Archive for the ‘Industry Reform’ Category

By Ray Paulick
Alex Waldrop is a good soldier who reminds me of Hiroo Onoda, the World War II legend who in 1944 was sent to Lubang island in the Philippines and told by his Japanese superiors to wage guerrilla warfare against the allied forces and to never give up. Along with a few others who survived a 1945 invasion by American soldiers, Onoda conducted operations from a base in the mountains of the island, even after leaflets were dropped saying the war had ended. Letters from loved ones begged Onoda to come home, but even after his fellow holdouts left him or died, Onoda carried out the orders given him.

It wasn’t until his one-time commanding officer flew to Lubang in 1974 that Onoda gave up the fight.

Waldrop, in his capacity as CEO of the National Thoroughbred Racing Associations, hasn’t fought as long as Hiroo Onoda did, but someone needs to tell him the war is over. The NTRA has about the same relevance and power as the Japanese Imperial Army did after the end of World War II.

It’s not Waldrop’s fault. He came into an untenable situation in December 2006 when the unraveling of the NTRA and Breeders’ Cup relationship was complete and the NTRA was left with little money and even less authority to carry out a mission to be the “league office” for horse racing. An organization that began in 1998 with high hopes and lofty goals of organizing and marketing a dysfunctional business that lacked structure, coordination and a strong central authority — the hallmarks of success for other sports — was, by 2006, a pale shadow of its former self.

What survived of the NTRA after its divorce from the Breeders’ Cup in 2006 was an understaffed press office and an industry lobbying effort in Washington, D.C., and not much more. Illusions of marketing grandeur or meaningful changes in how the sport was structured were gone like the budget the NTRA once had.

Eighteen months into Waldrop’s tenure at the NTRA, the Thoroughbred industry had a serious implosion. The filly Eight Belles died after the finish of the Kentucky Derby with millions watching on television in horror. Compounding the problem, Rick Dutrow, the trainer of Derby winner Big Brown, revealed one of our sport’s dirty little secrets, that anabolic steroids were in rampant use and, shockingly to many people, were perfectly legal. The public outcry was enormous, and the NTRA was ill-equipped to deal with it, because it lacked the authority to speak for the industry over which it had little control.

When hints of a Congressional inquiry surfaced, there was a scramble to react. The industry did what it always does: form committees and make recommendations. Foremost among those was a decision by Waldrop and the NTRA board of directors to create a new entity, the Safety and Integrity Alliance, which drafted an ambitious code of standards on a variety of safety and welfare issues for horses and jockeys. It was and is an admirable document, however meaningless it mostly likely will turn out to be.

Tracks that comply with the code of standards will be accredited by the alliance, sort of a “good horsekeeping seal of approval” that a track owner can frame and hang on his wall. And what about tracks that don’t comply? Well, they’ll have a little extra wall space. That’s the carrot and stick that Waldrop is armed with.

It goes back to something said during the Congressional inquiry held last June, when members of the House of Representatives repeatedly pointed out to Thoroughbred industry leaders how important it was for them to get their act together and establish a meaningful central authority unless they wanted the federal government to do it for them. After Alan Marzelli, the president of the Jockey Club, testified about some of the safety recommendations his organization was making to the industry, he was asked how the Jockey Club intended to have its recommendations adopted.

Marzelli’s response: “We believe in the power of persuasion.”

The power of persuasion (aka, committee recommendations) is what has kept this industry from realizing its potential as a major league sport. The harmless carrot and stick that Waldrop now carries in his briefcase is about as powerful as the army that Hiroo Onoda commanded on Lubana island for all those years after World War II.

Onoda survived, which I’m afraid is about all Waldrop and the NTRA and the rest of the racing industry can do with our current structure (or lack thereof). Maybe, just maybe, if enough tracks comply with the Safety and Integrity Alliance’s code of standards, we can stop the bleeding that’s been going on for some time, long before Eight Belles took her last breath or Rick Dutrow uttered his last insult. But stopping the bleeding is not a cure for what ails us.

