Here is a video by Joe Scully, a rodeo MC, shot at Fort Erie Race Track:
Many good points are made. This move has economic disaster written all over it. Slots are racetracks partnerships is a winning deal for jobs and the province. It is a program that the USA is following, even where casinos are being allowed for the very first time. Ending the program will have long enduring sweeping consequences.
One thing Scully is wrong about is that there will still be revenues for the municipalities (perhaps not as much), but some will lose them altogether, and some will start seeing them for the first time.
Finally there is some noise about Public Cost Benefit Analysis. This should have been an issue before the budget was voted on, especially after Dwight Duncan doubted the 60,000 jobs number. The fact he doesn't know if it is 10,000, 20,000, or 60,000 proves that this decision was done without due diligence.
I don't know about you, but I've never cared much about Ontario politics. I think Ontario politicians rely on voter apathy. Being a social liberal who believes in separation of church and state, I took a stance a few years ago against John Tory because he wanted to fund religious schools, but other than that I really didn't give a rats butt about politics. Now, I'm becoming fascinated by it, and the more I learn, the more I've become disgusted by the Liberal Party of Ontario. They seem to take deception to brand new levels.
I believe that their ending of slots at racetracks program will kill the party in the future. They won't be able to overcome losing many voters for life. Politicians like Kim Craitor are done if Fort Erie does close. He couldn't even get Fort Erie a gaming zone. If I were him, I'd cross the floor ASAP.
The Liberals aren't only to blame for this. They only have a minority government, Tim Hudak has not come out and stated what he would have done, or what can be done to rectify things, and the issue wasn't important enough to Andrea Horwath to either vote against the budget or demand a Cost Benefit study first.
I really don't know what is going to happen in the end here, but I'm not very optimistic, despite the 3 man committee, the Ontario Ombudsman and the work of Dennis Mills (Racing Future). I can't see the corrupt Ontario Liberal government bending, but I hope I'm wrong.
On Twitter check out @racing_future,
@Ont_Ombudsman, and @HonestDwight.
15 July 2012
The Last Prince Of Wales At Fort Erie?
There really is no optimism going on regarding a 2013 season at Fort Erie. However, I don't think there is anyone who believes that the fight to stay open is over either. In fact, the whole horse racing industry in Ontario still are clinging on hope that the decision to end the slots at racetrack program will be overturned. It isn't like the current clowns who are running Ontario into the ground haven't done about faces before (but usually for political gain only) Take the cancelled Mississauga power plant, which will cost Ontario tax payers over $180 million for example. That about face was all about saving Liberal Party of Ontario seats, the problem with the slots program is that even if the Liberal Party were to reverse the decision, they would not be able to gain any future votes out of it. They've lost many votes for life over the decision to end slots. I still believe that either way, there are going to be a lot more large embarrassment in store for the Liberal Party when the Ontario Ombudsman starts blowing the whistle.
Back to Fort Erie. The track was already on life support before the announcement to end slots was made. I believe the only hope for The Fort is if a new buyer comes along and without slots or other forms of gambling, the likelihood is very remote. It does have the possibility to become a training centre, but with the anti-horse racing minority government that is in place, there is a major possibility that too much harm will occur and a never go back situation may result.
At this time, I can't see the track being plowed down to rubble either. It costs money to do that, and upon losing its number one employer, Fort Erie industrial or residential land won't be sought after when it comes to new developments. So there is a possibility that Fort Erie will stand empty until the next election, when hopefully, the new government will come in and help reopen the joint.
Anyway, it is a shame that a minority government can come in and kill an industry. It is hard not to blame the other parties for allowing it to happen, but the reality is that neither cared enough to make it a worthwhile issue.
History time:
Did you know that 61 years ago, Fort Erie Racetrack was involved in a huge race fixing scandal? The majority of the jockey colony was either ruled off, suspended or fined. There was even a Lady In Black, a Mr. Fix It, and a Mr. Big Money. Sounds like movie material.
Interesting that back then a jockey, Robert Wankmueller, was arrested for defrauding the public. Imagine that? When did the rules change that defrauding the public by trainers now results in a $300 fine and/or a warning?
Handicapping Time:
I threw some mud against the wall this morning, in an attempt to find the Prince Of Wales winner. I like Dixie Strike. She came back nicely to run a decent troubled and wide third in the Queen's Plate. I think the switch from poly to will not bother her as much as some of the others in the field. My long shot contender is Ultimate Destiny, a horse who seems to be peaking. You can't discount the bottom horse either, Roger Attfield trained Colleen's Sailor. Corey Nakatani must have felt some potential in the Plate for him to take another plane ride and dust off his passport for the Prince of Wales. As for the probable favorite, Irish Mission, her breeding screams out grass and poly, she has also run quite a few good races in a row. Breeding and bounce factor and lack of betting value makes her a very good pitch this afternoon.
Back to Fort Erie. The track was already on life support before the announcement to end slots was made. I believe the only hope for The Fort is if a new buyer comes along and without slots or other forms of gambling, the likelihood is very remote. It does have the possibility to become a training centre, but with the anti-horse racing minority government that is in place, there is a major possibility that too much harm will occur and a never go back situation may result.
At this time, I can't see the track being plowed down to rubble either. It costs money to do that, and upon losing its number one employer, Fort Erie industrial or residential land won't be sought after when it comes to new developments. So there is a possibility that Fort Erie will stand empty until the next election, when hopefully, the new government will come in and help reopen the joint.
Anyway, it is a shame that a minority government can come in and kill an industry. It is hard not to blame the other parties for allowing it to happen, but the reality is that neither cared enough to make it a worthwhile issue.
History time:
Did you know that 61 years ago, Fort Erie Racetrack was involved in a huge race fixing scandal? The majority of the jockey colony was either ruled off, suspended or fined. There was even a Lady In Black, a Mr. Fix It, and a Mr. Big Money. Sounds like movie material.
Interesting that back then a jockey, Robert Wankmueller, was arrested for defrauding the public. Imagine that? When did the rules change that defrauding the public by trainers now results in a $300 fine and/or a warning?
Handicapping Time:
I threw some mud against the wall this morning, in an attempt to find the Prince Of Wales winner. I like Dixie Strike. She came back nicely to run a decent troubled and wide third in the Queen's Plate. I think the switch from poly to will not bother her as much as some of the others in the field. My long shot contender is Ultimate Destiny, a horse who seems to be peaking. You can't discount the bottom horse either, Roger Attfield trained Colleen's Sailor. Corey Nakatani must have felt some potential in the Plate for him to take another plane ride and dust off his passport for the Prince of Wales. As for the probable favorite, Irish Mission, her breeding screams out grass and poly, she has also run quite a few good races in a row. Breeding and bounce factor and lack of betting value makes her a very good pitch this afternoon.
2 July 2012
Statistics Point To A Dying Game That Needs To Change
NYRA's Oversight Board Member Richard Aurelio recently stated "The sport is dying. Every time you look at the obituary page you’re losing a racing fan.” This made DRF's Mike Watchmaker very mad.
Though Watchmaker brings up good points, like the stands have always been full of older people, which, because of the lack of younger people in the crowd, leads to the false conclusion that when the older players die, it is over for horse racing. The reason this wasn't true in the past is that 45 year olds and up have more disposable cash and more time to finally embrace the game that hooked them when they were younger.
Watchmaker doesn't address why things might be different this time around: A much smaller amount of the new 45 year olds today were bitten by the race track bug at an earlier age, and going forward the percentages will even be smaller.
A brief history is needed to explain this. Back in the 60's, horse racing was mainstream, many sitcoms on TV had at least one episode devoted to a racetrack theme. Outside of Vegas, it was the only game in town. You had to go to the track, or by the early 70's an OTB, to place a bet (except for those who played with bookies, but even these players went to the track often). The stands were packed, not only with 45 plusers who were regulars but their kids as well. The Horseplayers were limited to WPS bets most races, as there was maybe one double and a couple of exactors tops for a typical card of racing.
The fact that WPS wagers were predominant meant that collective takeout back then was in the 15-16% range, which meant more churn, and more gambling satisfaction as a limited 8 race card ensured that most patron would leave the track with at least some money, which for a gambler lead to one thing: Looking forward to the next day that the track was open and/or the next day they can make it to the track....and who needs to pay for a babysitter when you could bring your kid in for free.
The game was beatable by a few too back then. Those who made their own track variants had a huge edge (this was taken away gradually, as the DRF provided some archaic variants culminating in 1990 when Beyer figs were in every Form). There were visible winners, thanks in part to a lot of dummy money, as there was pretty much no other gambling competition, which meant that there was a lot of money in the pool that came from guessers (only 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 players actually bought the Form).
The 70's came along and so did lotteries and also a lot of sports franchises began to pop up. The Toronto Blue Jays had a noticeable negative affect on the attendance numbers at Woodbine, especially on weekends. Dummy money was still out there, but exotics started to become available in every race, and this drove up the collective track takeout and it reduced churn as well. Players were going home with less money, and they also needed a bigger bankroll to enjoy the card. This weeded out a few more, and stands started to see a drop off in kids (today's 45 year olds).
The 80's saw even more exotic wagers, collective takeout continued to creep upwards, and intertrack wagering came into play. You didn't have to go to the live venue to place a bet. It is very tough for a regular to bring a kid to an intertrack without looking like a complete degenerate. Kids could not have any fun in that setting, it is light years away from the live racing experience. Still, kids became scarce at racetracks, as gamblers were starting to go broke much faster, as they now had a lot more races and betting types to play on any giving day. Horse racing had more plays an hour, the takeout should have dropped in the direction of blackjack and slots, but went the other way instead.
With the 90's came Charity and Indian Casinos. More bang for the buck for gamblers, as casino games have much lower holds. Handicappers were starting to get discouraged as dummy money started disappearing quickly, it was good handicappers versus good and great handicappers. The playing field was equalized too with the track variant adjusted speed figure. Horseplayers were losing more quickly, many didn't realize why, but enjoyment started to drop, however, the fact that more tracks were available meant that those who did play, played with a bigger bankroll. Lets not forget that those who were playing in the 90's, were mostly got the needle in their arm as a kid in the 50's to early 70's. However, there were less and less visible winners as the Century turned.
In the early 2000's, there was still a nice spike up as the majority of people in Canada and the USA could now play at local restaurants, intertrack locations, and finally from home. Except for those who reside in States like Arizona and Texas, a Horseplayer can now pretty much play a race from anywhere anytime. If Watchmaker's 45 year old theory is true, handle should be soaring today. It is not.
Lets look at some cold hard facts:
Between 2000-2010 the population of 45-64 year olds grew 31.5% in the USA
Total North American handle dropped 25% from 2000-2010.
Is it the economy or increased competition? Vegas should be a good barometer as competition from all other locations and a bad economy should mean that Vegas would have experienced a drop off as well. Wrong.
Vegas total handle increased by 11.7%.
In real money terms though, Vegas is off, as inflation rose 26% from 2000-2010. But again, with more and more casinos popping up across American, they still fared quite well.
