future for what Bernardini would have to face has lots of holes in it. When Sunday Silence and Easy Goer were allowed to keep racing at 4, no one thought any horse would be able to compete with them. But Criminal Type appeared and beat each of them in thrilling stretch battles early in their 4th year. It's not at all rare for a horse to appear that showed little promise earlier.

It's not a question of "nothing left to prove". It's showing how good you are against different competition under different circumstances.

Seattle Slew didn't have much to prove as a 4-yr-old, but fans got to see him run against Affirmed.

I'm not disputing what's the best "business decision". But to say that as a fan you'd like to see Bernardini retired is incomprehensible to me.

--Dunbar

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Its good you posted this. It will not last as a viable business if it does not provide entertainment. Thats what you guys dont get. Short term view. You look at a business and of course as an owner you try to find easy spot. But who pays for the GD purse in the long run smart guy? If people dont find the betting entertaining, then good by purse money.

so i take this as your admission that you don't bet on races anymore because they aren't "entertaining?"

Since I assume that you still wager on races even through your clear disgust for the sport....then i contend that THAT, is "who pays for the GD purse" smart guy. if you've got a brilliant idea of how to make the game more entertaining, let's hear it. But I am pretty darn sure that you telling someone else what to do with their money and their investment is not the answer.

I may be young, but I am smart enough to know that's not how the world works -- people like you don't get to tell people like them what to do with the things they own, having bought with their own money. Almost Orwellian actually -- it seems you've got a really great direction for us to be heading in here, wiseguy.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by pgardn

And you think the patrons enjoy this. And dont say the patrons dont matter because they do in the long run. The patrons would want your horse to go into a competitive race, not one your horse rolls. And of course you find and easy spot. But what if every spot was competitive. Your patrons, the bettors will bet your race. And purses will rise.

WTH do they need slots at tracks Rupert? Why cant the industry stand on its own? Such sort sided views. Of course I understand your position. It is totally reasonable. But... Is it possible to look at it from a broader perspective with the future of the industry in mind? Nah. You dont need to save racing. You cant save racing. The decline continues. You play with the cards you are dealt and dont worry about what you cannot control. Better racing with larger purses.

I think there are a number of reasons that the sport is not doing well. I don't think the reason you gave is one of them. If an owner wants his horse's value to go up, he has to run the horse in big races. There's no such thing as a really easy spot in a graded race. You might find a relatively easy spot but overall the graded stakes races are very competetive beacuse that's where all the money is.

I'm not even sure what you are talking about. Which horses this year were run in weak races to the detriment of the sport? Name me some of the horses and tell me which races they should have run in.

One of the things that I think is killing the sport is all the exotic wagers. The take is bigger and it causes people to lose at a much faster rate. In addition, it takes all the money out of the win, place and show pools so these pool are not very big. A big bettor can't even make a big bet into these pools unless it's a really big race. The pools are simply too small. A big bet will kill your odds. For example, I was just watching a Maiden Special weight race at Laurel. There was a horse that went off at 8-1 in the race. This horse only had $6,500 on him to win. If you were a big bettor, you could not have bet $5,000 to win on that horse. A $5,000 bet would have knocked that horse down to 9-2. The pools are so small that it chases all the big bettors away. The win pools would be much bigger if we didn't have all these trifectas, superfectas, pick-3s, pick-4s, etc. when I used to go to the track back in the 1980s, all they had was 3 exacta races a day. There were no trifectas, pick-3s, superfectas, etc. , yet the track was jammed. You would get over 25,000 people out there every Saturday and the win pools were huge. Even on a Wednesday there would be over 15,000 people out there.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

For goodness sake, Rupert, there are so many OTHER races you can bet on if you don't like the short fields with Bernardini. Be a fan! Watch him run for fun!

And your attempt to predict the future for what Bernardini would have to face has lots of holes in it. When Sunday Silence and Easy Goer were allowed to keep racing at 4, no one thought any horse would be able to compete with them. But Criminal Type appeared and beat each of them in thrilling stretch battles early in their 4th year. It's not at all rare for a horse to appear that showed little promise earlier.