What we have isn’t working. What we need are fewer organizations and fewer committees, more followers and fewer (but stronger) leaders. Why, someone pointed out to me the other day, do we need separate organizations like the NTRA, the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, the Jockey Club, the Breeders’ Cup, the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, the Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association and so many others? He answered his own question: because none of those groups is willing to cede authority and lose whatever little fiefdom they control.

Waldrop keeps fighting, seemingly against all odds. When racing’s obvious problems were brought up twice recently in the New York Times, first by sports columnist William Rhoden and then by turf writer Joe Drape, Waldrop fired back in a blog at the NTRA’s web site, defending the Safety and Integrity Alliance and pointing out progress that had been made since the death of Eight Belles. He even tried to incite an angry mob to join his army and attack the messengers at the New York Times for the audacity of their observations.

It was rather pitiful. I’m not sure that Waldrop, like Hiroo Onoda, is much more than an army of one.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Support the Paulick Report. Click here to make a donation today.

Sign up for our Email flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.

By Ray Paulick
Whenever I think about horse racing’s crazy-quilt regulatory system that has ruling bodies in 38 different states, I recall the time an official at some racetrack asked Hall of Famer Bill Mott to show his trainer’s license before entering a restricted area. Mott reached into his Wrangler’s and pulled out what appeared to be a full deck of laminated playing cards, held together by a rubber band wrapped around the outside.

“It’s in here somewhere,” Mott said, fumbling through individual licenses for Florida, New York, Kentucky, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Texas, Illinois, Delaware, Virginia, Louisiana, and maybe even his home state of South Dakota, among others.

Uniform licensing is a concept the industry has been working on for, oh, 50 years or so. They still haven’t got it figured out. In this regard, owners, trainers and other licensees are subjected to some of the most ridiculous regulatory inefficiencies any industry has ever seen. Why?

I thought about this absurdity as I read the racing industry’s latest “white paper,” this one authored by a well-intentioned group of equine veterinarians at the American Association of Equine Practitioners that suggests we all follow their recommendations, pull together, and work in concert for the overall good of the industry.

The average meaningful life of a Thoroughbred industry white paper is about 10 to 14 days – or at least it used to be. That’s about how long it took for the weekly trade magazines to dutifully detail the highlights, and then mail the magazine to their subscribers. The typical reader reaction was a collective yawn. They know how the industry works … or doesn’t. The lifespan of an industry white paper might be shorter today, given the access to the information on various Web sites.

For those who haven’t seen the AAEP treatise, it’s called “Putting the Horse First: Veterinary Recommendations for the Safety and Welfare of the Thoroughbred Racehorse.” Click here to read the entire nine-page report.

For those who want the abbreviated version, here it is: 1) the AAEP believes it is “imperative that the industry urgently demonstrate an ability to affect sweeping change without government intervention”; 2) we need to hold hands and sit around a campfire singing songs until we can reach agreement on issues related to the welfare of the horse 3) horses should not be permitted to race without at least 10 days between starts; 4) some racing secretaries are evil and racetrack management is increasingly clueless about horses; 5) more study is needed in the areas of racing, training and selling 2-year-olds; 6) adopt new whip rules; 7) keep holding hands and singing campfire songs; 8) it’s no longer acceptable for owners to heartlessly discard ex-racehorses, and it’s imperative that all jurisdictions establish and support rehabilitation, retraining and adoption agencies 9) claiming races need reform, with purses no more than 50% higher than the claiming price, drug testing of all claimed horses, and claims for horses that fail to finish a race being voided; 10) develop and adopt uniform rules, penalties, drug testing protocols, violation reporting procedures (stop me if you’ve heard this one before); and 11) keep singing and holding hands, and will someone please throw some more logs on the fire?