So lets look at horse racing one more time from the angle of 45 year olds or greater. Handle in 2000 was 15 Billion, multiply that by the Vegas increase which takes into account inflation minus competition and the bad economy (11%), and multiply that by the increase in population for those demographics (31.5%). Horse racing handle should be hovering around $21.9 Billion instead of $11.5 Billion.
The game is dying. Increased takeout caused by actual hikes to a shift in higher takeout wagers available is a main cause. Another cause is the increase in signal fees that ADWs have been seeing of late, cutting into rebates available to every day players, which creates less churn. Also, protectionism from signal hogs, to States not allowing internet wagering, to States that have implemented home market fees, have all added to less churn and have turned many existing Horseplayers to give up on horse racing.
But the main reason is a diminishing amount of today's 45 year old, as they were not weaned on horse racing. And because of that, it is hard to convince them to play a game that nobody beats long term, and that has a very big learning curve. Why learn a game that is perceived to be unbeatable?, when there are games like poker that are perceived to be beatable by a few, the same is true of sports wagering, and to a lesser extent, blackjack which has a very low house edge.
Drugs aren't the problem either. They've been associated with horse racing even prior to the inception of parimutuel wagering. Sure, a movement to integrity will help, but only if there is a growing customer base.
It isn't over for horse racing, but there needs to be visible winners created.
Takeout needs to reduced to the 15-16% percent range by all tracks, and if this is successful, further drops need to be made. Until that happens, rebates for all needs to be embraced by the industry.
Low takeout Pick 5's don't work. It doesn't create churn, it doesn't attract new bettors. The same is true about Jackpot bets. If a Jackpot bet can't get new people right from the start, all it does is take a lot of churn money out of the bettor's hands.
Exchange wagering needs to be a reality. Getting families to go to the track as regulars is a dead deal. Horse racing needs to get with the times. The only way to cultivate the 20-35 year old crowd is to give them a high churn fix, one that some can actually win at, which will create a buzz.
In the meantime, a nation wide lottery type bet (a Pick 9) similar to the V75, that is available to be bet at lottery kiosks and every track and ADW, will certainly help get more horse racing exposure from 45 year old plusers.
The time has come to let the market decide the price of the bet, not the Horsemen or self serving Racetrack owners, if racing is to grow.
Though Watchmaker brings up good points, like the stands have always been full of older people, which, because of the lack of younger people in the crowd, leads to the false conclusion that when the older players die, it is over for horse racing. The reason this wasn't true in the past is that 45 year olds and up have more disposable cash and more time to finally embrace the game that hooked them when they were younger.
Watchmaker doesn't address why things might be different this time around: A much smaller amount of the new 45 year olds today were bitten by the race track bug at an earlier age, and going forward the percentages will even be smaller.
A brief history is needed to explain this. Back in the 60's, horse racing was mainstream, many sitcoms on TV had at least one episode devoted to a racetrack theme. Outside of Vegas, it was the only game in town. You had to go to the track, or by the early 70's an OTB, to place a bet (except for those who played with bookies, but even these players went to the track often). The stands were packed, not only with 45 plusers who were regulars but their kids as well. The Horseplayers were limited to WPS bets most races, as there was maybe one double and a couple of exactors tops for a typical card of racing.
The fact that WPS wagers were predominant meant that collective takeout back then was in the 15-16% range, which meant more churn, and more gambling satisfaction as a limited 8 race card ensured that most patron would leave the track with at least some money, which for a gambler lead to one thing: Looking forward to the next day that the track was open and/or the next day they can make it to the track....and who needs to pay for a babysitter when you could bring your kid in for free.
The game was beatable by a few too back then. Those who made their own track variants had a huge edge (this was taken away gradually, as the DRF provided some archaic variants culminating in 1990 when Beyer figs were in every Form). There were visible winners, thanks in part to a lot of dummy money, as there was pretty much no other gambling competition, which meant that there was a lot of money in the pool that came from guessers (only 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 players actually bought the Form).
The 70's came along and so did lotteries and also a lot of sports franchises began to pop up. The Toronto Blue Jays had a noticeable negative affect on the attendance numbers at Woodbine, especially on weekends. Dummy money was still out there, but exotics started to become available in every race, and this drove up the collective track takeout and it reduced churn as well. Players were going home with less money, and they also needed a bigger bankroll to enjoy the card. This weeded out a few more, and stands started to see a drop off in kids (today's 45 year olds).
The 80's saw even more exotic wagers, collective takeout continued to creep upwards, and intertrack wagering came into play. You didn't have to go to the live venue to place a bet. It is very tough for a regular to bring a kid to an intertrack without looking like a complete degenerate. Kids could not have any fun in that setting, it is light years away from the live racing experience. Still, kids became scarce at racetracks, as gamblers were starting to go broke much faster, as they now had a lot more races and betting types to play on any giving day. Horse racing had more plays an hour, the takeout should have dropped in the direction of blackjack and slots, but went the other way instead.
With the 90's came Charity and Indian Casinos. More bang for the buck for gamblers, as casino games have much lower holds. Handicappers were starting to get discouraged as dummy money started disappearing quickly, it was good handicappers versus good and great handicappers. The playing field was equalized too with the track variant adjusted speed figure. Horseplayers were losing more quickly, many didn't realize why, but enjoyment started to drop, however, the fact that more tracks were available meant that those who did play, played with a bigger bankroll. Lets not forget that those who were playing in the 90's, were mostly got the needle in their arm as a kid in the 50's to early 70's. However, there were less and less visible winners as the Century turned.
In the early 2000's, there was still a nice spike up as the majority of people in Canada and the USA could now play at local restaurants, intertrack locations, and finally from home. Except for those who reside in States like Arizona and Texas, a Horseplayer can now pretty much play a race from anywhere anytime. If Watchmaker's 45 year old theory is true, handle should be soaring today. It is not.
Lets look at some cold hard facts:
Between 2000-2010 the population of 45-64 year olds grew 31.5% in the USA
Total North American handle dropped 25% from 2000-2010.
Is it the economy or increased competition? Vegas should be a good barometer as competition from all other locations and a bad economy should mean that Vegas would have experienced a drop off as well. Wrong.
Vegas total handle increased by 11.7%.
In real money terms though, Vegas is off, as inflation rose 26% from 2000-2010. But again, with more and more casinos popping up across American, they still fared quite well.
So lets look at horse racing one more time from the angle of 45 year olds or greater. Handle in 2000 was 15 Billion, multiply that by the Vegas increase which takes into account inflation minus competition and the bad economy (11%), and multiply that by the increase in population for those demographics (31.5%). Horse racing handle should be hovering around $21.9 Billion instead of $11.5 Billion.
The game is dying. Increased takeout caused by actual hikes to a shift in higher takeout wagers available is a main cause. Another cause is the increase in signal fees that ADWs have been seeing of late, cutting into rebates available to every day players, which creates less churn. Also, protectionism from signal hogs, to States not allowing internet wagering, to States that have implemented home market fees, have all added to less churn and have turned many existing Horseplayers to give up on horse racing.
But the main reason is a diminishing amount of today's 45 year old, as they were not weaned on horse racing. And because of that, it is hard to convince them to play a game that nobody beats long term, and that has a very big learning curve. Why learn a game that is perceived to be unbeatable?, when there are games like poker that are perceived to be beatable by a few, the same is true of sports wagering, and to a lesser extent, blackjack which has a very low house edge.
Drugs aren't the problem either. They've been associated with horse racing even prior to the inception of parimutuel wagering. Sure, a movement to integrity will help, but only if there is a growing customer base.
It isn't over for horse racing, but there needs to be visible winners created.
Takeout needs to reduced to the 15-16% percent range by all tracks, and if this is successful, further drops need to be made. Until that happens, rebates for all needs to be embraced by the industry.
Low takeout Pick 5's don't work. It doesn't create churn, it doesn't attract new bettors. The same is true about Jackpot bets. If a Jackpot bet can't get new people right from the start, all it does is take a lot of churn money out of the bettor's hands.
Exchange wagering needs to be a reality. Getting families to go to the track as regulars is a dead deal. Horse racing needs to get with the times. The only way to cultivate the 20-35 year old crowd is to give them a high churn fix, one that some can actually win at, which will create a buzz.
In the meantime, a nation wide lottery type bet (a Pick 9) similar to the V75, that is available to be bet at lottery kiosks and every track and ADW, will certainly help get more horse racing exposure from 45 year old plusers.
The time has come to let the market decide the price of the bet, not the Horsemen or self serving Racetrack owners, if racing is to grow.
24 June 2012
Queen's Plate Prediction and More
I feel obligated to at least predict the winner of today's Queen's Plate. I'll start off by stating that I don't like Strait of Dover. He reminds me of Not Bourbon, and even though that horse won the Plate, generally, those type are not successful at a mile and a quarter. This one hasn't gone past a mile and a sixteenth, and hasn't raced in 43 days. To me, he is a pitch.
River Rush was very green in the Plate Trial and still pulled off a 5 length victory. The time for the race was 7 ticks faster than the very competitive Oaks. However, he travels like a sore horse and that might explain the fact he has had only 3 well spaced out races in his career. I expect a bounce, and that might mean he can still be used for third or fourth.
When taking recency and mileage under the belt (fitness and endurance), two horses stand out: The filly, Dixie Strike, disappointed in the Oaks, though she may have bounced. Her second last race is good enough to win the Plate. She gets blinkers on and has a five pound weight advantage (as does Oaks winner Irish Mission, who is a major bounce candidate, and is also inferior when it comes to speed figures). Trainer Mark Casse may have taken it too easy on Dixie Strike going into the Oaks, and I expect a much better effort in the Plate.
The other horse that looks to come into the race fit and completely ready to peak is Classic Bryce. He has a good post and jockey Todd Kabel will get the most out of him. His last running line in the Plate Trial is an indicator that he might enjoy a more relaxed pace that usually comes with a stretch out in distance. If he kicks in at all in the stretch, he could be the one.
Finally, the best jockey in North America, Ramon Dominguez, is aboard Big Creek. He was off a 43 day layoff going into the Plate Trial and he chased while running outside (which was against the bias, as the top three finishers were the ones closest to the rail during most of the race). Dominguez is also in a position to over whip the horse (he can afford the fine just as Alex Solis did in the Oaks with Irish Mission) if the horse needs it, as he would just be a first time offender, and excessive whipping would only cost him around 20% of his share...and no suspension.
So here is the superfecta: Dixie Strike, Big Creek, Classic Bryce, and River Rush.
The Crap Being Spewed By The Ontario Liberal Party
The Paulick Report has put out quite a few articles bringing to light the dismal situation the future of Ontario horse racing is facing right now. I had to chime in with a comment on one of his articles:
On the other side, as Pull The Pocket points out, the Ontario racing industry seems to be putting out unnecessary propaganda too. Mainly, it is done by a few, on articles in newspapers, Standardbred Canada, and Facebook, where comments and even articles use terms like "ill advised" plan, or "inexplicable" when referring to the new way the OLG wants to have casinos run.
