House Subcommittee Hearings

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You are the one who inferred that business wasnt steady. Look past the headlines and examine the actual facts. Wouldnt adding slots be changing the staus quo?

As for the drugs issue, there have been more changes in the last 3 years than the previous 30. If that is not good enough for you...

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here, nor what you're trying to defend. First you said the handle is steady, so all is a-okay. And then you said Wal-Mart is driving out other businesses, because they refused to change their business model, which contradicts the steady handle argument (which for the record, handle has dropped by since 2003, and it dropped since last year as well). And again, I'm not simply arguing drugs alone. Drugs are one in a long line of issues.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here, nor what you're trying to defend. First you said the handle is steady, so all is a-okay. And then you said Wal-Mart is driving out other businesses, because they refused to change their business model, which contradicts the steady handle argument (which for the record, handle has dropped by since 2003, and it dropped since last year as well). And again, I'm not simply arguing drugs alone. Drugs are one in a long line of issues.

I tried to make an analogy to say what may happen in the big picture yet you want to argue semantics. What i am trying to say is that if we raise takeout to fund this drug war we will wind up losing more customers than we will gain. If we take money out of purses we will lose more owners than we will gain. Either way it is a net loss. I am arguing drugs because that is what was the topic. I didnt hear any talk about other issues today. Hell the drugs are simple compared to simulcasting, host fees, source fees, etc.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I tried to make an analogy to say what may happen in the big picture yet you want to argue semantics. What i am trying to say is that if we raise takeout to fund this drug war we will wind up losing more customers than we will gain. If we take money out of purses we will lose more owners than we will gain. Either way it is a net loss. I am arguing drugs because that is what was the topic. I didnt hear any talk about other issues today. Hell the drugs are simple compared to simulcasting, host fees, source fees, etc.

I don't disagree. The take-out issues etc. all have repercussions, absolutely. But you have to take care of the core business model, because without it, everything else fails. Brushing these issues under the rug because of costs or other hoops, without fully investigating options, is nearsighted, which is all I'm saying.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

I don't disagree. The take-out issues etc. all have repercussions, absolutely. But you have to take care of the core business model, because without it, everything else fails. Brushing these issues under the rug because of costs or other hoops, without fully investigating options, is nearsighted, which is all I'm saying.

If there were some segment of the market that was awaiting greater regulation to start betting on a regular basis I may agree. But you seem to forget the customer placing the bet is the core business, not the race being run. The race is a by product of the bet. You cant tell if the race is being run by horses who are on steroids or not on them. Cost is what drives everything, Travis. That was the purpose of the analogy. if you price your self out of the market it doesnt matter what the product on the track looks like. And let me tell you the drug problem in this game has very little to do with the drugs being discussed.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

But you seem to forget the customer placing the bet is the core business, not the race being run. The race is a by product of the bet.

I definitely did not forget. I work for a customer-driven company, I'm deeply involved with our handle and decision making at LAD. It's a great experience, I've learned a remarkable amount. I'm awfully lucky in that regard. At the same time, I've also had opportunities to meet with folks who question racing's integrity, whether or not they're betting on legitimate horses. It's a scary trend. And today's hearings certainly do not help the general populations perception. Neither did Barbaro, nor Eight Belles. So right now, given this proverbial status-quo, we are walking on some thin ice with the general wagering public, which as we both know, are our customers.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

I definitely did not forget. I work for a customer-driven company, I'm deeply involved with our handle and decision making at LAD. It's a great experience, I've learned a remarkable amount. I'm awfully lucky in that regard. At the same time, I've also had opportunities to meet with folks who question racing's integrity, whether or not they're betting on legitimate horses. It's a scary trend. And today's hearings certainly do not help the general populations perception. Neither did Barbaro, nor Eight Belles. So right now, given this proverbial status-quo, we are walking on some thin ice with the general wagering public, which as we both know, are our customers.

My biggest problem with todays hearings was that it was a foregone conclusion as to what was going to be said. No one was there to cast doubt on some of the crap that was spewed. Remember that i have been a horsetrainer for a long time. We get the "all the races are fixed" from unknowing people all the time. I tell them yeah they are fixed, we just work 365 days a year from dawn to dusk to cover our tracks.

The funny thing about barbaro and eight belles is that "drugs" didnt play a central role in either tragedy. It is like a rash of NFL players getting killed in auto accidents despite being clean (no DUI's) and the Congress holding hearings on NFL players using steroids because of it.

The theme of todays hearings was supposed to be (if you believe the title) about Breeding, breakdowns and drugs but it seemed that 2 of the topics were hardly touched on as was the second panel who were rushed through so somebody could make a tee time it seemed.

What needed to be done a long time ago was an NFL style PR campaign to basically trick the public into believing what we wanted them to believe, because they are now being tricked into believing what Congress seemingly wants them to believe. Because anyone who believes that the NFL doesn t have a major issue with drugs is kidding themselves as shown by the lineman who the feds are worried about being whacked because he turned into a snitch for them.