This industry is amazing, if for no other reason than for its ability to clear its throat and harrumph when the situation is dire. Since Eight Belles died on the track at Churchill Downs and we celebrated the highs and lows of Big Brown, an anabolic steroid-pumped Kentucky Derby winner (surely not the only one), we have had more task forces, committees, blue-ribbon panels, and alliances than we’ve mustered up before in this short a time. We’ve had the Jockey Club, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, and now the American Association of Equine Practitioners sounding off (and I know I’m forgetting some of the other alphabet soup orgs).

And still, Bill Mott has a pocketful of racing licenses. If we can’t do the simple things, what makes the AAEP or any other group think we are going to convince 38 state racing commissions that a $12,500 purse is too high for $8,000 claimers, or that a horse needs 10 days off before racing again?

Let’s look at the first premise of the AAEP’s white paper, that we need to “urgently demonstrate an ability” to make change without government intervention. Haven’t we had enough chances to demonstrate our ability to do so? (I enter Bill Mott’s expired trainer’s licenses into evidence.)

Why and how has the AAEP, a group of veterinarians, taken it upon themselves to state that we must do this without government assistance? I suppose if they were involved in the cattle or poultry or peanut business, they’d suggest we would be better off producing meat and other foodstuffs without interference from the United States Department of Agriculture.

The point is, we need government to help us overcome the dysfunctional regulatory structure that has led us to this mess we are in. We just need to be able to be part of the process, and not be in the adversarial role many in this industry are setting us up to be in. If we repeat the mantra that “government is enemy, government is enemy,” how do you think government is going to respond?

So with all due respect to the AAEP and its veterinarians, please stick to what you know best. In fact, this white paper completely ignores what vets know best, which is the care of horses. Nowhere in the white paper are there recommendations on such procedures as pin firing of shins of young horses, or permitting horses to race just days after receiving joint injections. To be fair, AAEP executive director David Foley said further recommendations will be forthcoming, but should those recommendations have come first, so that their own house is in order?

Tell us what you think about the chances the AAEP’s white paper recommendations will ever be implemented. Read the full report. Take our poll on the left-hand column of the Paulick Report home page, and leave your comments in the space provided below.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Sign up for our Email flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.

By Ray Paulick
It’s now been 15 years since James E. (Ted) Bassett III, then the president of Keenelend, declared before a legislative committee in Kentucky’s state capitol that the commonwealth’s signature industry, Thoroughbred racing and breeding, was “not going to cave in to the hypothetical threat of a mythical armada cruising down the Ohio from Ashland to Paducah under the disguise of a legislative act that has yet to be passed in most of our neighboring states.”

Bassett was talking about the emergence of what then were just a few floating casinos in Illinois and the possibility of additional boats in Indiana; 1994 was only the beginning of an era that has seen an unprecedented explosion in gambling in states from New Mexico to New York, from Florida to Louisiana, from Mississippi to West Virginia, and from Michigan to Pennsylvania.

So much has changed in 15 years that even Bassett’s wise, old head must be spinning. In fact, his successor at Keeneland, Nick Nicholson, is now one of the main proponents to get Kentucky’s gambling playing fields level with those of other states. The mythical armada surrounding Kentucky has grown to include a massive floating arsenal of riverboats carrying blackjack and craps tables, and hundreds of thousands of slot machines at land-based compounds.

I understand completely what Bassett was saying. He hated the thought Kentucky’s racing industry would have to cave in to the pressures created by the dominos falling around him in other states. Betting on a horse and throwing money into slot machines are two forms of gambling, to be sure, but one involves an intellectual challenge, an agriculture based business, and a beautiful sport that at times can capture the interest and imagination of an entire nation. The other is a mindless activity that is virtually guaranteed to separate the player from his money: gradually, tantalizingly, but, ultimately, relentlessly.

Sadly, I hate to admit, the former – pari-mutuel wagering on horses – must depend to some degree on the latter – Video Lottery Terminals or slot machines – to survive.

The debate has gone on long enough in Kentucky. Fifteen years! There probably isn’t a resident in Kentucky who can’t jump in his car and within two hours be feeding a slot machine in a neighboring state. Thousands of Kentuckians are doing just that, every day, and it’s costing the state hundreds of millions of dollars each year in lost revenue. Worse, it’s threatening the very future of Kentucky’s largest and most important industry: the Thoroughbred.

