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..........

Originally Posted by 2MinsToPost

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

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?"

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?"

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.....

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.

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!

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.....