Bottom line, and I've stated here before, the OLG knows they run an inefficient operation. Salaries and benefits have got way out of hand. They also don't want to pay for the expense of expanding gaming. So they have decided to privatize, which means they intend to just keep the role of oversight, and lose the role of operator.
The old deal was basically 10% to the tracks, 10% to the horsemen, and 5% to the municipality. That doesn't mean they made 75%. They had to pay the expenses, and in many cases, that works out to a high percentage of the 75% they retain, when you factor in things like utilities on top of highly paid casino workers. So in order to attract new operators the OLG will have to take a much smaller percentage of gross casino revenues, and bottom line, they could make more money in the long run....but when you take into account the lost horse racing jobs, the negative effects on the businesses near racetracks, etc., the government may still wind up in worse shape.
The reality is that the OLG only gets 20% of total gaming revenues at Caesar's in Windsor, so the government makes money, but Caesar's actually still loses money after giving the government the 20% share. There are a lot of operating expenses in running a casino. Table games have much thinner margins than slots as it takes a lot more employees to run those games, for example.
My point is that those questioning the new deal shouldn't be focused on the potential profits the OLG is expecting to make (they expect to make more by eliminating the expenses), but focus on the social and job impact that destroying the horse racing industry will have. The government's number one goal shouldn't be making the most profits they can off gambling, but keeping employment numbers as high as possible, and micro economies going as strongly as possible.
Frog Juice
The frog juice scandal has been growing legs. Louisiana is starting to name the culprits whose horses tested positive. Right now they are only facing 6 months, which is a typical slap on the wrist the industry tends to hand out. I believe these suspensions will wind up being much longer once final decision are made.
In a nutshell, it is so hard to catch cheaters, cheaters should be dealt with as harshly as possible when caught. It is the only way to deter those who seem to always be a step ahead of the regulators and lab testers.
2 years minimum, $50,000 fines, and possible jail sentences for those who use illegal drugs (I'm not talking about overages on legal substances, but illegal substances). This is the only way to clean up horse racing.
To show what horse racing is up against, here is a post from Pace Advantage by a lab worker who uses the handle Storm Chaser:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorcus99
'I doubt there is a substance that is undetectable. There are only compounds that are not tested for yet.'
Storm Chaser posted:
'Great quote. To define the process, all substances are deemed undetectable until the specific lab can identify the gc-ms fingerprint of a specific drug. One it is identified then it is placed, if requested by the racing board as an illegal substance, to the labs testing profile.
The labs are usually the second in the chain to learn of a new doping agent. Once it is brought to their attention, then they have to try and acquire the drug to be able to break it down and test it. That process takes many months.
We just went through this with the NCAA and the other accredited labs in dealing with a new synthetic marijuana from Europe. We all heard the rumours about it, but could not acquire it here in the states. Our lab went to Germany to acquire it, bring it back to their lab to start analysing it. Mind you they had to get people to ingest it, so the could see how it was metabolized in the urine so they could devise a test for it. Then it took months of analysing the data before the felt good about testing for it in their clients athletes.
And then we found out that all the drug guys had to do was change one small part of the chemical mixture of the synthetic marijuana, and it was undetectable again because they changed the fingerprint again.
Lesson to be learned, the drug guys are always going to be ahead of the test labs with no end in sight.,
__________________
River Rush was very green in the Plate Trial and still pulled off a 5 length victory. The time for the race was 7 ticks faster than the very competitive Oaks. However, he travels like a sore horse and that might explain the fact he has had only 3 well spaced out races in his career. I expect a bounce, and that might mean he can still be used for third or fourth.
When taking recency and mileage under the belt (fitness and endurance), two horses stand out: The filly, Dixie Strike, disappointed in the Oaks, though she may have bounced. Her second last race is good enough to win the Plate. She gets blinkers on and has a five pound weight advantage (as does Oaks winner Irish Mission, who is a major bounce candidate, and is also inferior when it comes to speed figures). Trainer Mark Casse may have taken it too easy on Dixie Strike going into the Oaks, and I expect a much better effort in the Plate.
The other horse that looks to come into the race fit and completely ready to peak is Classic Bryce. He has a good post and jockey Todd Kabel will get the most out of him. His last running line in the Plate Trial is an indicator that he might enjoy a more relaxed pace that usually comes with a stretch out in distance. If he kicks in at all in the stretch, he could be the one.
Finally, the best jockey in North America, Ramon Dominguez, is aboard Big Creek. He was off a 43 day layoff going into the Plate Trial and he chased while running outside (which was against the bias, as the top three finishers were the ones closest to the rail during most of the race). Dominguez is also in a position to over whip the horse (he can afford the fine just as Alex Solis did in the Oaks with Irish Mission) if the horse needs it, as he would just be a first time offender, and excessive whipping would only cost him around 20% of his share...and no suspension.
So here is the superfecta: Dixie Strike, Big Creek, Classic Bryce, and River Rush.
The Crap Being Spewed By The Ontario Liberal Party
The Paulick Report has put out quite a few articles bringing to light the dismal situation the future of Ontario horse racing is facing right now. I had to chime in with a comment on one of his articles:
The tactics used by the Ontario Liberal Party really sickened me. Calling it a subsidy and pitting it against health care and education. The reality is that it is a business partnership and both partners needed each other to get it going. This arrangement has been the blueprint for all other slots deals in the US because of its success. As for pitting the revenues the tracks and horsemen get from slots, it is the goal of the OLG (a Crown Corp.) to privatize slots. What that means is the most of profits (that went to racetracks and purses), if not all of them will go to private operators instead of the racing industry and NOT to health care and education.
As for calling it a subsidy, in Ontario public sector workers make close to 30-40% more than private sector workers doing similar jobs when factoring in benefits (there is something called the Sunshine List, government workers who make over 100k a year, and it grows in leaps and bounds each year. In 2011, over 70,000 people were on the list). The Ontario taxpayer is subsidizing these overpaid individuals big time, yet the government is looking at wiping out the livelihood of those involved in the racing industry, many who make net incomes of 20k-50k.
On the other side, as Pull The Pocket points out, the Ontario racing industry seems to be putting out unnecessary propaganda too. Mainly, it is done by a few, on articles in newspapers, Standardbred Canada, and Facebook, where comments and even articles use terms like "ill advised" plan, or "inexplicable" when referring to the new way the OLG wants to have casinos run.
Bottom line, and I've stated here before, the OLG knows they run an inefficient operation. Salaries and benefits have got way out of hand. They also don't want to pay for the expense of expanding gaming. So they have decided to privatize, which means they intend to just keep the role of oversight, and lose the role of operator.
The old deal was basically 10% to the tracks, 10% to the horsemen, and 5% to the municipality. That doesn't mean they made 75%. They had to pay the expenses, and in many cases, that works out to a high percentage of the 75% they retain, when you factor in things like utilities on top of highly paid casino workers. So in order to attract new operators the OLG will have to take a much smaller percentage of gross casino revenues, and bottom line, they could make more money in the long run....but when you take into account the lost horse racing jobs, the negative effects on the businesses near racetracks, etc., the government may still wind up in worse shape.
The reality is that the OLG only gets 20% of total gaming revenues at Caesar's in Windsor, so the government makes money, but Caesar's actually still loses money after giving the government the 20% share. There are a lot of operating expenses in running a casino. Table games have much thinner margins than slots as it takes a lot more employees to run those games, for example.
My point is that those questioning the new deal shouldn't be focused on the potential profits the OLG is expecting to make (they expect to make more by eliminating the expenses), but focus on the social and job impact that destroying the horse racing industry will have. The government's number one goal shouldn't be making the most profits they can off gambling, but keeping employment numbers as high as possible, and micro economies going as strongly as possible.
Frog Juice
The frog juice scandal has been growing legs. Louisiana is starting to name the culprits whose horses tested positive. Right now they are only facing 6 months, which is a typical slap on the wrist the industry tends to hand out. I believe these suspensions will wind up being much longer once final decision are made.
In a nutshell, it is so hard to catch cheaters, cheaters should be dealt with as harshly as possible when caught. It is the only way to deter those who seem to always be a step ahead of the regulators and lab testers.
2 years minimum, $50,000 fines, and possible jail sentences for those who use illegal drugs (I'm not talking about overages on legal substances, but illegal substances). This is the only way to clean up horse racing.
To show what horse racing is up against, here is a post from Pace Advantage by a lab worker who uses the handle Storm Chaser:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorcus99
'I doubt there is a substance that is undetectable. There are only compounds that are not tested for yet.'
Storm Chaser posted:
'Great quote. To define the process, all substances are deemed undetectable until the specific lab can identify the gc-ms fingerprint of a specific drug. One it is identified then it is placed, if requested by the racing board as an illegal substance, to the labs testing profile.
The labs are usually the second in the chain to learn of a new doping agent. Once it is brought to their attention, then they have to try and acquire the drug to be able to break it down and test it. That process takes many months.
We just went through this with the NCAA and the other accredited labs in dealing with a new synthetic marijuana from Europe. We all heard the rumours about it, but could not acquire it here in the states. Our lab went to Germany to acquire it, bring it back to their lab to start analysing it. Mind you they had to get people to ingest it, so the could see how it was metabolized in the urine so they could devise a test for it. Then it took months of analysing the data before the felt good about testing for it in their clients athletes.
And then we found out that all the drug guys had to do was change one small part of the chemical mixture of the synthetic marijuana, and it was undetectable again because they changed the fingerprint again.
Lesson to be learned, the drug guys are always going to be ahead of the test labs with no end in sight.,
__________________
14 June 2012
What Ontario Horse Racing Should Do With The Transitional Funding
I'm still not convinced that this nightmare for the Ontario horse racing (the removal of the revenue sharing agreement for slots at racetracks) can't be reversed. But those who seem to know more than me say "no chance," so I'll believe them for now.
The OLG seems to have acted way too fast as they do not have their ducks in a row, not even close. They don't know which tracks will remain, which jurisdictions will accept new casinos (with or without referendums), who will operate the casinos, who will build and operate new casinos, and they don't even know what the new deal is going to look like.
I think they are going to have a huge problem attracting reputable casino operators without giving away an arm and a leg. In Ontario so far, the current casinos that are operated by outsiders, are losing money propositions for the operators, and that is based on a program where the OLG only gets 20% of the total gaming revenues. It is a tough sale, even for the best of salesman, and the OLG not only needs to sell to communities but also to new potential operators. If the best they can offer is that transparent huckster Paul Godfrey, who is well past his prime, they are in bigger trouble than I give them credit for.
However, the OLG, being a Crown Corporation, needs to privatize operations badly, especially if they are to move ahead with this expansion, as they cannot afford the risk of building new casinos or even expanding current ones. Much of the reason is due to the Ontario Liberal Party way: salaries and benefits for OLG workers has gotten way out of hand, much like the majority of other public sector jobs under the Liberal reign of overspending. And the OLG knows that the expected ROI on table games isn't very high, so they want private corporations to come in and assume the risk.