I wrote earlier this week that slots revenue may in the long run be fool’s gold in many states, and I stand by that statement. Any non-essential industry that relies on subsidies to exist is skating on thin ice, because those subsidies can very well be taken away with the slash of a legislator’s pen. The racing and breeding industries in most American states would have to be put into that “non-essential” category. But Kentucky is different. Take away the horse farms and the nearly 100,000 jobs they have created, and you will have a state plunged into a deep, deep economic recession. No other state is so dependent on this major agribusiness. Furthermore, Kentucky’s identity to the rest of the world is so tied to horses that it would forever be changed.

It’s therefore essential that legislators, from Ashland to Hopkinsville, from Paducah to Williamsburg, understand that the armada is no longer mythical, that the assault is ongoing, and that the battle is in serious danger of being lost.

This subject has been debated, not just in the halls of Frankfort and the breeding sheds of Central Kentucky, but on the national airwaves. On Wednesday of this week and next week, Steve Byk’s At the Races radio show on Sirius channel 126 (4-7 p.m. Eastern) is devoting the entire three hours to the issue, “Kentucky in Crisis.” Byk’s guests this week were John Sikura of Hill ‘n’ Dale farm, Kentucky state Sen. Damon Thayer, Eclipse Award-winning writer Billy Read and trainer Chuck Simon.

Click here to listen to Wednesday’s enlightening “Kentucky in Crisis” program.

I’ll be on next Wednesday’s program, following scheduled appearances by Greg Stumbo, the Kentucky House Speaker whose VLT legislation cleared a House committee yesterday, lobbyist Gene McLean and former Kentucky Gov. Brereton Jones, the owner of Airdrie Stud.

VLTs or slot machines cannot be racing’s salvation. The sport is failing, not just in Kentucky but throughout the United States, because it has failed to adequately address a number of serious challenges. The racing product needs attention, and its business model is broken both on a local and national level, and simply putting additional money into purses is not going to fix the product on its own. It will, however, give the industry an opportunity to invest in its own future, something it has not been able to do since the mythical armada transformed into a very real threat to the survival of Kentucky’s most important industry.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Sign up for our Email flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.

By Ray Paulick
When Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44^th president of the United States, he will be entering office with enormous support from the American people and carrying the hopes that the message of change that worked so well for him during his historic campaign will be just as effective as he takes on the formidable challenges that we face as a nation.

The Thoroughbred racing and breeding world is a microcosm of the greater problems around us that a President Obama will tackle. The infrastructure is fragile. The fundamentals of our industry’s economic footing are anything but sound. Divisiveness and infighting have poisoned the waters of progress. There is an overall feeling that our greatest days are behind us, and not a part of our future. And, yes, in many ways, our leadership has failed us.

Obama’s arsenal of hope is built on a foundation that has stood the test of time since our forefathers declared their independence in 1776 and a short time later created a more perfect union. We have a form of government that, for all its flaws, has helped make the United States of America the envy of people throughout the world and a symbol of freedom.

We have no such foundation in our smaller world of racing and breeding. Complicated by onerous and disparate state regulations, the Thoroughbred industry is without any form of central authority. We represent one of this country’s oldest sporting activities, and certainly nearly all of us believe its equine participants are noble and beautiful, but we have been passed by other sports which, quite simply, have a better business model than ours, with a definitive structure and central leadership.

When racing enjoyed a monopoly on gambling and a playing field less crowded with other sports, the old ways of doing business worked.  Its leaders were largely sportsmen who raced their horses against one another. These men were not required to be innovative in the ways of marketing a sport in a competitive environment, or to recognize the need to adapt to a changing world and embrace new technologies. It was a local sport then whose biggest stars were national heroes.

