Quote:
|
Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
I respect Chuck's opinion as he obviously understands the physical aspect of this much better than I ever will, but I don't think that's the only issue here, and I for one am happy any time any racetrack seems to pay attention to the horseplayers' interests. The simple fact is that horseplayers waste an enormous amount of time handicapping races that end up completely different than the ones they originally analyzed. In NY, race after race gets significantly altered by late scratches, and the handicapping of claiming races in particular becomes superfluous until the late scratches are given. And, furthermore, the same trainers seem to scratch the most, and often this seems to be because the race does not set up well for their entrants. These scratched horses also show up in the very near future quite often. While I blame the racing office for carding similar opportunities for these scratched horses, I blame the trainers too, who show little to no regard, far too often, for the overall best interests of the game. Why should they be allowed to enter and then have the option of deciding if the race is too tough for their horse at the expense of the overall good of the game? When an eight horse race scratches down to five this is dramatically the case. Horseplayers are given a poor wagering opportunity, thus the handle suffers significantly, and everybody loses.
Nobody is suggesting that a trainer run an ailing horse, but we all know that this is quite often not the case with scratched horses, and perhaps a plan like this will minimize the problem horseplayers face with abundant scratches. I understand there are opposing views to this, and I could probably argue some of them as well, but to me the bottom line is that the game is much better overall when original fields remain intact......and when there's a sense that this will be the case on a consistent basis.
|
Both positions horseman vs. handicapper are completely plausible arguments.
The owners buy the horse, have it fed, trainered, and vetted. The owner wants the best opportunity to make their invest fruitful. Handicapper loses when owner takes position to scratch horse when conditions are more favorable another day. Who is wrong here? Nobody.. handicappers are looking sustain their livelihood...Owner/trainers looking after theirs... The good of the game theme is a bit weak and self serving.. If the owner/trainer picks better spots and wins more money they have ability to reinvest in the game and are more likely to do so. So isn't that just as good for game?
I think an owner should do what is in his/her best interest and handicappers should do the same.