There is also the aspect that government workers are much better at cashing paychecks than being creative and bringing innovative ideas to the table. Private business tends to be creative and motivated, as well, they have an understanding of things like optimal pricing of their products.
Before I share my idea to save horse racing in Ontario, I want to add one more thing. It is imperative that racetracks play hardball when it comes to renting their locations to the OLG. There is no way the OLG will be in a position to move a significant share of slots to locations that aren't even built yet. My advice is for track owners to get together and hold out for even more money than the horsemen and track's share was under the old deal. As for terms. Ask for two years, but don't take anything less than a year.
The OLG will have no choice but to pay as they cannot afford to give up the revenues from slots. This will buy an extra year or two for the industry. The only risk I see is if we are dealing with a small track with a small amount of slots where the profit margin isn't very high. Still, where is the OLG going to move the slots? To an out of business laundromat?
As for Fort Erie, Windsor, and Sarnia. I think lawsuits are in order. There has to be something wrong with a government restricting a private enterprises right to make a living by giving preferential treatment to a Crown entity. This could be an anti-trust situation. Liberal Party embarrassment Dwight Duncan referred to the slots at tracks as competition to the casinos when trying to rationalize the raid of slot machines from these tracks. Of course, the real reason was to prop up the stand alone casinos bottom line so that their numbers in the future won't be as bad, therefore making it easier to attract potential operators for the other casinos province wide.
HOW TO USE THE $50 MILLION TRANSITIONAL FUNDING TO ATTEMPT TO SAVE RACING IN ONTARIO
Just to bring everyone up to speed, around a week ago the Ontario Liberal government announced that $50 million would be made available over the next three years to help sustain the horse racing industry. A panel has been created to take suggestions. Their mandate:
Assuming that the slots at racetrack program is dead, the only revenues to fund purses will now come from betting dollars on horse racing, and perhaps some rental income to whoever is operating the casinos that remain at certain racetracks.
The horse racing industry must come to grips with this, and they have to do it now. The money needs to be used to try to create more bettors willing to wager on horse racing. The Ontario government, through the OLG, may have the rights to casino gambling and even sports betting, but when it comes to parimutuel wagering on horses, that territory belongs to the Ontario horse racing industry.
If the horse racing industry can't get enough money wagered on it to be sustainable, well then, it really is time to give it up or reduce down to two or three tracks. But I think horse race wagering can be revitalized and actually compete with not only slots but the OLG lotteries (take that McGuinty).
What horse racing in Ontario needs to do is develop and market their own weekly parimutuel lottery, much like the Swedish V75, however, because of shorter fields than in Sweden (which is a Pick 7 format), as well the reality that inside horses have a big edge in harness races, a Pick 12 in Ontario may be required.
It would be a Sunday lottery that cuts off at 2 PM. Thoroughbred tracks, when racing can be used as well as harness races. The last three or four races in the sequence will be broadcast live from 5:30 to 6:00 PM either on the internet, the Score or Sportsnet. It will have a 35% takeout (high for parimutuel, low for lottery). Two thirds of the money paid out will go to those who select all 12 winners (no winner means the money will carryover to next week). The other third will be divided up to those who select the first four winners, middle four winner, and last four winners as well as another consolation prize going to those who select the most winners (all lotteries require some churn, plus giving a prize for the last four winners will create more viewers for the live show).
It is highly unlikely that the OLG will add this to their menu, and who needs them as a partner anyway if slots go bye bye? That is why most of the $50 million will be needed to develop the technology to bring this across Ontario and maybe even all across Canada, as well, the money will be needed to create kiosks to place in variety stores. Tickets can be sold there, as well as through wagering accounts. But money will be needed to market this wager on TV, radio and the internet.
Money may also be needed to guarantee the first few pools. I figure that by making this a 20 cent base wager ($1 minimum), there needs to be something close to half a million being offered in order to attract the masses to begin with. This is not unrealistic at all.
The public will get excited watching races under this format. And it won't take long for them to realize that handicapping can improve their odds, instead of going the quick pick route. This is how to cultivate new Horseplayers from lottery players. Quick picks will definitely need to take post position into account and come up with a higher rate of low numbers to give the buyers their best shot at churn money or a jackpot win.
So where does the 35% go? A small commission goes to variety store owners of course. Some goes back to marketing, some goes to breeding awards, but the overwhelming chunk goes to the racetracks to split amongst tracks and purse accounts.
The monies can be allocated using various formulas. For instance, money bet within a 30 mile circumference from a racetrack goes to that racetrack, or the entire pool can be allocated to tracks based on the percentage of races they put on each year, or the last 6 months, etc. A mixture of these formulas can be incorporated just the same.
Having horse racing kiosks in stores opens the door to allowing patrons to wager on any horse race there as well, not that I expect that to be a huge win, it is still additional money and exposure. As for parimutuel lotteries. It doesn't have to stop at a once a week Pick 12, but daily Pick 4's (with a 25% takeout ahem!) can be offered as well.
Betting cards can be bought at convenience stores, either anonymously or using one's actual info. These betting cards can offer rebate points that can be accumulated to make future wagers.
Wins of under $300 can be paid out by the convenience store, but larger wins means going to the track...and that is another way to keep the momentum going.
The Ontario government wants horse racing to stand on their own two feet. This is how to do it, my friends.
The OLG seems to have acted way too fast as they do not have their ducks in a row, not even close. They don't know which tracks will remain, which jurisdictions will accept new casinos (with or without referendums), who will operate the casinos, who will build and operate new casinos, and they don't even know what the new deal is going to look like.
I think they are going to have a huge problem attracting reputable casino operators without giving away an arm and a leg. In Ontario so far, the current casinos that are operated by outsiders, are losing money propositions for the operators, and that is based on a program where the OLG only gets 20% of the total gaming revenues. It is a tough sale, even for the best of salesman, and the OLG not only needs to sell to communities but also to new potential operators. If the best they can offer is that transparent huckster Paul Godfrey, who is well past his prime, they are in bigger trouble than I give them credit for.
However, the OLG, being a Crown Corporation, needs to privatize operations badly, especially if they are to move ahead with this expansion, as they cannot afford the risk of building new casinos or even expanding current ones. Much of the reason is due to the Ontario Liberal Party way: salaries and benefits for OLG workers has gotten way out of hand, much like the majority of other public sector jobs under the Liberal reign of overspending. And the OLG knows that the expected ROI on table games isn't very high, so they want private corporations to come in and assume the risk.
There is also the aspect that government workers are much better at cashing paychecks than being creative and bringing innovative ideas to the table. Private business tends to be creative and motivated, as well, they have an understanding of things like optimal pricing of their products.
Before I share my idea to save horse racing in Ontario, I want to add one more thing. It is imperative that racetracks play hardball when it comes to renting their locations to the OLG. There is no way the OLG will be in a position to move a significant share of slots to locations that aren't even built yet. My advice is for track owners to get together and hold out for even more money than the horsemen and track's share was under the old deal. As for terms. Ask for two years, but don't take anything less than a year.
The OLG will have no choice but to pay as they cannot afford to give up the revenues from slots. This will buy an extra year or two for the industry. The only risk I see is if we are dealing with a small track with a small amount of slots where the profit margin isn't very high. Still, where is the OLG going to move the slots? To an out of business laundromat?
As for Fort Erie, Windsor, and Sarnia. I think lawsuits are in order. There has to be something wrong with a government restricting a private enterprises right to make a living by giving preferential treatment to a Crown entity. This could be an anti-trust situation. Liberal Party embarrassment Dwight Duncan referred to the slots at tracks as competition to the casinos when trying to rationalize the raid of slot machines from these tracks. Of course, the real reason was to prop up the stand alone casinos bottom line so that their numbers in the future won't be as bad, therefore making it easier to attract potential operators for the other casinos province wide.
HOW TO USE THE $50 MILLION TRANSITIONAL FUNDING TO ATTEMPT TO SAVE RACING IN ONTARIO
Just to bring everyone up to speed, around a week ago the Ontario Liberal government announced that $50 million would be made available over the next three years to help sustain the horse racing industry. A panel has been created to take suggestions. Their mandate:
Work with the industry to help develop a vision for the future.
Provide recommendations to the government on how to allocate transition funding.
Advise on the modernization of other industry revenue sources to assist the industry in becoming more self-sufficient.
A final report from the panel is expected in late summer 2012.
Assuming that the slots at racetrack program is dead, the only revenues to fund purses will now come from betting dollars on horse racing, and perhaps some rental income to whoever is operating the casinos that remain at certain racetracks.
The horse racing industry must come to grips with this, and they have to do it now. The money needs to be used to try to create more bettors willing to wager on horse racing. The Ontario government, through the OLG, may have the rights to casino gambling and even sports betting, but when it comes to parimutuel wagering on horses, that territory belongs to the Ontario horse racing industry.
If the horse racing industry can't get enough money wagered on it to be sustainable, well then, it really is time to give it up or reduce down to two or three tracks. But I think horse race wagering can be revitalized and actually compete with not only slots but the OLG lotteries (take that McGuinty).
What horse racing in Ontario needs to do is develop and market their own weekly parimutuel lottery, much like the Swedish V75, however, because of shorter fields than in Sweden (which is a Pick 7 format), as well the reality that inside horses have a big edge in harness races, a Pick 12 in Ontario may be required.
It would be a Sunday lottery that cuts off at 2 PM. Thoroughbred tracks, when racing can be used as well as harness races. The last three or four races in the sequence will be broadcast live from 5:30 to 6:00 PM either on the internet, the Score or Sportsnet. It will have a 35% takeout (high for parimutuel, low for lottery). Two thirds of the money paid out will go to those who select all 12 winners (no winner means the money will carryover to next week). The other third will be divided up to those who select the first four winners, middle four winner, and last four winners as well as another consolation prize going to those who select the most winners (all lotteries require some churn, plus giving a prize for the last four winners will create more viewers for the live show).
It is highly unlikely that the OLG will add this to their menu, and who needs them as a partner anyway if slots go bye bye? That is why most of the $50 million will be needed to develop the technology to bring this across Ontario and maybe even all across Canada, as well, the money will be needed to create kiosks to place in variety stores. Tickets can be sold there, as well as through wagering accounts. But money will be needed to market this wager on TV, radio and the internet.
Money may also be needed to guarantee the first few pools. I figure that by making this a 20 cent base wager ($1 minimum), there needs to be something close to half a million being offered in order to attract the masses to begin with. This is not unrealistic at all.
The public will get excited watching races under this format. And it won't take long for them to realize that handicapping can improve their odds, instead of going the quick pick route. This is how to cultivate new Horseplayers from lottery players. Quick picks will definitely need to take post position into account and come up with a higher rate of low numbers to give the buyers their best shot at churn money or a jackpot win.
So where does the 35% go? A small commission goes to variety store owners of course. Some goes back to marketing, some goes to breeding awards, but the overwhelming chunk goes to the racetracks to split amongst tracks and purse accounts.
