Prairie Meadows Skips on Poly,Fixes Dirt track

[Left Bank]

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pb...39/1003/SPORTS
Glad to see them stick with the dirt.

Dick Clark would've had a stroke if they switched to poly.

[TitanSooner]

finally I'll be able to sleep at night

[pmayjr]

Yet, they still won't add a turf course...

[JJP]

[Star of the North]

This underscores the biggest problems with tracks that have slot machine revenue -- the revenue never goes to improve racing. PrM appears to be putting a band-aid on a racing surface that needs serious re-work.

And where is that damned turf course? This after I was told by a senior member of PrM racing management that it would be installed by 2004?

Slot machines at racetracks allow bad racing management to survive.


David M. Miller

[sumitas]

Star, you have pointed out a major downside. In New York, Finger Lakes has no turf. So last year management decided to put more of the profits into expanding the casino.

And this is a major reason why NY racing needs to be run by the NYRA. The other parties bidding, as has been pointed out, only showed up when the vlt became an option. Their real motive is purely to take from the fans.

[Left Bank]

Originally Posted by Star of the North

This underscores the biggest problems with tracks that have slot machine revenue -- the revenue never goes to improve racing. PrM appears to be putting a band-aid on a racing surface that needs serious re-work.

And where is that damned turf course? This after I was told by a senior member of PrM racing management that it would be installed by 2004?

Slot machines at racetracks allow bad racing management to survive.


David M. Miller

How can you say the revenue does not go to improve racing?Did you not read the article?They are redoing their dirt surface! Just because they are not installing Polycrap,you think this is bad?This is not some sort of "band aid"as you state.I think it is great that they are not jumping to polycrap or cushioncrap just because of some breakdowns.Horses break down on ALL surfaces.Prairie Meadows is one of the best managed tracks in the country and I think they know what they are doing

Originally Posted by Kimmeastar

How can you say the revenue does not go to improve racing?Did you not read the article?They are redoing their dirt surface! Just because they are not installing Polycrap,you think this is bad?This is not some sort of "band aid"as you state.I think it is great that they are not jumping to polycrap or cushioncrap just because of some breakdowns.Horses break down on ALL surfaces.Prairie Meadows is one of the best managed tracks in the country and I think they know what they are doing

That's not saying much.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Star of the North

This underscores the biggest problems with tracks that have slot machine revenue -- the revenue never goes to improve racing. PrM appears to be putting a band-aid on a racing surface that needs serious re-work.

And where is that damned turf course? This after I was told by a senior member of PrM racing management that it would be installed by 2004?

Slot machines at racetracks allow bad racing management to survive.


David M. Miller

So tracks would be better off closing up?
The fact that Praire Meadows is putting in a new dirt surface as opposed to synthetic is proof that slot machines are no good? I guess you could argue the case they are being cheap by not going poly but if there were no slots there would be no Praire Meadows.

pick your poison.

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

So tracks would be better off closing up?
The fact that Praire Meadows is putting in a new dirt surface as opposed to synthetic is proof that slot machines are no good? I guess you could argue the case they are being cheap by not going poly but if there were no slots there would be no Praire Meadows.

pick your poison.

In a word, yes.

If you are a horseplayer, what good does a track like Prairie Meadows or Presque do for you? Nothing. Just a waste of a half-dozen decent horses a day that robs real racetracks with real pools and less usurous takeouts of horses.

These places handle $500,000 a day with pools you cannot bet into seriously and somehow offer 250,000 a day in purses.

Was the thoroughbred racing world so much worse off 15 years ago when there was no Prairie Meadows?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by SentToStud

In a word, yes.

If you are a horseplayer, what good does a track like Prairie Meadows or Presque do for you? Nothing. Just a waste of a half-dozen decent horses a day that robs real racetracks with real pools and less usurous takeouts of horses.

These places handle $500,000 a day with pools you cannot bet into seriously and somehow offer 250,000 a day in purses.

Was the thoroughbred racing world so much worse off 15 years ago when there was no Prairie Meadows?

I know that you hate when I use facts but in 1992 (15 years ago) horseplayers in the US had 70393 races on which to bet on. In 2006 there were 51,668 race run. So it would seem that your theory is kind of......wrong?


source of stats-The Jockey Club

[ALostTexan]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I know that you hate when I use facts but in 1992 (15 years ago) horseplayers in the US had 70393 races on which to bet on. In 2006 there were 51,668 race run. So it would seem that your theory is kind of......wrong?


source of stats-The Jockey Club

Why has this never been brough up. Thanks for pointing this out.

[Pedigree Ann]

THe mid-late 1980s was the peak of the TB production boom that saw nearly 50K horses a year registered. We are now down to something in the lower 30K range. (I'm relying on memory here, since I'm over in England without my library so I could be out a bit.) There were more horses around to fill races in 1992.

PS. the number of races has gone down to accomodate the lesser number of horses born, but the number of stakes races, and especially graded stakes races, has NOT. So we now have the expanded stakes schedules of the 80s, with the lower crop numbers of the 00s.

[JohnGalt1]

Originally Posted by Pedigree Ann

THe mid-late 1980s was the peak of the TB production boom that saw nearly 50K horses a year registered. We are now down to something in the lower 30K range. (I'm relying on memory here, since I'm over in England without my library so I could be out a bit.) There were more horses around to fill races in 1992.

PS. the number of races has gone down to accomodate the lesser number of horses born, but the number of stakes races, and especially graded stakes races, has NOT. So we now have the expanded stakes schedules of the 80s, with the lower crop numbers of the 00s.

Didn't the rules for tax deductions for horse breeding and ownership change about that time?

[ALostTexan]

OK, but being no mathematician, but taking 70393 races to bet on, and with your approximate figure of 50,000 horses foaled in the 80's, that would be about 1.40 races per horse foaled.

In last year, with 51,668 races and approximatly 35,000 horses foaled, it is only 1.48 races per horse foaled, which is not a huge difference.

I understand the graded stakes claim, which I totally agree with, but the main complaints are places like Prairie Meadows, Ohio, etc., which don't have the graded stakes element of the argument.

These are only approximate figures, but ones that I have heard either in this thread or stated many times, and if they are off by all means correct me.

Just food for thought...