Crazy Ideas
 

While on a long drive down the boring road, some thoughts came to my head. I was wondering would some kind of incentive plan work to help attract higher quality fields than what we are seeing these days. If this doesn't make sense, forgive me as I didn't totally think it all the way out. So I was thinking that instead of wasting money creating these stupid new BC races, they could put that money to better use. I was thinking that they could add $50k to the purse of each race that attracts a previous grade one winner to the field. For each horse, they could add $50k. For example, if the Whitney draws three horses that are grade one winners, there would be $150k added to the purse. I was thinking lesser amounts for grade two winners ($25k) and grade three winners ($10k). The money that is added to the purse could be distrubuted in the same manner as the rest of the purse or to make it more interesting, it could be winner take all. Is this something that could possibly be done? If it could be, do u think it would work?

King, I have to admit, but Polytrack might have alot to do with it. You should see the fields at Arlington, it is pretty amazing the turnaround that they have. The pools have really grown also.

how about adding 500k to any race that draws a sales topper from any sale?

2 sales toppers would be 1mil extra, and so on.

what?

what?

nudge nudge wink wink.

Suffolk Downs is trying a variation on this for the Mass Cap. They are going to give an extra $100K to any Grade I winner that wins the Mass Cap. An extra $200K to any double Grade I winner that wins the Mass Cap. Let's see who they attract.

--Dunbar

I hadn't read that. I think it's an interesting attempt. I don't know if it will work but at least it's trying something. I'm trying to think back to 1990. Didn't Arlington offer some kind of increase to the purse of the race they were trying to get Sunday Silence and Easy Goer too and because of the extra purse money, they ended up getting a couple of others that otherwise weren't considering the race? Anyone remember how that situation went?

It was designed as a challenge for Easy Goer, Sunday Silence and Criminal Type but the first two were retired before it was supposed to happen.

I remembered that much but I don't remember if Criminal Type still went to the race. I don't see it listed among his career wins. Do u remember if any of the other top horses of that year were planning to show up even before the two headliners dropped out? Do u remember what the purse bonus was supposed to be and how it was to be paid out?

I think it was supposed to be for all three of them and don't remember anything else ( that's a lot of questions for early in the morning ).

Criminal Type won the Whitney for his final career win. I think his flop in the Woodward was his final career start.

How bout making a rule that to run in the BC, you have to run in atleast 4-5 Grade 1 or 2 races? All of these phantom injuries would be a thing of the past.

stuff like this is good for the sport.
Attracting Grade 1 winners is big.
Even controversial ideas like appearance fees...

A comprehensive effort is needed if the sport of racing is to get serious. Management, Planning Group(ideas), Media Group(national television),Wager Service Group(phone/internet/rebates),Marketing Group

Why not make all of the BC races like the Derby. You get in on graded Stakes earnings or maybe even narrow it down to earnings from either Grade/Group 1 and 2 races or only select Grade/Group 1 and 2 races.

I cant see how a 50k bonus would attract more horses to a race. I suppose that it would be nice if you got 3 or 4 grade 1 winners but really what is the difference between a $500000 race and a $700000 race other than for the winner? Would the bonus be in effect for all grade 1 races? If so you are gonna need more money than just scrapping the new BC races (though I cant understand why people want to get rid of races that have not even had a chance to be run yet)

What would you do about the 2 yo races and Sprint?
I would love to know how many horses have skipped a BC race that they had a good chance of winning because of a "phantom "injury?

how about just ran in grade 1s ..the perfect drift series...

Tracks actually talking to each other might be nice.

Spacing their graded races and stakes races so they could all make money. I think the syn. has made bigger pools in general, but I am a bit tired of looking up races and see they have 5 horse fields in graded races. Drought conditions predominate when I am off in the summer and ready to get down to business. Thats why I am putting Saratoga down on my Calendar.

The 2 yo races should be done away with for other reasons that are apparent.

Because I finally bet the winner of one of them?

Apparent to whom?

To people that understand its like asking a teenage pitcher to throw 90 curveballs in a little league game.

I like watching them run also. But ultimately, its just not good for the animals. They are too young to be run this hard. It is apparent to me.

The entire game is then bad for the horses.

Asking any pitcher on any level at any age to throw 90 curveballs in a given game is a bad idea but I have yet to understand what we are supposed to do with 2 year olds if we cant race them? Send them to prep school for a year?

Train them.
Because you know most of the animals, if trained properly, will give you everything they have in a race. Enough to hurt themselves at this age. And the rider cant slow them down when there is money on them.

Yes it is.
But its worse for two year olds.

There is this falicy that horses only get hurt when they are giving all they have. Horses get hurt in most cases because they have conformational defects that dont allow them to strike the ground on an even, consistent basis. Eventually the problems that crop up as either primary lameness in the defect area or secondary lameness somewhere else due to the original defect. Younger horses are more apt to get sore shins but the thing about young horses is that they recover and heal quicker also.

Of course having a year's worth of training expenses in a 2 year old with no chance of recovering anything is not going to make the owning horses any more economically viable.

I wasnt talking about missing the BC because of a "phantom" injury but not running in the other races during the year. I think that by getting horses running more during the year more people may actually get interested in them. Give them time to acutally get a fan base.

I believe Phalaris has collected data that strongly supports the idea that the MORE you race 2-yr-olds, the longer their racing careers will be. This was on the ESPN board awhile back. There may have been constraints on how long the races should be. I don't remember the details, but Phalaris has posted here occasionally, too. Maybe he/she will check in.

--Dunbar

Never said this is how they only get hurt.

I said two year olds are still developing and to run them in races increases the probability of injury. And yes they do recover quicker, for the same reason they get injured, they are still growing. Same in humans.

ANd the money is the main reason why they are on the track at this age. It aint for their health and longevity.

And the main reason people race horses at 3? At 4? At 5? Or don't race them at 4? Or 5?

It's all about money for God's sakes.

Love to see the study. I would love to see the data on the two year olds that failed to run after two that was certainly taken into account (and why they failed to run; good luck with that injury report).

I just dont see breeders advertising longevity on the track as heavily as who their mommy and daddy were/are. So I cant believe horses are currently being bred for longevity on the track.

Two year olds need to run. Just not in races where they have a chance of getting totally exhausted, having their young immature bones and muscles go wobbly on them, and then taking that bad step. Or running them when they are already sore, which is going to happen more often in youngsters with developing muscles, having them go wobbly, and having to continue to the finish line under pressure from the jockey.

I have to agree with Bob Baffert and say that appearance fees is a good idea. If you throw $50k or $100k to the owner of a horse just to race then you may entice some runners.

I thought Bob was an advocate of the trainer get a fee.....and keeping it quiet.

Thank you for the obvious.

Are there ever attempts to weigh the money against what is over the line cruel to the animal? Seems to me there has been a long history of this conflict. With the two year olds...

Ok, that made me laugh. But you do have a point.

I thought you said they shouldn't be running two year olds.Now you say they should be running.WHich is it?

I'll stick to the opinions of professionals, like Chuck, and pass on your false concerns.

If you didn't race two year olds, then we would only get to see horses race for one or two years (age 3 and maybe age 4). Two year old racing adds a great deal of excitement to the sport.

So Chuck has no concerns?

And why are my concerns false? Your data and experience with this?