The monies can be allocated using various formulas. For instance, money bet within a 30 mile circumference from a racetrack goes to that racetrack, or the entire pool can be allocated to tracks based on the percentage of races they put on each year, or the last 6 months, etc. A mixture of these formulas can be incorporated just the same.
Having horse racing kiosks in stores opens the door to allowing patrons to wager on any horse race there as well, not that I expect that to be a huge win, it is still additional money and exposure. As for parimutuel lotteries. It doesn't have to stop at a once a week Pick 12, but daily Pick 4's (with a 25% takeout ahem!) can be offered as well.
Betting cards can be bought at convenience stores, either anonymously or using one's actual info. These betting cards can offer rebate points that can be accumulated to make future wagers.
Wins of under $300 can be paid out by the convenience store, but larger wins means going to the track...and that is another way to keep the momentum going.
The Ontario government wants horse racing to stand on their own two feet. This is how to do it, my friends.
12 June 2012
ORC's Whipping Rule Needs To Be Tweaked
Due to his stretch ride in the Woodbine Oaks, winning jockey Alex Solis received a $6,000 fine for whipping Oaks winner Irish Mission excessively in the stretch. Sounds like quite a fine for jockey, but the Oaks had a purse of $500,000. The winner's portion was $300,000, of which $30,000 went to the Solis ($7,500 of that most probably went to Solis' jockey agent). Second prize is only a third of these amounts.
First, I want to comment Woodbine and the ORC to have whipping rules in place. They've even made strides when it comes to using less abusive whips. But this whole scenario just doesn't seem right or proper.
Before I go on, watch the race:
You can't see the violation because Solis whipped with his left hand, but I'm sure the head on film left no doubt in the minds of the stewards. The point of watching the race was to show that it was a very close race, and sustained momentum seemed to win it for Irish Mission, probably brought on by constant whipping.
The reason for the ORC rule in the first place was to protect the horse and to help improve the public perception of horse racing. Both are great reasons. Though some have argued that whipping should be banned completely, and some go as far as saying whipping does not make a horse go faster, I think the latter might be true of some horses, but many horses wind up with improved results due to their need to be constantly reminded to keep their mind on business.
Not that I'm against eliminating the whip or just using placebo whips, that is not the issue here, the issue is an equal playing field, whether you are a bettor or horsemen or jockey.
And it is a race like Oaks where my sense of fairness gets carved a new one. If you are a bettor, you want your jockey to excessively hit if it is the difference between cashing or ripping up your ticket. Same thing applies if you are an owner, trainer, or groom. Excessive whipping is not something a horse can get DQed over. Purses aren't redistributed because of it. The fines are in place to act as a deterrent to try to prevent jockeys from slashing too much. And yes, repeated violations can also lead to more income loss down the road via more fines and then suspensions. Solis hasn't been here long enough to have repeat offenses though.
The point here is that the fine wasn't big enough. And for those who wagered on the second place finisher, and those who were involved in the ownership or training of the second place finisher and even the third place finisher have to just feel like suckers if they give this situation any thought at all. It isn't right that a jockey can decide to gamble on a fine in order to win a race, and there should be no incentive to do so.
I don't blame Solis here at all, he was playing by the rules as currently administered. Only unambitious people might say that they don't want to work harder to make more money because they pay a higher tax rate. Solis pulled out all the punches he could to win, and he wound up with more net money than he would have if he decided to not risk getting fined. He didn't do anything illegal either. And that is why jockeys need to lose their entire portion of the purse in the future.
First, I want to comment Woodbine and the ORC to have whipping rules in place. They've even made strides when it comes to using less abusive whips. But this whole scenario just doesn't seem right or proper.
Before I go on, watch the race:
You can't see the violation because Solis whipped with his left hand, but I'm sure the head on film left no doubt in the minds of the stewards. The point of watching the race was to show that it was a very close race, and sustained momentum seemed to win it for Irish Mission, probably brought on by constant whipping.
The reason for the ORC rule in the first place was to protect the horse and to help improve the public perception of horse racing. Both are great reasons. Though some have argued that whipping should be banned completely, and some go as far as saying whipping does not make a horse go faster, I think the latter might be true of some horses, but many horses wind up with improved results due to their need to be constantly reminded to keep their mind on business.
Not that I'm against eliminating the whip or just using placebo whips, that is not the issue here, the issue is an equal playing field, whether you are a bettor or horsemen or jockey.
And it is a race like Oaks where my sense of fairness gets carved a new one. If you are a bettor, you want your jockey to excessively hit if it is the difference between cashing or ripping up your ticket. Same thing applies if you are an owner, trainer, or groom. Excessive whipping is not something a horse can get DQed over. Purses aren't redistributed because of it. The fines are in place to act as a deterrent to try to prevent jockeys from slashing too much. And yes, repeated violations can also lead to more income loss down the road via more fines and then suspensions. Solis hasn't been here long enough to have repeat offenses though.
The point here is that the fine wasn't big enough. And for those who wagered on the second place finisher, and those who were involved in the ownership or training of the second place finisher and even the third place finisher have to just feel like suckers if they give this situation any thought at all. It isn't right that a jockey can decide to gamble on a fine in order to win a race, and there should be no incentive to do so.
I don't blame Solis here at all, he was playing by the rules as currently administered. Only unambitious people might say that they don't want to work harder to make more money because they pay a higher tax rate. Solis pulled out all the punches he could to win, and he wound up with more net money than he would have if he decided to not risk getting fined. He didn't do anything illegal either. And that is why jockeys need to lose their entire portion of the purse in the future.
10 June 2012
Debates, Controversy Good For Horse Racing
Fact: Mike Smith made a decision to open up the rail in the Belmont Stakes yesterday aboard Paynter, giving Union Rags enough room to win the race. The margin was so small that it is doubtful that Union Rags would have won if he had to swing out instead. Lots of reasons Smith may have elected to come out. Maybe he wanted to slightly force the outside horses to do more work and get slightly intimidated. Maybe he thought that he would rather be on the outside of Union Rags instead of on the inside of him. Maybe the horse was getting out slightly forcing his decision.
You know what? This is what makes horse racing, or any other form of competition. What ifs. They are just as important to the game itself as the actual event itself. The worst thing is when you have a major event and nobody has anything to say about it. The more controversy, the more that will be spoken and written about it, in most cases, and horse racing desperately needs more and more people talking about it.
The leave Mike Smith alone crowd has every right to their opinion, blah blah blah great jockey blah blah blah, but it does horse racing no good in the long run if too many took that attitude. Kind of like if an interception is thrown by a great quarterback in the Super Bowl, while another receiver was wide open. No QB would escape scrutiny based on him being a future Hall of Fame member and overall nice guy.
Controversy from decision making on and off the field is huge business when it comes to most pro sports. From pre game NFL analysis to post game analysis, MLB managerial decisions, etc., there is plenty to talk about, and the more successful a game is, the more people talk after the game.
Unfortunately for horse racing, it has another form of self inflicted controversies (which really is on par with calling evolution controversial) that stem from the ridiculous overuse of drugs. This is another story. Major league sports, with stringent drug policies and fines have eradicated drugs from the arm chair quarterback repertoire, but in horse racing it is too much of the story. The first thing that naturally comes to mind when any trainer gets hot is "he must have found something that isn't being tested for." The only controversy is whether the trainer is getting a little lucky or if he has found something. In pro sports, streaks create good buzz: The player has confidence maybe, the player is on a roll thanks to changes made by the coaching staff, the player finally has the game figured out, but you never hear, the player must be milk shaking before the game anymore.
When it comes to drugs, I think enough people are fed up. I think that keeping the Doug O'Neill controversy alive is needed to help fix horse racing. Unfortunately, it is not that far fetched to believe I'll Have Another's destiny to scratch was determined when the 72 hour detention barn was announced. The guy has got nailed with 4 milk shake violations in the past. One might be forgivable, but 4 is no fluke. It tells me that he is one to throw in the kitchen sink using the best scientific data available in order to try to avoid positives, but really goes to the limit. With every horse? Who knows?
When the 72 hour detention barn was announced, I automatically thought there is no way I'll Have Another will win, though I didn't think he wouldn't race. As for the injury, sure it could be real, but it could have been an ongoing issue that O'Neill was dealing with, given the ability to use the proper concoctions. The fact is that the actual records will most probably never come out, including any x-rays now or that were done previously. There is also conflicting reports on when the injury happened. And trust me, I'm not a conspiracy theorist nutjob. If this played out the same way I'm thinking it did on the show Luck, it would have been completely buyable.
My opinion is that the connections were scared that I'll Have Another would have finished up the track, and the injury would have had zero to do with it. Again, there is the possibility that the horse really was sound for the first two Triple Crown starts and he really did injure himself. But knowing what I know about the game, I'll stick to my theory, and that is unfortunate for the game itself.
The fact that some people might believe I'm over the top here is fine. And even if I'm wrong, which might be very likely, I think it is important to keep the controversy alive.
You know what? This is what makes horse racing, or any other form of competition. What ifs. They are just as important to the game itself as the actual event itself. The worst thing is when you have a major event and nobody has anything to say about it. The more controversy, the more that will be spoken and written about it, in most cases, and horse racing desperately needs more and more people talking about it.
The leave Mike Smith alone crowd has every right to their opinion, blah blah blah great jockey blah blah blah, but it does horse racing no good in the long run if too many took that attitude. Kind of like if an interception is thrown by a great quarterback in the Super Bowl, while another receiver was wide open. No QB would escape scrutiny based on him being a future Hall of Fame member and overall nice guy.
Controversy from decision making on and off the field is huge business when it comes to most pro sports. From pre game NFL analysis to post game analysis, MLB managerial decisions, etc., there is plenty to talk about, and the more successful a game is, the more people talk after the game.
Unfortunately for horse racing, it has another form of self inflicted controversies (which really is on par with calling evolution controversial) that stem from the ridiculous overuse of drugs. This is another story. Major league sports, with stringent drug policies and fines have eradicated drugs from the arm chair quarterback repertoire, but in horse racing it is too much of the story. The first thing that naturally comes to mind when any trainer gets hot is "he must have found something that isn't being tested for." The only controversy is whether the trainer is getting a little lucky or if he has found something. In pro sports, streaks create good buzz: The player has confidence maybe, the player is on a roll thanks to changes made by the coaching staff, the player finally has the game figured out, but you never hear, the player must be milk shaking before the game anymore.
When it comes to drugs, I think enough people are fed up. I think that keeping the Doug O'Neill controversy alive is needed to help fix horse racing. Unfortunately, it is not that far fetched to believe I'll Have Another's destiny to scratch was determined when the 72 hour detention barn was announced. The guy has got nailed with 4 milk shake violations in the past. One might be forgivable, but 4 is no fluke. It tells me that he is one to throw in the kitchen sink using the best scientific data available in order to try to avoid positives, but really goes to the limit. With every horse? Who knows?