It's not a question of "nothing left to prove". It's showing how good you are against different competition under different circumstances.

Seattle Slew didn't have much to prove as a 4-yr-old, but fans got to see him run against Affirmed.

I'm not disputing what's the best "business decision". But to say that as a fan you'd like to see Bernardini retired is incomprehensible to me.

--Dunbar

I'm both a fan and a bettor just like you. As a bettor, I can't believe that you like it when Bernardini is running. The JCGC was an unbettable race because of Bernardini. If he wasn't in the race, the race would have been much more competive and the field would have been much bigger and you may have ven found a horse to bet on in there. I can't believe that as a bettor that you like to see races with 1-5 shots that look like locks.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm both a fan and a bettor just like you. As a bettor, I can't believe that you like it when Bernardini is running. The JCGC was an unbettable race because of Bernardini. If he wasn't in the race, the race would have been much more competive and the field would have been much bigger and you may have ven found a horse to bet on in there. I can't believe that as a bettor that you like to see races with 1-5 shots that look like locks.

The point is there are plenty of races a week that I can find that would be a good betting race. There are seldom races where you can see a talent like Bernardini run. I'll happily give up an occassional good betting race to see what the guy is really made of and if he can maintain his form through a 4yo campaign.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I'm both a fan and a bettor just like you. As a bettor, I can't believe that you like it when Bernardini is running. The JCGC was an unbettable race because of Bernardini. If he wasn't in the race, the race would have been much more competive and the field would have been much bigger and you may have ven found a horse to bet on in there. I can't believe that as a bettor that you like to see races with 1-5 shots that look like locks.

Like Sniper, I am more than willing to give up 6-10 races a year that I might otherwise bet in order to see a really good horse run in those races. That leaves a few thousand other races to bet on.

Another point I tried to make is that there is no certainty that Bernardini would run over the competition next year. New faces show up, and sometimes those horses are surprisingly good.

But mostly, I am willing to let my fan interest take precedence over my betting side for a few races a year.

Your reasoning makes sense from an owner's "business" point of view. But not from a fan's point of view. The bettor's point of view is not relevant when we are talking about 10 races out of thousands.

--Dunbar

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

so i take this as your admission that you don't bet on races anymore because they aren't "entertaining?"

Since I assume that you still wager on races even through your clear disgust for the sport....then i contend that THAT, is "who pays for the GD purse" smart guy. if you've got a brilliant idea of how to make the game more entertaining, let's hear it. But I am pretty darn sure that you telling someone else what to do with their money and their investment is not the answer.

I may be young, but I am smart enough to know that's not how the world works -- people like you don't get to tell people like them what to do with the things they own, having bought with their own money. Almost Orwellian actually -- it seems you've got a really great direction for us to be heading in here, wiseguy.

Cooperation between all the tracks and racing entities. A true National Authority like other major sports have. If NASCAR can make a mint by incessantly running automobiles around a track, I should certainly think horse racing could stand on its own. This is one of the most fractured entertainment industries in the country.

And for Christ sakes I am not telling anybody what to do with their horses. I am saying this sport is dying a slow death. Do you get that Mr. 1984? Or it would be communistic for diff. entities with in the sport to unite? Good lord.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Cooperation between all the tracks and racing entities. A true National Authority like other major sports have. If NASCAR can make a mint by incessantly running automobiles around a track, I should certainly think horse racing could stand on its own. This is one of the most fractured entertainment industries in the country.

And for Christ sakes I am not telling anybody what to do with their horses. I am saying this sport is dying a slow death. Do you get that Mr. 1984? Or it would be communistic for diff. entities with in the sport to unite? Good lord.

that has nothing to do with what you've been saying. you've been bemoaning the fact that star horses like azeri were running in races in order to "win" them instead of to "compete" and provide an entertaining race for the fans. that's my beef with what you said. i have no delusions that racing is in dire straits and needs to figure something out and that all entities need to work together -- that portion of the conversation has nothing to do with why i even jumped in.

i jumped in because i said you were talking like a crazy person complaining about how star horses are campaigned.

