Finley @ ESPN: Good times are over

[tector]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

There are 25000 less races than in 1989. Dont you think THAT is a response to the market?

Do you seriously think reducing the scope of the industry is going to influence govt in a positive manner?

We all know that we are basically held hostage by racinos and effect govt. But what you are saying is that the hostage committing suicide is a better option than being held hostage.

The problem is that the price of this form of gambling is not competitive in the market place. Reducing the number of tracks or races doesn't change this.

WTF--influence govt? Govt is floating racing in most places, to "save jobs" (aka welfare). My point to you is the opposite--it needs to conform to the market, which the government should withdraw from.

Maybe a handful of states need to really be breeding states--propping up Iowa, or Indiana, or NJ, or a bunch of other bogus breeding states is
BS. Never would happen in a free market.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by tector

WTF--influence govt? Govt is floating racing in most places, to "save jobs" (aka welfare). My point to you is the opposite--it needs to conform to the market, which the government should withdraw from.

Maybe a handful of states need to really be breeding states--propping up Iowa, or Indiana, or NJ, or a bunch of other bogus breeding states is
BS. Never would happen in a free market.

Dude this is 2011. Where is a free market in the gambling or for that matter in the agricultural business?

Those who are appalled at govt influence havent been paying attention.

[tector]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Dude this is 2011. Where is a free market in the gambling or for that matter in the agricultural business?

Those who are appalled at govt influence havent been paying attention.

OK, Karl, now I get it. The government should pick the "winners".

Bulletin--racing is going to lose under that scenario, too. It can't compete in influence, except maybe in KY--or maybe in NY, so long as it serves as an ATM for crooked pols.

The only difference will be that the survivors will not be the result of any rational market decisions (witness the ascent of PA racing).

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by tector

OK, Karl, now I get it. The government should pick the "winners".

Bulletin--racing is going to lose under that scenario, too. It can't compete in influence, except maybe in KY--or maybe in NY, so long as it serves as an ATM for crooked pols.

The only difference will be that the survivors will not be the result of any rational market decisions (witness the ascent of PA racing).

The govt already picks the winners. Look at NJ where a private casino gets 250 million handout while racing gets a pittance. Look at the car dealerships that were forced to close when the govt decided who would stay open and who would close. Look at the farming industry where govt influence pushes small farms to sell out to huge conglomerates.

[tector]

So, if government has abused its powers, your solution is more abuse.

Great.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by tector

So, if government has abused its powers, your solution is more abuse.

Great.

My solution? I don't think that simply closing tracks will make horse racing business better. You tell me that horse racing will get killed in an open free market and then tell me that we should let the market dictate. That would seem to be a questionable theory for making racing better unless you are one of the people who mistakenly believe that racing can be killed off and then "fixed" and brought back to life.

The amount of content is a minor issue that could be more easily solved with better pricing rather than elimination. It doesn't matter how little racing there is if it isn't priced properly. Exchange wagering could be a huge boon for the business if properly implemented. The beauty of it is that cheap races and short fields will be as attractive in many ways as a evenly matched field. Because the take is obviously going to be much lower than what we are used to, the amount of content will be important.