When the 72 hour detention barn was announced, I automatically thought there is no way I'll Have Another will win, though I didn't think he wouldn't race. As for the injury, sure it could be real, but it could have been an ongoing issue that O'Neill was dealing with, given the ability to use the proper concoctions. The fact is that the actual records will most probably never come out, including any x-rays now or that were done previously. There is also conflicting reports on when the injury happened. And trust me, I'm not a conspiracy theorist nutjob. If this played out the same way I'm thinking it did on the show Luck, it would have been completely buyable.
My opinion is that the connections were scared that I'll Have Another would have finished up the track, and the injury would have had zero to do with it. Again, there is the possibility that the horse really was sound for the first two Triple Crown starts and he really did injure himself. But knowing what I know about the game, I'll stick to my theory, and that is unfortunate for the game itself.
The fact that some people might believe I'm over the top here is fine. And even if I'm wrong, which might be very likely, I think it is important to keep the controversy alive.
27 May 2012
Pena, O'Neill, Horse Medications, Apologists, and Slots
I don't know what pisses Horseplayers off more, the fact that some "super" trainers win at 25% plus because they are obviously either using undetectable drugs or illegal methods in order to gain an edge over their rivals, or the fact that they are able to get away with it year in and year out.
I know what pisses me off more than anything, it is the apologists who claim that these trainers are superior and know where to place their horses.
There are only so many ways to train a horse, and only so many ways to feed a horse. It is insulting to the intelligence of the Horseplayer to state that these trainers have found a magical way to feed and train a horse that triples their productivity over average trainers. Especially since many of these "super" trainers have operations all over North America.
It only makes sense that if a trainer is superior at winning without cheating, that they would be detailing their horses daily, knowing their horses inside and out. Yet we often see high percentage trainers winning at two or three different tracks a day. No way are they on site. And to think that their training program is superior or that the assistant trainers at these tracks have an edge over the trainers who have an operation and race at one track or circuit strikes me as complete fantasy.
For a few years, I've seen apologists make their case for "super" harness trainer Lou Pena, who was very average when training in California (though he did get a few positives there). His record since moving to the East has been nothing short of sensational, and his win off the claim percentages defies any sort of logic. Yet, he was able to go on and on and on because there was no evidence that he was cheating...so it must be superior hay, oats and water that was giving Lou the edge. Nobody with half a brain or more bought it, but the apologists were spewing it anyway.
It seems the apologists were wrong. According to a thorough investigation, using vet records, Pena was throwing in the kitchen sink, yet somehow getting by the test barn, which is cause for rage amongst Horseplayers and any Horseman who plays by the rules.
It goes to show that all these defenders who state that with today's technologies even the itsy bitsiest of overages can be detected, thus making horse racing the cleanest sport out there, are full of hooey up to their eyeballs.
You have to wonder what exactly is motivating a drug trainer apologist. I can think of three reasons. 1) They are a trainer who knows they can't compete without cheating. 2) They are an owner who does well with a drug trainer. 3) A Horseplayer who gets good tips from outfits that rely on using performance enhancing techniques.
California just suspended Triple Crown hopeful I'll Have Another's trainer Doug O'Neill, but the suspension will not start until after the Belmont. The ruling is a bit mind boggling, stating that they found that O'Neill didn't milkshake the horse but the horse in question had a TCO2 level of a horse that was milkshaked.
Here is a list of violations by Doug O'Neill since 2005 compiled by Ray Paulick:
2005: 2/5/2005, Bay Meadows, Jake Skate, Dantrolene; 3/10/2005, Santa Anita, Spirited, Dexamethasone; 5/27/2006, Hollywod Park, Wisdom Cat, TCO2; 1/17/2008, Santa Anita, Chicks Rule, TCO2; 12/27/2008, Santa Anita, Esperamos, Flunixin; 8/20/2009, Del Mar, Bench the Judge, Bute overage; 2/12/10, Gulfstream Park, Pinkarella, Testosterone; 4/3/2010, Hawthorne, Stephen's Got Hope, TCO2; 4/30/2010, Churchill Downs, Enriched, Omeprazole Sulfide; 8/25/2010, Del Mar, Argenta, TCO2; 2/5/2011, Santa Anita, Separate Forest, Etodolac; 9/17/2011, Fairplex Park, Naturaliste, Hydroxydantrolene.
Now these are violations that actually showed up in test results. Remember, harness trainer Pena has 1700 such violations in one jurisdiction, and none showed up in test results.
Horse racing has a problem. A big problem. It is a culture of chemists (trainers and vets) who are taking well educated shots when it comes to giving horses the right concoctions that get past the test lab. I'm positive Lasix helps with the overall masking of most of these concoctions.
On a positive note, a vet, Sid Gustafson came out with a must read piece in the New York Times Racing Blog (The Rail) called Alkalinization, Lasix and Milkshaking. In it, he call Lasix a performance enhancer, and hints that race day meds (and even meds given up to three days out) are not only usually done to enhance performance but are outright dangerous to the horse and the rider on race day.
This is surprising coming from a vet because usually you have to question a vet or trainer's financial interest when they discuss drugs, and same day medication, etc. Maybe the tide is turning.
Finally, slots. What does slots have to do with this post? Right now there is a grim outlook when it comes to the Ontario horse racing scene as the Ontario Liberal government has decided to put an end to the slots at racetracks program come the end of March next year. I've supported the horse industry tremendously on this blog and other places regarding what I believe is a terrible mistake by the government in ending a program that works, and is good for the Ontario economy, and even if it was destined to end, a year is not a fair time considering that the breeding and ownership of horses is a four or five year cycle.
But when I go to sites like Standardbred Canada and see apologists calling the suspension of Pena a witch hunt, my sympathy for the horsemen goes out the window, and it actually makes me OK with the ending of the slots program, anywhere. Word of advice to super trainer apologists: SHUT UP ALREADY, your attitude is akin to sealing a coffin.
I know what pisses me off more than anything, it is the apologists who claim that these trainers are superior and know where to place their horses.
There are only so many ways to train a horse, and only so many ways to feed a horse. It is insulting to the intelligence of the Horseplayer to state that these trainers have found a magical way to feed and train a horse that triples their productivity over average trainers. Especially since many of these "super" trainers have operations all over North America.
It only makes sense that if a trainer is superior at winning without cheating, that they would be detailing their horses daily, knowing their horses inside and out. Yet we often see high percentage trainers winning at two or three different tracks a day. No way are they on site. And to think that their training program is superior or that the assistant trainers at these tracks have an edge over the trainers who have an operation and race at one track or circuit strikes me as complete fantasy.
For a few years, I've seen apologists make their case for "super" harness trainer Lou Pena, who was very average when training in California (though he did get a few positives there). His record since moving to the East has been nothing short of sensational, and his win off the claim percentages defies any sort of logic. Yet, he was able to go on and on and on because there was no evidence that he was cheating...so it must be superior hay, oats and water that was giving Lou the edge. Nobody with half a brain or more bought it, but the apologists were spewing it anyway.
It seems the apologists were wrong. According to a thorough investigation, using vet records, Pena was throwing in the kitchen sink, yet somehow getting by the test barn, which is cause for rage amongst Horseplayers and any Horseman who plays by the rules.
It goes to show that all these defenders who state that with today's technologies even the itsy bitsiest of overages can be detected, thus making horse racing the cleanest sport out there, are full of hooey up to their eyeballs.
You have to wonder what exactly is motivating a drug trainer apologist. I can think of three reasons. 1) They are a trainer who knows they can't compete without cheating. 2) They are an owner who does well with a drug trainer. 3) A Horseplayer who gets good tips from outfits that rely on using performance enhancing techniques.
California just suspended Triple Crown hopeful I'll Have Another's trainer Doug O'Neill, but the suspension will not start until after the Belmont. The ruling is a bit mind boggling, stating that they found that O'Neill didn't milkshake the horse but the horse in question had a TCO2 level of a horse that was milkshaked.
Here is a list of violations by Doug O'Neill since 2005 compiled by Ray Paulick:
2005: 2/5/2005, Bay Meadows, Jake Skate, Dantrolene; 3/10/2005, Santa Anita, Spirited, Dexamethasone; 5/27/2006, Hollywod Park, Wisdom Cat, TCO2; 1/17/2008, Santa Anita, Chicks Rule, TCO2; 12/27/2008, Santa Anita, Esperamos, Flunixin; 8/20/2009, Del Mar, Bench the Judge, Bute overage; 2/12/10, Gulfstream Park, Pinkarella, Testosterone; 4/3/2010, Hawthorne, Stephen's Got Hope, TCO2; 4/30/2010, Churchill Downs, Enriched, Omeprazole Sulfide; 8/25/2010, Del Mar, Argenta, TCO2; 2/5/2011, Santa Anita, Separate Forest, Etodolac; 9/17/2011, Fairplex Park, Naturaliste, Hydroxydantrolene.
Now these are violations that actually showed up in test results. Remember, harness trainer Pena has 1700 such violations in one jurisdiction, and none showed up in test results.
Horse racing has a problem. A big problem. It is a culture of chemists (trainers and vets) who are taking well educated shots when it comes to giving horses the right concoctions that get past the test lab. I'm positive Lasix helps with the overall masking of most of these concoctions.
On a positive note, a vet, Sid Gustafson came out with a must read piece in the New York Times Racing Blog (The Rail) called Alkalinization, Lasix and Milkshaking. In it, he call Lasix a performance enhancer, and hints that race day meds (and even meds given up to three days out) are not only usually done to enhance performance but are outright dangerous to the horse and the rider on race day.
This is surprising coming from a vet because usually you have to question a vet or trainer's financial interest when they discuss drugs, and same day medication, etc. Maybe the tide is turning.
Finally, slots. What does slots have to do with this post? Right now there is a grim outlook when it comes to the Ontario horse racing scene as the Ontario Liberal government has decided to put an end to the slots at racetracks program come the end of March next year. I've supported the horse industry tremendously on this blog and other places regarding what I believe is a terrible mistake by the government in ending a program that works, and is good for the Ontario economy, and even if it was destined to end, a year is not a fair time considering that the breeding and ownership of horses is a four or five year cycle.
But when I go to sites like Standardbred Canada and see apologists calling the suspension of Pena a witch hunt, my sympathy for the horsemen goes out the window, and it actually makes me OK with the ending of the slots program, anywhere. Word of advice to super trainer apologists: SHUT UP ALREADY, your attitude is akin to sealing a coffin.
18 May 2012
Horse Racing Sure Could Use Another, But It Probably Won't Happen
Horse racing has had nothing but bad press this year. From the cancellation of Luck to the New York Time articles and a lot of other stuff in between. The industry desperately needs a horse who has a shot to win the Triple Crown. If I'll Have Another wins the Preakness, the interest in the Belmont and most importantly the TV viewers, will be four or five times higher than a Belmont with no Triple Crown hopeful.
The problem is that, no matter how much I want to see I'll Have Another win, it just doesn't look like it will be in the cards.