you've totally just changed the subject and are now trying to talk back to me with some business that i completely agree with, not anything at all having to do with the original portion of your posting that i took issue with -- you'll note, that my issue in my original post was from a quote of yours -- a quote of exactly ONE line.....refer back to it if you must.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

that has nothing to do with what you've been saying. you've been bemoaning the fact that star horses like azeri were running in races in order to "win" them instead of to "compete" and provide an entertaining race for the fans. that's my beef with what you said. i have no delusions that racing is in dire straits and needs to figure something out and that all entities need to work together -- that portion of the conversation has nothing to do with why i even jumped in.

i jumped in because i said you were talking like a crazy person complaining about how star horses are campaigned.

you've totally just changed the subject and are now trying to talk back to me with some business that i completely agree with, not anything at all having to do with the original portion of your posting that i took issue with -- you'll note, that my issue in my original post was from a quote of yours -- a quote of exactly ONE line.....refer back to it if you must.

Azeri was a personal beef of mine. I admit complete selfishness in wanting to see her run against competition instead of being bored stiff running against the same horses time and again. And I believe in true handicap races her handlers intentions could have been changed by really weighing her down possibly forcing her to face males in more lucrative races instead of shooting for some stupid winning streak against the little leagues while not carrying imposts making for a fair race. They use to do this in handicap races. They would really handicap a horse. And then people would bet.

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

that has nothing to do with what you've been saying. you've been bemoaning the fact that star horses like azeri were running in races in order to "win" them instead of to "compete" and provide an entertaining race for the fans. that's my beef with what you said. i have no delusions that racing is in dire straits and needs to figure something out and that all entities need to work together -- that portion of the conversation has nothing to do with why i even jumped in.

i jumped in because i said you were talking like a crazy person complaining about how star horses are campaigned.

you've totally just changed the subject and are now trying to talk back to me with some business that i completely agree with, not anything at all having to do with the original portion of your posting that i took issue with -- you'll note, that my issue in my original post was from a quote of yours -- a quote of exactly ONE line.....refer back to it if you must.

And if we did agree on the state of racing, why did you ask me what I would do? You should have known what should be done if we COMPLETELY AGREE.

oh yes. I like your music.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by pgardn

And if we did agree on the state of racing, why did you ask me what I would do? You should have known what should be done if we COMPLETELY AGREE.

oh yes. I like your music.

we completely agree that something needs to happen, i just wasn't seeing how running azeri against boys was your panacea for the sport -- or the small-scale example of a sport-saving action.

i get what you're saying now -- but we're talking about two different things are once -- plus, perhaps i'm mistaken, but wasn't she getting pretty darn weighted down in a lot of those races?

it's a moot point to ask because this thread will be four pages down by the time i get back from chicago on sunday --

oh well, i've enjoyed our chat!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I may be young, but I am smart enough to know that's not how the world works -- people like you don't get to tell people like them what to do with the things they own, having bought with their own money. Almost Orwellian actually -- it seems you've got a really great direction for us to be heading in here, wiseguy.

I totally agree with you. It's amazing how people think they can tell other people how to invest and spend their money. How in the world can you tell a guy that he should risk millions of dollars by racing his horse an extra year?

Many of these people who do the criticizing would not even risk $100 of their own money on a horse. Yet they would not hesitate to bash an owner for retiring a horse. They expect an owner to fork out millions of dollars to insure a horse for an extra year and also take the risk of the horse dropping millions of dollars in value if the horse doesn't perfom as well the next year.

I would never criticize an owner for selling a horse or for retiring a horse. Why should a guy foresake millions of dollars just for the hell of it. I doubt these same people who crititicize these owners would even foresake a few hundred dollars for the entertainment of others. If these people ever make several million dollars, we will see if they are as sporting as they expect other millionaires to be.

I hope Pgardn gets lucky and somehow makes $20 million the next few years. If he does, we'll see if he spends a few million dollars on horses. If he doesn't, we can all criticize him and tell him if he was a true fan, he would be a sport and spend a few million dollars on horses like some of the other millionaires out there. If he does spend a few million dollars on horses and happens to get a great horse, we can all criticize him if he decides to retire the horse and syndicate him for $30 million. We can tell him that he should run the horse another couple of years.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I totally agree with you. It's amazing how people think they can tell other people how to invest and spend their money. How in the world can you tell a guy that he should risk millions of dollars by racing his horse an extra year?

