Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Linny
I agree about the plight of smaller operations but as a "free market" supporter I have concerns about limiting the size of some operations. Limiting stalls makes some sense. Guys like Todd in NY and others around the country can lieterally "control" a condition. last summer at SAR, Todd had a horse in almost every open allowance race carded. He tends to complain that a particlar condition never fills but it wont when he has 1/2 the horses on the grounds who are eligible. The secretary then runs around threatening smaller outfits that if they don't run their cheaper claiming mare in some 3other than allowance to fill a race for Todd or Shug that they'll lose stalls. So the guy takes a horse ready to earn some $$$ in a $20 claiming and runs her with stakes mares, gets creamed and then has "no horse" 2 weeks later when her condition shows up. How does that help horsemen? Explain to the owner that your mare is a sacrificial lamb for billionaires like Tabor and Phipps.
|
"Free markets" dont really exist except in textbooks. What other sport allows a few participants to corner the market on all the talent? It is like the Yankees and Red Sox having a 100 man roster and everybody else playing shorthanded. No one is denying any rights or freedoms, the tracks would simply be putting in rules that would attempt to balance the scales and create more competitive and bettable races. If Todd had 40 horses at every track in America then that is fine. But if you wanted to have your horse racing in NY and he did not have room in his NY stable then you would need to find a different trainer. Multiply this a few times and you have a better product. A better betting product will increase handle which is the lifeblood of the whole industry.
Your examples were right on by the way.