Finley @ ESPN: Good times are over

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by tector

And, PS, I did not even address simulcasting, which was virtually unknown back in '89.

Let's see--so on a nice summer day now I can bet SAR, DMR, ARL or MTH. Or I can bet my local dinky track, Crap Meadows, like my grandpa did. Hmmm...

And if Crap Meadows doesn't exist then 2011 Tector may never get exposed to horse racing. How does Crap Meadows closing make racing at those other tracks better?

Racing isn't a singular entity with pooled money being wasted on purses at small tracks. If Crap Meadows closes and is replaced by a simulcasting facility what makes you think that the govt wont simply take that $$ that used to go to purses at Crap Meadows now that the entire economic impact and jobs argument is now gone?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by tector

WTF--influence govt? Govt is floating racing in most places, to "save jobs" (aka welfare). My point to you is the opposite--it needs to conform to the market, which the government should withdraw from.

Maybe a handful of states need to really be breeding states--propping up Iowa, or Indiana, or NJ, or a bunch of other bogus breeding states is
BS. Never would happen in a free market.

Dude this is 2011. Where is a free market in the gambling or for that matter in the agricultural business?

Those who are appalled at govt influence havent been paying attention.

[tector]

Wow.

Crap Meadows ISN'T surviving unless the government props it up--such as by limiting simulcasting to there, or by allowing other forms of wagering to only exist on its grounds.

IF HORSE RACING CAN'T SURVIVE SOMEWHERE, IT SHOULDN'T. The sport should find its own level in marketplace. If it is a vastly smaller level, THEN IT IS.

How hard is that to understand? Do we have to go into Adam Smith v. Karl Marx here?

[tector]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Dude this is 2011. Where is a free market in the gambling or for that matter in the agricultural business?

Those who are appalled at govt influence havent been paying attention.

OK, Karl, now I get it. The government should pick the "winners".

Bulletin--racing is going to lose under that scenario, too. It can't compete in influence, except maybe in KY--or maybe in NY, so long as it serves as an ATM for crooked pols.

The only difference will be that the survivors will not be the result of any rational market decisions (witness the ascent of PA racing).

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by tector

Wow.

Crap Meadows ISN'T surviving unless the government props it up--such as by limiting simulcasting to there, or by allowing other forms of wagering to only exist on its grounds.

IF HORSE RACING CAN'T SURVIVE SOMEWHERE, IT SHOULDN'T. The sport should find its own level in marketplace. If it is a vastly smaller level, THEN IT IS.

How hard is that to understand? Do we have to go into Adam Smith v. Karl Marx here?

What are you some radical fundamentalist economist who worships at the alter of free market purity??

Let's not forget that the govt has made billions of dollars from horseracing that it did nothing to deserve. The Mob made less money putting the strong arm on businesses than state govts who often make the same cut on each dollar bet as the tracks and horseman. That is on top of taxes paid by the corps that own the tracks and horseman who earned purse money.

Let's not forget that the money that govt mandates (laws) steer to racing come not from govt coffers but from other forms of gambling often AT THAT TRACK!

Let's not forget that in the vast majority of states tracks are restricted by the govt in not only the dates that they run but the pricing of their product. NYRA cant give out free passes because NYS says it cant.

Like I said before we all know that the way things have worked out we are beholden to outside interests. We all know that is not a good situation. But I still dont see how closing tracks does anything but serve as a template for every other state/racino company that might get the bright idea to just get rid of racing.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by tector

OK, Karl, now I get it. The government should pick the "winners".

Bulletin--racing is going to lose under that scenario, too. It can't compete in influence, except maybe in KY--or maybe in NY, so long as it serves as an ATM for crooked pols.

The only difference will be that the survivors will not be the result of any rational market decisions (witness the ascent of PA racing).

The govt already picks the winners. Look at NJ where a private casino gets 250 million handout while racing gets a pittance. Look at the car dealerships that were forced to close when the govt decided who would stay open and who would close. Look at the farming industry where govt influence pushes small farms to sell out to huge conglomerates.

[tector]

So, if government has abused its powers, your solution is more abuse.

Great.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by tector

So, if government has abused its powers, your solution is more abuse.

Great.

My solution? I don't think that simply closing tracks will make horse racing business better. You tell me that horse racing will get killed in an open free market and then tell me that we should let the market dictate. That would seem to be a questionable theory for making racing better unless you are one of the people who mistakenly believe that racing can be killed off and then "fixed" and brought back to life.

The amount of content is a minor issue that could be more easily solved with better pricing rather than elimination. It doesn't matter how little racing there is if it isn't priced properly. Exchange wagering could be a huge boon for the business if properly implemented. The beauty of it is that cheap races and short fields will be as attractive in many ways as a evenly matched field. Because the take is obviously going to be much lower than what we are used to, the amount of content will be important.