Times have changed. Thoroughbred racing and breeding is an interstate and in many ways international business, yet remains locally regulated. The sportsmen have mostly disappeared, though a few remain, clinging on to the vestiges of the past and still wanting to lead in the way their fathers and grandfathers may have done.

We are past being at a crossroads; that happened some years ago. Sadly, we are on the wrong path in this industry and heading in a direction that will not lead us to a better future. The only way to get back on the right path is to ask how we got here and what can we do to reverse our course.

Leadership is essential, whether it’s an individual business, an industry or the greatest nation on the face of the earth. But no one, not the United States of America, and certainly not the Thoroughbred racing and breeding industry, can have great leadership without having a structure that permits someone to rise to the top, to speak for everyone, and to work toward bringing about a brighter future.

How we create that structure is a difficult question. Can the federal government be trusted to help us form a national federation to oversee and regulate our business? Can the various fiefdoms in racing and breeding find enough common ground to give up individual power to help us grow collectively as an industry? Is a true league office possible, one that has authority to create a vision for our future, and to see it through?

Change is possible, if you believe in it, and work for it. 

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary.

By Ray Paulick

Are betting exchanges a possible solution to the problems facing the U.S. Thoroughbred industry, which in 2008 saw its annual pari-mutuel handle fall for the fourth time in six years, dropping over 7% to a 10-year low? The Thoroughbred Owners of California thinks they may be, having recently signed a letter of agreement with betting exchange giant Betfair to have the UK-based company promote California racing abroad while TOC helps BetFair obtain statutory and regulatory approval to operate a betting exchange in California.

Betfair, which has been trying for several years to gain access to the U.S. market, is also believed to be a leading candidate to buy TVG, whose parent company, Macrovision, announced its intention to sell TVG last year. Though there are no confirmed suitors, others rumored to be potential buyers of the racing network and Advance Deposit Wagering platform include Churchill Downs Inc.; Marc Nathanson, a cable TV industry billionaire and father of TVG president David Nathanson; and an industry consortium that could include Keeneland, the New York Racing Association, former Hollywood Park chairman R.D. Hubbard, and Los Alamitos racetrack owner Edward Allred.

Betfair, a privately held company, was founded in June of 2000, using a technologically advanced platform permitting individuals to go online and bet against one another on a wide range of events, including horse racing, sports, politics and even reality television shows. By taking commissions of 2%-5% from winning bets, the company offers extremely low takeout and has built enormous volume: it claims to have over one million customers from 140 countries, with 100,000 or more active players in a given week. (UPDATE: Betfair said in October 2008 that it signed up its two millionth customer; see comments section, below) Its wagering platform handles over five million bets per day. In 2007, Betfair had 42 million English pounds in earnings before interest, depreciation, taxes and amortization on revenue of 240 million pounds. According to its annual report (which can be seen here), Betfair has 110 million pounds cash on hand.

CONCERNS ABOUT BETFAIR

The problem many see with Betfair is that the company pays a small percentage for the rights to races on which it handles wagers. In England, for example, it pays a bit over 10% of gross profits on racing wagers. In some cases, however, it pays no fees at all, as is currently the case with racing from the U.S. Betfair currently accepts bets on American racing, but only from customers outside of the U.S., and it does not have rights to any video signals. Betfair is acutely aware of concerns from racing interests in the U.S. who believe betting exchanges would cannibalize pari-mutuel betting and decrease revenue to tracks and purses. It addresses some of those fears in this pamphlet, which was designed to appease the racing industry in the United Kingdom.

Another concern raised about Betfair centers on wagers it accepts that a specific horse will lose, prompting worries about race-fixing. But Betfair has cooperated in several investigations involving horse racing and sports betting, giving authorities access to detailed betting information as part of its memorandum of understanding. 

Drew Couto, the president of TOC, said the letter of agreement with BetFair was signed last month. He believes wagering will continue to suffer unless the industry distances itself from Albert Einstein’s definition of insanity: doing the same thing time after time and expecting a different result.  “That really describes our industry’s approach to this sport and business over the last decade,” Couto said. 

