bravo mr paulick, bloodhorse

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

I agree with your sentiments whole-heartedly, but most prospective owners with that sort of money don't care to afford the time to do that because they don't realize that they could be jumping into a business where they really have to be worried about trusting their confidants/agents.....It is a bizarre shame....

On top of that, we need to make it as easy as possible for owners to get into this game because we need all of them that we can get.....if we start getting a big reputation for scandle and shinnanigans then it is going to do one of two things for people trying to get into the game from an owners investment standpoint:

1) Prospective owners are just going to say 'screw it' and invest in another hobby that they'll enjoy since they realize it won't be a profitable investment - thus why take a chance at getting ripped off on top of it?

2) Will do a lot of research like you mentioned before entrusting anybody with there money....While that is the sart thing to do anyway if you want to be an owner, the way it hurts horse racing is that we're making it harder for someone to be an owner because now they have to do all of this studying and research to understand who to trust because it is such a corrput game....If we have that bad of a reputation that we make it that hard to invest then it is a huge detractor to our sport...We need to make it as easy ad relatively risk-free as it can be....We can't tell them that they will probably lose money and that they might get ripped off at the same time, can we?...NO..

...we need to clean up the game and we need to do it sooner rather than later..........

One thing people who earn their living in the horse racing industry should give a lot of thought to is this... Stop referring to horse racing as a "game." It is a sport and the term game has negative connotations, as in, "Boy, that unscrupulous horse person really gamed me on that deal." For the life me I cannot understand the use of this term. Why is it referred to as a "game?"

[2MinsToPost]

I found it

Originally Posted by 2MinsToPost

since honestly I am feeling lazy today could somebody provide a link to these 2 pieces?

[Downthestretch55]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

One thing people who earn their living in the horse racing industry should give a lot of thought to is this... Stop referring to horse racing as a "game." It is a sport and the term game has negative connotations, as in, "Boy, that unscrupulous horse person really gamed me on that deal." For the life me I cannot understand the use of this term. Why is it referred to as a "game?"

S2S,
Yes, it is a sport, but my guess it got called the "greatest game" for a reason.
Should it be called a game? Maybe as much as chess.
One happens on little black squares, the other happens on dirt or weeds.
I think it has to do with the mental challenge...just my two pennies worth.
DTS

Originally Posted by SentToStud

One thing people who earn their living in the horse racing industry should give a lot of thought to is this... Stop referring to horse racing as a "game." It is a sport and the term game has negative connotations, as in, "Boy, that unscrupulous horse person really gamed me on that deal." For the life me I cannot understand the use of this term. Why is it referred to as a "game?"

Because its entire existance these days is basically predicated on the fact that it is a gaming opportunity to most of its customer base, rather than a sport...the tracks don;t make money off of 'fans'..they make money off of selling bets on horse racing - thus it is more of a game than a sport in mine and many other opinions...we can't treat it like a sport like most conventional sports and leagues because out revenue dependency is is on a totally different plain than any other sport......that is just a fact...

It is a sport as well, but it is probably more appropriately a game....I don't necessarily have a huge problem with that.....it is what it is to whoever the customer is....I realy don't associate a negative connotation to the word game.....

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

Because its entire existance these days is basically predicated on the fact that it is a gaming opportunity to most of its customer base, rather than a sport...the tracks don;t make money off of 'fans'..they make money off of selling bets on horse racing - thus it is more of a game than a sport in mine and many other opinions...we can't treat it like a sport like most conventional sports and leagues because out revenue dependency is is on a totally different plain than any other sport......that is just a fact...

It is a sport as well, but it is probably more appropriately a game....I don't necessarily have a huge problem with that.....it is what it is to whoever the customer is....I realy don't associate a negative connotation to the word game.....

Well, why don't they refer to the races as games? As in, "I bet #2 in the first game." The term does have negative connotations, IMO.

[ironprospect]

After my first knee jerk reaction to hearing the news

why do these people need to be industry based?

they are basically running a union

do all the people working at the office of laborers 436 know how to build a six story shopping mall??/

do they know about collecting dues???
getting better insurance/retirement policies???

how much interaction does the guild as a collective have with the industry as a whole???

with the betting public???

personally I would not choose to do business w/ the reverend

but as to any effect this ISSUE is going to have outside of the guild/

i'd say very little

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

To be fair, Steve Crist beat him to the punch, but I wholeheartedly agree that both of them should be congratulated for voicing their opinions about this issue ( I'm sure it helps that we also happen to agree with them ).

Racing needs more voices speaking out about the game. Ray's recent articles about the other Jackson, involving unethical practices in the horse sales, were especially good and a great step for Bloodhorse.

must have missed the crist article...so my applause to him as well. they danced around the issue a bit the other day on t.v., but seemed as tho no one really wanted to be critical--at least i felt that was the case. and yeah, it does help that we agree (well, me and you to this point, i must read on...). i just feel, after all the attention and a congressional hearing, that it would be in the guilds best interest to find the absolute BEST person they could. i feel they failed, and failed the jockeys as a result. maybe i will read a point of view different from mine, with reasons why i'm wrong....i really wouldn't mind being wrong about this!

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

must have missed the crist article...so my applause to him as well. they danced around the issue a bit the other day on t.v., but seemed as tho no one really wanted to be critical--at least i felt that was the case. and yeah, it does help that we agree (well, me and you to this point, i must read on...). i just feel, after all the attention and a congressional hearing, that it would be in the guilds best interest to find the absolute BEST person they could. i feel they failed, and failed the jockeys as a result. maybe i will read a point of view different from mine, with reasons why i'm wrong....i really wouldn't mind being wrong about this!

I don't think you're wrong. Your spot on. They should have done what anyone else making a major hire does... engage a search firm to find the best candidates, interview several of them and make a hire with incentives a big part of the package. It seems ludicrous that the only two candidates came from inside sources and that there is not an hour of collective bargaining experience between them. Damn shame.

Ray Paulik is good for our sport. Calls things as he sees them (which is almost always "right on"). LR

Originally Posted by Cunningham Racing

Because its entire existance these days is basically predicated on the fact that it is a gaming opportunity to most of its customer base, rather than a sport...the tracks don;t make money off of 'fans'..they make money off of selling bets on horse racing - thus it is more of a game than a sport in mine and many other opinions...we can't treat it like a sport like most conventional sports and leagues because out revenue dependency is is on a totally different plain than any other sport......that is just a fact...

It is a sport as well, but it is probably more appropriately a game....I don't necessarily have a huge problem with that.....it is what it is to whoever the customer is....I realy don't associate a negative connotation to the word game.....

Very well said. I have been trying to put this into words for a while but I dont have to now.