I'll Have Another had a relatively easy trip, and the wire came at a time when it was his turn to be in the lead. Sure, he can improve off this race, but chasing Bodemeister this time around will probably lead to less desirable results, and it appears that strategically I'll Have Another has no choice but to think chaser.
Bodemeister on the other hand is a very good horse but I think he has Facebook IPO written all over him. Horses leading against the same competition in a previous race that was longer are often a sucker's bet when cutting back. Horses that ran like this in drill like fashion are very likely to bounce on top of that. And historically, the Preakness does not favor the horse who will be leading at the head of the stretch.
It doesn't matter that Bodemeister is the only speed going into the race, I think he'll be lucky to hang on for third or fourth.
So who do I like? How about who do I love? CREATIVE CAUSE, that is who. He has a horrible trip in the Derby and if any horse appears that it will improve off the Derby it is this one. He beat Bodemeister three starts back, with a very good speed figure, and I think he will show his superiority again in the Preakness. And the distance has CREATIVE CAUSE written all over it. I think it is just a matter of how much he wins by.
If speed comes back, Went The Day Well could easily complete the exactor, with I'll Have Another and a tired Bodemeister fighting it out for third and fourth.
ADVERTISEMENT (Wagering on The Preakness? Try Horseplayersbet.com)
HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM offers Horseplayers industry high Player Reward Bonuses. Start getting bonuses immediately.
SPECIAL BONUS OFFER TO NEW MEMBERS AT HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM
BET $80 GET $40 DEPOSITED INTO YOUR ACCOUNT
Wager at least $80 in total, win or lose, and you will get $40 deposited into your account. You will also start receiving industry high Player Reward Bonuses daily as soon as you start wagering. To earn the $40 Bonus you must wager at least $80 in total within 7 days of making your initial deposit.
CLICK TO OPEN A FREE ACCOUNT
More Reasons?:
* Industry High Player Reward Bonuses added to your account daily
* User friendly betting interface makes wagering easy
* FREE LIVE VIDEOS
* FREE RACE REPLAYS
* Wager Online or by Phone
* Great customer service
* 100% Parimutuel
* Bet cancellation capabilities
* No membership or wagering fees
HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM, "WHERE HORSEPLAYERS COME FIRST." SIGN UP FOR FREE AND SEE WHY HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM IS ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING ADWS
Player Reward Bonuses could be the difference to you as to whether you win in the long run playing horses, or lose. Sure, you still need skill and luck as well to succeed, at HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM at least you have a fighting chance. And one thing is for sure, your money will last longer because of the PLAYER REWARD BONUSES you receive.
The problem is that, no matter how much I want to see I'll Have Another win, it just doesn't look like it will be in the cards.
I'll Have Another had a relatively easy trip, and the wire came at a time when it was his turn to be in the lead. Sure, he can improve off this race, but chasing Bodemeister this time around will probably lead to less desirable results, and it appears that strategically I'll Have Another has no choice but to think chaser.
Bodemeister on the other hand is a very good horse but I think he has Facebook IPO written all over him. Horses leading against the same competition in a previous race that was longer are often a sucker's bet when cutting back. Horses that ran like this in drill like fashion are very likely to bounce on top of that. And historically, the Preakness does not favor the horse who will be leading at the head of the stretch.
It doesn't matter that Bodemeister is the only speed going into the race, I think he'll be lucky to hang on for third or fourth.
So who do I like? How about who do I love? CREATIVE CAUSE, that is who. He has a horrible trip in the Derby and if any horse appears that it will improve off the Derby it is this one. He beat Bodemeister three starts back, with a very good speed figure, and I think he will show his superiority again in the Preakness. And the distance has CREATIVE CAUSE written all over it. I think it is just a matter of how much he wins by.
If speed comes back, Went The Day Well could easily complete the exactor, with I'll Have Another and a tired Bodemeister fighting it out for third and fourth.
ADVERTISEMENT (Wagering on The Preakness? Try Horseplayersbet.com)
NEW: WATCH UP TO FOUR LIVE RACE FEEDS ON ONE SCREEN
SPECIAL BONUS OFFER TO NEW MEMBERS AT HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM
BET $80 GET $40 DEPOSITED INTO YOUR ACCOUNT
Wager at least $80 in total, win or lose, and you will get $40 deposited into your account. You will also start receiving industry high Player Reward Bonuses daily as soon as you start wagering. To earn the $40 Bonus you must wager at least $80 in total within 7 days of making your initial deposit.
CLICK TO OPEN A FREE ACCOUNT
Horseplayers do not like deposit fees. Horseplayersbet.com understands
this and that is why next day deposit fee refunds are offered.
Deposit $100 or greater online or by phone using a credit or debit card and the 4.5% fee will be refunded to your account the next morning.
Deposit at least $100 using PINPocket and the 4.5% (+$1) fee will be refunded to your account the next morning.
Deposit at least $120 using a Green Dot MoneyPak and you will receive $5 in you account the next morning. Deposit at least $400 using a MoneyPak, and $10 will be deposited in your account the next morning.
Deposit $100 or greater online or by phone using a credit or debit card and the 4.5% fee will be refunded to your account the next morning.
Deposit at least $100 using PINPocket and the 4.5% (+$1) fee will be refunded to your account the next morning.
Deposit at least $120 using a Green Dot MoneyPak and you will receive $5 in you account the next morning. Deposit at least $400 using a MoneyPak, and $10 will be deposited in your account the next morning.
More Reasons?:
* Industry High Player Reward Bonuses added to your account daily
* User friendly betting interface makes wagering easy
* FREE LIVE VIDEOS
* FREE RACE REPLAYS
* Wager Online or by Phone
* Great customer service
* 100% Parimutuel
* Bet cancellation capabilities
* No membership or wagering fees
HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM, "WHERE HORSEPLAYERS COME FIRST." SIGN UP FOR FREE AND SEE WHY HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM IS ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING ADWS
Player Reward Bonuses could be the difference to you as to whether you win in the long run playing horses, or lose. Sure, you still need skill and luck as well to succeed, at HORSEPLAYERSBET.COM at least you have a fighting chance. And one thing is for sure, your money will last longer because of the PLAYER REWARD BONUSES you receive.
14 May 2012
Ontario Minister Of Agriculture Tweets On The Racing Industry
Ted McMeekin is Ontario’s Minister of Agriculture. He is taking heat, and rightfully so, because he is completely going along with the OLG plan to modernize gaming in Ontario. Despite the fact that up to 60,000 horse racing related jobs, mostly in agriculture, will be affected, and many will be lost.
It is questionable that the government will wind up with more revenue if the OLGs plans come to total fruition.
What is certain is that if everything happens that the OLG and the McGuinty Liberal government want to happen, there will be many jobs lost in OLG Racinos as new operator will come in and run a more efficient ship.
The new operators, foreign investors like MGM and Caesars will take much of the profit out of Ontario. Some new casino jobs will be created in places in urban centres like Toronto but it will be pale in comparison to the devastation that will be created in rural communities, as many in the horse racing community will be out of work, from grooms to track front side workers.
Those that do the hiring like trainers and farmers, will also see their incomes drastically drop, assuming they stay afloat. Trainers will definitely have to cut costs and run smaller operations, horse owners will start disappearing as it will become very difficult to make enough purse money to stay in the game (most owners lose money regardless of the purses, but lose a lot less when slot money contributes to the purse structure).
Farmers will be selling less hay, oats and bedding, and there are countless other jobs that will be affected. And then there is money that those who derive most of their income working at the track spend within the local communities.
From restaurants to mom and pop shops to car dealerships, everyone will hurt. To his credit, which will probably lead to his future downfall, McMeekin has engaged many “Joe Blow’s” on Twitter. Here, in his own words, are his Tweets regarding the ending of the slots at racetracks program (I’ll add a little timeline and some of my own thoughts where applicable):
The Drummond Report came out on February 15th. Nowhere in it does it state to end the slots at tracks program, though there were definite leanings towards tweaking it. McMeekin is asked about his stance when it comes to cutbacks in the horse racing industry:
“the government will look at all recommendations of the Drummond report and make decisions on how to proceed.”
Even though the OLG announced on March 14th that they were ending the slots at tracks program March 31,2013 and that they were taking slots out of 3 tracks April 30th, there was quite a lot of time between another Tweet on the industry until he was asked if he would show up at the 2nd OHHA rally at Queen’s Park March 26th (his answer was pretty much a no, though I’m not quite sure he was there or not:
“thanks - already met with horsemen, trainers, vets, track owners, Ag leaders, OLG, MPP colleagues, the Finance Minister and others”
When asked to comment on the 60,000 jobs that will be affected on April 12th prior to the budget being voted for, he ignored the question:
“Moving forward will require sustainable new business models community by community. OLG will soon be talking with municipalities.”
On April 13th he was asked about the fact that the plan to end slots was abrupt and if he thought it was right not to phase it out over more time instead of turning the industry upside down. His answer shows he has no concept about the industry, the fact that horse racing is a 4 year cycle when it comes to breeding or buying a yearling. Also, how at that time could the industry know how to put a new model in place when they were in the dark about what the new deal would like:
“Want to predict the future? then create it! Clearly time to construct a new business model that works + moves industry forward.”
When confronted by the FACT that Liberal propaganda ads called the slots at tracks a Secret Deal between wealthy track owners and the PC government when it was first implemented. McMeekin shows complete lack of understand (ignorance) and gives an answer to a question not asked, however he contradicted the lies put out by his Party:
“Nothing secret about slots at racetrack past or present. OLG needs workable and constructive options for racing to move forward.”
On April 16th, after reading a story about how Hamilton would gladly host a full scale casino though they were worried about the impact regarding Flamboro Downs (everyone still in the dark, including McMeekin, that only those who have run a casino in the past will be eligible to run a casino (including racetrack casino) in the future:
“Want to lay groundwork for a new slots/horseracing business model? See Hamilton's motion to work with OLG and private sector”
Here is a series of Tweets. When asked about saving jobs and horses, McMeekin shows how in the dark he was on April 17th: Notice how he spells OHRIA wrong twice not once which would have been forgivable. To me, it shows he just doesn’t care:
“Key to ongoing horseracing industry is developing a new business model. OHIRA needs to work with OLG and host communities.”
”Slots at racetrack $ partnership will end March 31, 2013. Municipalities will work with OLG on any new business models.”
When asked about meeting with OHRIA:
“OHIRA and anyone else interested in developing a new horseracing/slot business model need to meet with OLG and municipality.”
More:
“Industry has struggled and must be turned around. Sell as sport +entertainment. Work with municipality/OLG on new RFP model”
Totally out of touch with the fact that horse racing is a 4 year cycle:
“Call it whatever you want. Reality is that a new business plan needs to be develooped. Working with Hamilton to do exactly that.”
“You tell me. A viable busineess plan Involves telling your story, being innovative and finding a new model that works.”
“No one throwing away an industry. Like other businesses need a viable business plan. It's not up to gov to develop your plan.”