“Going forward,” he added, “we have to face two very important realities. “First, we have allowed the sport to basically disappear. It’s no longer a sport, but simply a justification to gamble and wager, and as a wagering proposition we know it’s not the most attractive. We have to go back and make it a sport. We have to give the sport some structure to have it make sense for the fans, make some very serious fundamental changes to focus on the sporting aspect of racing. We have left it largely to the tracks to be the stewards of the sport, and they only care about the financial side. 

“Second,” Couto said, “we have to adopt new ways our fans can participate. New wagers, betting exchanges. We have to embrace these new ways of playing as ancillary to the way we currently operate, so it’s new and fresh. That includes tournament-style wagering that was approved by the RCI (Association of Racing Commissioners International) last summer. If we don’t begin to do things differently and find new ways to operate, we are bound to be the definitive example of what Einstein said.”

CAN RACING DEVELOP ITS OWN BETTING EXCHANGE?

Chris Scherf, executive vice president of the Thoroughbred Racing Associations of North America, a racetrack trade organization, for years has advocated that North American tracks consider developing their own betting exchange. He sees the trend in downward handle as a serious crisis. 

“We’ve got to look into pricing (the takeout charge on pari-mutuel bets), the product that’s being provided and the convenience factor for wagering,” Scherf said. “We need to make the same kind of concerted effort on handle that is currently being made to improve the safety and welfare issues. Track by track, you can get swamped in a million problems, but this has to be at the top of the pile. We are losing bettors. What do we have to do to change that aspect of the business, the part that provides us revenue? Of course, the entire debacle of cutting off signals in the last year (due to contractual disagreements between tracks and horsemen over ADW splits) was extremely detrimental to any kind of sustained gambling business. 

“The problem,” Scherf said, “is we’ve got tracks and horsemen both saying they need more money in this economy. But the first thing we need is an engaged gambling public, and they should be at the top of the list.”

Scherf said he is “somewhere in between fear and welcoming” Betfair into the industry. “We had no master plan for how ADW would fit in and now we are trying to retrofit it, which is causing a lot of angst and problems. We need to spend more time developing a strategy (for exchange betting), though it’s difficult to do that when you have a wide disparity throughout the industry in resources and markets.” 

Lonny Powell, an industry consultant based in Lexington, Ky., who previously served in executive positions with racetracks (including head of Santa Anita Park), the ADW company Youbet.com and as president of the Association of Racing Commissioners International, said BetFair has done a good job of “mainstreaming themselves” in recent years by sharing more of its profits with the racing industry in Europe. 

“It’s here to stay,” Powell said of Betfair and exchange betting. “When I was in the ADW world, I wished they would just go away, but I don’t feel that way anymore. We’re like an ice cream store that only sells vanilla, but you can go over to Baskin Robbins and get 33 flavors. We need variety.” 

Powell, who said he is optimistic the industry will find a solution to its present challenges, believes racing interests should look at developing their own betting exchange. “If the industry could somehow take this wagering crisis a little more seriously and rather than find ways to kill something, find ways to make it work, we can grow the gambling dollar,” he said. “A Betfair type of platform can be operated by U.S. racing interests. The economic model that Betfair offers is flawed, but we all agree our current model is flawed, too. I’ve got to believe a Betfair type of platform would work. Our product is stale, and our wagering levels are stale.”

INTEGRITY ISSUES REMAIN A CONCERN

The reason for declines in handle go beyond a limited product line, said Mike Maloney, a professional gambler in Kentucky who has become an outspoken advocate for horseplayers at industry conferences and who served as an ad hoc member of a Kentucky Horse Racing Commission Task Force. “We are at a very significant crossroads in racing,” Maloney said, “probably the biggest one in my lifetime. The financial crisis is magnifying our problems, but the problems have to be dealt with before racing can recover. The economy may improve, but racing’s problems will still be there.

