MONMOUTH MEETS KEENELAND
John Clay of the Lexington Herald-Leader makes the case that the current Monmouth meet has more in common with Keeneland by taking a less-is-more approach to racing.
"Monmouth Park…is trying to engineer a transformation from day-to-day despair to an ‘event’ status designed to attract horses and patrons."
While we are only two days into the Million Dollar Meet, early indications show that Monmouth certainly now has more in common with the Lexington track than any other in country. What a difference a year makes.
Then come back to the Paulick Report and let us know what you think
Tags: bradford cummings, Herald-Leader, John Clay, Million Dollar Meet, monmouth park, Paulick Report
May 26th, 2010 at 7:51 am
This kind of adaptation brings a smile.
The difficult changes will come in time.
May 26th, 2010 at 8:12 am
>> Who knows, less-is-more just might save the sport.’
That should also apply towards nationwide takeout reductions.
It is time to get the ball rolling on a national plan to reduce the traditionally popular wagering pool WPS, exacta, trifecta pools to optimum levels. The way it was in horse racing’s heyday - 8%-12%.
Giving out rebates to established customers does not lower the bar for new racing fans.
Newbies still have a high hurdle to clear and 99% of them don’t. Their bankrolls simply do not allow them to participate as much as the regulars.
What good are marketing efforts if these new fans bring their novice status to do battle
against customers who are experienced against the parimutuel system?
These newbies continue to be swallowed up by the whales and sharks, many never to return.
By addressing the takeout rates - permanently - in the major wagering pools,
horse racing’s marketing efforts may actually come to fruition.
May 26th, 2010 at 8:24 am
Start spreading the news! Cater to racing fans by offering high quality racing and great customer service, focus on days and post times when there is the best opportunity for people to attend, show them how betting works and make it a special and exciting experience. Is salvation on the horizon for the ones who really get it?
May 26th, 2010 at 8:57 am
John Clay is right and we applaud him for using his space to exhibit the similarities. But Monmouth won’t disfigure its operations by the addition of a casino and demonstrates the distinction. Both operations have become boutique meetings which have historically been successful. It is only the grist-mill mentality operations that are failing and poisoning the population against the sport! Governments, whether state or other can provide lasting assistance when they their job.
May 26th, 2010 at 9:18 am
bh
well Monmouth would disfigure itself if it could!! remember…those monies come because they agreed NOT to ask for VLT’s which they money comes from. Ky Horse Racing would do the same if they COULD!
May 26th, 2010 at 9:28 am
From marketing, fan fatigue, and horse population viewpoints, less-is-more is a good idea. Exclusivity is one of the oldest and most reliable marketing angles. Small-time trainers may find it a struggle if they get shut out of races in the lower levels. A $5K claimer is still a $5K claimer even if the purse is huge, and there are far more horses at that level than at the higher levels. Employees may take a hit as well; 3x a week is a part-time job. I don’t dispute it’s a good idea. Just acknowledging the inevitable adjustments. Of course the adjustments we’re going through now are no picnic!
May 26th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Less is more - it’s the mantra that the racing AND breeding industries should take to the bank.
But it should be less is more across the board: less days, less numbers in foal crops, less - and by less I mean no - drugs used in racing horses, less tracks overall across the country. By making the product more rare - you immediately increase the value and interest in being a part of it to the general audience.
If we can ever get all the fiefdoms on the same page to make the hard decisions and centralize this business model and vision to reinvent the industry.
May 26th, 2010 at 10:29 am
#5 my point John was to separate the necessity to having a casino stuck in the middle of the paddock and say that it made racing better. Further to the point is that Government can compensate horse racing for assisting in destruction of the game. We can see the effect of increasing the purse levels and reducing the racing dates. This could have been done effectively long before now but somehow the operators never examined the benefits. There is an entire PR principle that has to be addressed as well while we are in the midst of experimentation. When you strip out the class of horse racing in the area of horses or humans you provide a degraded event with only a single dimensional aspect….simulcasting! The class with all of its ingredients must be maintained!
We are only attracting 14% of women because of our diminishing on-track conduct!
#6 Ohio Bred Girl: I sympathize with and respect the hard working individuals who staff our racecourses and who are responsible for for much of the public relations and protocol that is left but I am sure that you would rather be a part of something successful like NASCAR or other successful sports that are not conducted 5-6 days a week at the same venue. As for $5000 claimers, they certainly have a place in American racing but historically we have had a distinction as to where and when they perform. Because we have made pic sixes and other gimmicks take precedence over other categories on a saturday, sunday or holiday we don’t have to do our laundry in public. We have to get back to basics; change the model and pursue successful policies used in Europe and Asia. Gimmicks have permeated horse racing long before we began to employ them in the U.S.
May 26th, 2010 at 12:19 pm
As a former New Jersey horseman I think the concept is great, however, we thought that the Garden State Concept was great and look where that went. There are a lot of similarities in the both approaches
May 26th, 2010 at 12:26 pm
Cgriff said: “and by less I mean no - drugs used in racing horses”. Well said.
$5,000 claimers and under are fine if they become exceptions, if horses that used to be able to run before becoming injured are able to train and race off drugs, if they are born slow but are healthy, if they are thoroughly protected against abusive, stealth practices to numb or scare sick, spent and injured horses into racing including shockwave therapy, electric shock and beating.
$5,000 claimers are fine if earners of over $100,000 are prohibited from racing for $10,000 and under and if purses are never more than twice the claiming price.
$5,000 claimers are fine if horses are under stringent off-competition soudness monitoring, can be thoroughly examined and X-rayed at any time, examined two days before racing and on race day, if lifetime medical records are kept and disclosed at least to all examining vets and if DNF and dead claimed horses don’t have to be paid for.
May 26th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
#4 Cgriff and #10 Joe,
Where have you been all my life? We need more who think like you.
If we did away with drugs and all the disgusting practices - THEN we can be PROUD of racing.