Many of these people who do the criticizing would not even risk $100 of their own money on a horse. Yet they would not hesitate to bash an owner for retiring a horse. They expect an owner to fork out millions of dollars to insure a horse for an extra year and also take the risk of the horse dropping millions of dollars in value if the horse doesn't perfom as well the next year.

I would never criticize an owner for selling a horse or for retiring a horse. Why should a guy foresake millions of dollars just for the hell of it. I doubt these same people who crititicize these owners would even foresake a few hundred dollars for the entertainment of others. If these people ever make several million dollars, we will see if they are as sporting as they expect other millionaires to be.

I hope Pgardn gets lucky and somehow makes $20 million the next few years. If he does, we'll see if he spends a few million dollars on horses. If he doesn't, we can all criticize him and tell him if he was a true fan, he would be a sport and spend a few million dollars on horses like some of the other millionaires out there. If he does spend a few million dollars on horses and happens to get a great horse, we can all criticize him if he decides to retire the horse and syndicate him for $30 million. We can tell him that he should run the horse another couple of years.

I think we all agree that it makes good short-term business sense for an owner to retire a top-notch horse as soon as possible. pgardn is not disputing that. He said:

Originally Posted by pgardn

And for Christ sakes I am not telling anybody what to do with their horses. I am saying this sport is dying a slow death.

We are saying a few things, but we are not saying it is a bad business decision. However, some owners would be willing to risk 5% of their investiment (insurance) for the pleasure and excitement of seeing their horse run another year. These owners probably think their horse is good enough that it won't disgrace itself enough to lose any breeding value by continuing to run.

Some owners seem to value running their horses as much as the money they are putting at risk. Paulson kept Azeri running even when half the fans thought she should be retired, and she did not disgrace herself. He let Cigar campaign for a 2nd BC Classic, even after he had "nothing else to prove". Lord Darby has kept Ouija Board in training far longer than expected for a mare of her accomplishment.

You might answer that none of these horses had/has the value of Bernardini. But the owners of these other horses also do not have the money of the sheiks, so relatively speaking, the risk/reward/bankroll relationship was probably on a par with the Bernardini decision.

--Dunbar

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

I totally agree with you. It's amazing how people think they can tell other people how to invest and spend their money. How in the world can you tell a guy that he should risk millions of dollars by racing his horse an extra year?

That is exactly what happens all the time in every other sport out there. Not only do the fans question every move made by owners of MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, etc teams but the owners even factor in the potential fan response when making their decisions even though it is ultimately the owners money being spent. So the question is, how do we get owners in horse racing to start factoring the fans in to their decisions on horses? Unfortunately, I am at a loss as to how that could happen since the fans are much too willing to be ignored by the owners and yet remain fans (and bettors) of the game.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

I think we all agree that it makes good short-term business sense for an owner to retire a top-notch horse as soon as possible. pgardn is not disputing that. He said:



We are saying a few things, but we are not saying it is a bad business decision. However, some owners would be willing to risk 5% of their investiment (insurance) for the pleasure and excitement of seeing their horse run another year. These owners probably think their horse is good enough that it won't disgrace itself enough to lose any breeding value by continuing to run.

Some owners seem to value running their horses as much as the money they are putting at risk. Paulson kept Azeri running even when half the fans thought she should be retired, and she did not disgrace herself. He let Cigar campaign for a 2nd BC Classic, even after he had "nothing else to prove". Lord Darby has kept Ouija Board in training far longer than expected for a mare of her accomplishment.

You might answer that none of these horses had/has the value of Bernardini. But the owners of these other horses also do not have the money of the sheiks, so relatively speaking, the risk/reward/bankroll relationship was probably on a par with the Bernardini decision.

--Dunbar

If a horse is sound and the owner wants to run the horse as a 4 or even a 5 year old, that is fine. It's up to the owner. It's his money. If he's willing to take the risk of running his horse another year, then more power to him. But if he decides to retire the horse after its 3 year old year, there is nothing wrong with that either.