“Our customer base is aging, and they’ve lost a lot of their faith in the integrity of racing,” he said. “As they age, they aren’t being replaced. The second problem is the takeout is too high. We can’t attract new players and are having a hard time holding on to existing ones. It’s exacerbated because the takeout keeps going up. With competition from other gambling opportunities, you can’t get away with that any more. It’s roughly 5% in other forms of gambling – sports, table games, trading options – but it’s 20% for us. New York just raised takeouts; trifectas are 26% now, and I just refuse to play it. Kentucky wants to raise takeout. What other business in this economic climate would consider racing prices? 

“Third,” Maloney said, “racing integrity problems are real, and they are not exaggerated. If anything, they probably are underplayed. Trainers who use drugs to cheat; unsecured wagering pools with outdated technology; unregulated participants allowed access into those pools. People are just beginning to learn about some of the problems in these areas. In the last couple of years the light is being shined on them. These are serious problems that need to be dealt with. Big players realize they can’t trust the pools they are playing money into.”

Finally, Maloney said, the corporate mentality of many racetracks has hurt the game. “There is a disconnect with customers with some of these racetrack holding companies. They don’t really understand their business, and there’s too much short-term bottom line thinking; cutting costs, worrying about the next quarterly report, and too little thought about long-term improvement of the product.”

Maloney, who called betting exchanges a “two-edged sword” because of how they would cannibalize pari-mutuel betting, said the industry has had a wake-up call after being “rocked by betting and drug scandals and threatened” by the federal government. “This crossroad we’re at, what we do from here, will determine the fate of racing.”  

(Do you have an opinion on how the industry reverses the trend in declining handle? We’re interested in your comments below and in your thoughts about betting exchanges, the subject of the Daily Paulick Poll, which can be found on the left-hand column of the Paulick Report home page.)

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report 

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world. 

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary.

By Ray Paulick

“It’s hard to get half the people in this industry to agree on what day it is,” a Central Kentucky breeder said to me a couple of weeks ago, shortly after the Breeders’ Cup announced suspension of the stakes supplement program for 2009. “I can’t believe 83% of the people voting in your poll agreed that the Breeders’ Cup board made the wrong decision.”

The day after the results of the Daily Paulick Poll were reported (83% opposed the decision by the board of directors not to use cash reserves to fund the program, 10% supported it and 7% were unsure), the Breeders’ Cup reversed field, reinstating the stakes supplements – at least for 2009. Breeders’ Cup president Greg Avioli said he did not “anticipate the fervor of the response” to the original decision to suspend the program. Apparently, the poll results reflected the response Avioli and board members received in the way of telephone calls and emails from nominators to the Breeders’ Cup from around the country.

This wasn’t the first time judgments ran strong on an issue on which readers of the Paulick Report were asked to vote. The polls are not scientific, but the results are quite interesting and we are flattered by the daily response. This much we’ve learned: You’ve got opinions.

The most recent results, in fact, represent the strongest sentiment of any of the 40 polls we have conducted since just before the Breeders’ Cup World Championships in late October. (Click here to see archives of all the Daily Paulick Poll results.) We asked, “Does the National Thoroughbred Racing Association provide a strong central organization to move racing forward in the future?” The results have been stunning, with 94% saying “no” and only 6% answering “yes.”

In some ways, the question about the NTRA mirrored the results of earlier polls regarding the state of the industry and thoughts about some of the organizations that lead it. In mid-November, we asked, “In general, are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things are going in the Thoroughbred industry in the United States at this time.” The question was parallel to the right track/wrong track question the Gallup organization periodically asks of American citizens about the state of the nation.

According to our poll, 91% answered “dissatisfied,” suggesting the industry is currently on the wrong track. Of the remainder, 4% said they were satisfied and 5% were unsure. One e-mailer suggested that the 4% who said they were satisfied must not have understood the question.

Along those same lines, in early December we asked, “Are you confident the individuals in charge of the most prominent racing and breeding organizations in the United States are adequately addressing the problems the industry is currently facing?” That resulted in an 85% no confidence vote, with 10% saying they are confident in our industry leaders and 5% unsure.

 

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary.