Finley @ ESPN: Good times are over

[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.