Someone mentions that horse racing generates over $1 billion in expenditures without slots:
“i like the way you're thinking. Time to get at it and not rely on government to ensure business viability.”
May work? May totally destroy the industry and its 60,000 jobs? Is this guy for real? How about the fact that the OLG new strategy is completely speculative and that much of that new revenue will fly out of the country to Vegas companies?:
“OLG saying new strategy fully rolled-out they will add $1 billion MORE than current revenue stream. Fewer viable tracks may work.”
“Old math vs new math. OLG projects their new approach will raise up to an additional $1 Billion. New business model coming.”
Here he is mocking another Twitter who asked that the government honour their old deal:
“Woulda, shoulda, coulda won't change anything. Slots/horse partnership as exists will terminate 03/13. Time for new busiiness plan”
April 19th. He seems to know a bit more. Congrats:
“simply put - OLG will develop in collaboration with municiipalities a series of venues - perhaps some tracks and other venues.”
Drummond never stated to end the program. Where is the review?, where is the job impact study?:
“Drummond called for a review and a new Business model. I spent some time talking with him about this and other things.”
When told the OLG keeps industry in the dark, and McMeekin is supposed to represent the horse racing industry. He accepts no responsibility:
“OLG is Ont Lottery and Gaming.Comes under perview of Ministry of Finance not Agriculture. Angry? Focus your comments to OLG.”
When asked about Hamilton and Flamboro April 20th:
“OHIRA is on it. They are seen as the "official voice" of the horseracing industry. That said I facilitated a Ham/OLG meeting.”
From May 1st and 2nd:
“SO largely privately operated now. Slots being redeveloped with willing-host municipalities and with new business models.”
“the decision to terminate the slots at racetrack program was taken by the OLG based on their land-based gaming strategy.”
Sounding like a pompous ass:
“Industry will survive with new business models. Can only predict future by creating it. Stop complaining/get to work”
When told he let rural Ontario down by voting for the budget, he accepted no responsibility:
“Decision made by the OLG not me. I believe horseracing will survive with new business model(s) and will work to that end.”
May 10th to present. He finally knows that there will only be rental agreements with the racetracks, so the deals will be between tracks and the new operators. He seems mixed up and clueless, oh and pompous and uncaring:
“so get on with developing new business models in concert with tracks/OLG and municipalities. Predict future by creating it.”
“Key is tracks/municipalities and horsemen working together to est. interest in new business model. Then discuss RFP with OLG.”
“I hear you. OHIRA/OLG the two key players on the horse side while municipalities/OLG will make RFP and venue decisions.”
Here he debates a PC MPP who supports the slots at track program. Again, he abstains himself of any responsibility but he does keep with the theme that he really doesn’t give a care what happens to the 60,000 people in the industry:
“Pointing fingers is easy and lazy. Use your skills to help OHIRA/OLG develop new effective business models”
“Try being honest rather than partisan. Decisions on horseracing were taken by OLG. OLG ?'s go to Minister of Finance”
My turn to confront him. I hate disingenuous behaviour. Again, he shows no knowledge that the industry is a 4 year cycle. It is kind of like telling a 64 year old that he won’t get his pension next year, but he “thinks” the industry can make a new plan by next year without much devastation:
Cangamble: RU being blatantly dishonest or just plain ignorant. Drummond Report never stated to end slots program.
McMeekin: @Cangamble Talked openly about need for land-based gaming strategy and rationalization of slots at tracks. The study led to end of program.
Cangamble: @TedMcMeekin Horse crap sir. There was no study based on the Drummond Report the gov did. I don't know of 1 Drum. rec to be implemented.
McMeekin: @Cangamble Gov. said all along Mr. Drummond would make recommend and the gov make decisions. Several Drummond recommends not implemented
McMeekin: @Cangamble OLG land-based study parallel to Mr. Drummonds work. The slots/track deal will end 3/31/13.Time to find alternative bus model."
Finally, he implies that the government (not the OLG) has been working on their plan to kill racing for two years. Consultations? With who?:
“Gov. is not one-dimentional. The study took two years. There was extensive consultation and then some tough decisions taken.”
I think any partial person can conclude that Ted McMeekin simply doesn't care what will happen to up to 60,000 people with jobs either directly related or partially related to the horse racing industry. It is hard not believe that McMeekin is nothing but Dalton McGuinty and Dwight Duncan's bitch who was given a political favour (yeah that happens) to get his new position. It may sound harsh, but I believe its true.
After all, if you check his resume, he has little experience with the agriculture industry, and obviously doesn't even understand the horse racing industry, or the repercussions of cutting the slots program with tracks within a year. Both he and Dwight Duncan don't even know the exact number of people who will be impacted by this "OLG decision." That isn't responsible government, not even close. He may appear to be like a pompous buffoon with his position and knowledge about the Ontario horse racing industry, but he still looks like a scholar compared to Finance Minister Dwight Duncan (my border collie does too, so I'm not saying much).
Both should do the right thing, and resign their positions yesterday. They make Ontario look like a farce. To call them embarrassments is to give them too much credit.
To check out McMeekin on Twitter (though he might close his account after I hit publish): @TedMcMeekin Dwight Duncan: @DwightDuncan And finally, if you like to laugh, here is parody Twitter site that mocks Dwight Duncan(It might actually reflect what Duncan is really thinking, not really saying): @HonestDwight I don't know about you, but I expect more from politicians than what I've seen from these elected officials.
What is certain is that if everything happens that the OLG and the McGuinty Liberal government want to happen, there will be many jobs lost in OLG Racinos as new operator will come in and run a more efficient ship.
The new operators, foreign investors like MGM and Caesars will take much of the profit out of Ontario. Some new casino jobs will be created in places in urban centres like Toronto but it will be pale in comparison to the devastation that will be created in rural communities, as many in the horse racing community will be out of work, from grooms to track front side workers.
Those that do the hiring like trainers and farmers, will also see their incomes drastically drop, assuming they stay afloat. Trainers will definitely have to cut costs and run smaller operations, horse owners will start disappearing as it will become very difficult to make enough purse money to stay in the game (most owners lose money regardless of the purses, but lose a lot less when slot money contributes to the purse structure).
Farmers will be selling less hay, oats and bedding, and there are countless other jobs that will be affected. And then there is money that those who derive most of their income working at the track spend within the local communities.
From restaurants to mom and pop shops to car dealerships, everyone will hurt. To his credit, which will probably lead to his future downfall, McMeekin has engaged many “Joe Blow’s” on Twitter. Here, in his own words, are his Tweets regarding the ending of the slots at racetracks program (I’ll add a little timeline and some of my own thoughts where applicable):
The Drummond Report came out on February 15th. Nowhere in it does it state to end the slots at tracks program, though there were definite leanings towards tweaking it. McMeekin is asked about his stance when it comes to cutbacks in the horse racing industry:
“the government will look at all recommendations of the Drummond report and make decisions on how to proceed.”
Even though the OLG announced on March 14th that they were ending the slots at tracks program March 31,2013 and that they were taking slots out of 3 tracks April 30th, there was quite a lot of time between another Tweet on the industry until he was asked if he would show up at the 2nd OHHA rally at Queen’s Park March 26th (his answer was pretty much a no, though I’m not quite sure he was there or not:
“thanks - already met with horsemen, trainers, vets, track owners, Ag leaders, OLG, MPP colleagues, the Finance Minister and others”
When asked to comment on the 60,000 jobs that will be affected on April 12th prior to the budget being voted for, he ignored the question:
“Moving forward will require sustainable new business models community by community. OLG will soon be talking with municipalities.”
On April 13th he was asked about the fact that the plan to end slots was abrupt and if he thought it was right not to phase it out over more time instead of turning the industry upside down. His answer shows he has no concept about the industry, the fact that horse racing is a 4 year cycle when it comes to breeding or buying a yearling. Also, how at that time could the industry know how to put a new model in place when they were in the dark about what the new deal would like:
“Want to predict the future? then create it! Clearly time to construct a new business model that works + moves industry forward.”
When confronted by the FACT that Liberal propaganda ads called the slots at tracks a Secret Deal between wealthy track owners and the PC government when it was first implemented. McMeekin shows complete lack of understand (ignorance) and gives an answer to a question not asked, however he contradicted the lies put out by his Party:
“Nothing secret about slots at racetrack past or present. OLG needs workable and constructive options for racing to move forward.”
On April 16th, after reading a story about how Hamilton would gladly host a full scale casino though they were worried about the impact regarding Flamboro Downs (everyone still in the dark, including McMeekin, that only those who have run a casino in the past will be eligible to run a casino (including racetrack casino) in the future:
“Want to lay groundwork for a new slots/horseracing business model? See Hamilton's motion to work with OLG and private sector”
Here is a series of Tweets. When asked about saving jobs and horses, McMeekin shows how in the dark he was on April 17th: Notice how he spells OHRIA wrong twice not once which would have been forgivable. To me, it shows he just doesn’t care:
“Key to ongoing horseracing industry is developing a new business model. OHIRA needs to work with OLG and host communities.”
”Slots at racetrack $ partnership will end March 31, 2013. Municipalities will work with OLG on any new business models.”
When asked about meeting with OHRIA:
“OHIRA and anyone else interested in developing a new horseracing/slot business model need to meet with OLG and municipality.”
More:
“Industry has struggled and must be turned around. Sell as sport +entertainment. Work with municipality/OLG on new RFP model”
Totally out of touch with the fact that horse racing is a 4 year cycle:
“Call it whatever you want. Reality is that a new business plan needs to be develooped. Working with Hamilton to do exactly that.”
“You tell me. A viable busineess plan Involves telling your story, being innovative and finding a new model that works.”
“No one throwing away an industry. Like other businesses need a viable business plan. It's not up to gov to develop your plan.”
Someone mentions that horse racing generates over $1 billion in expenditures without slots:
“i like the way you're thinking. Time to get at it and not rely on government to ensure business viability.”
May work? May totally destroy the industry and its 60,000 jobs? Is this guy for real? How about the fact that the OLG new strategy is completely speculative and that much of that new revenue will fly out of the country to Vegas companies?:
“OLG saying new strategy fully rolled-out they will add $1 billion MORE than current revenue stream. Fewer viable tracks may work.”
“Old math vs new math. OLG projects their new approach will raise up to an additional $1 Billion. New business model coming.”
Here he is mocking another Twitter who asked that the government honour their old deal:
“Woulda, shoulda, coulda won't change anything. Slots/horse partnership as exists will terminate 03/13. Time for new busiiness plan”
April 19th. He seems to know a bit more. Congrats:
“simply put - OLG will develop in collaboration with municiipalities a series of venues - perhaps some tracks and other venues.”
Drummond never stated to end the program. Where is the review?, where is the job impact study?:
“Drummond called for a review and a new Business model. I spent some time talking with him about this and other things.”
When told the OLG keeps industry in the dark, and McMeekin is supposed to represent the horse racing industry. He accepts no responsibility:
“OLG is Ont Lottery and Gaming.Comes under perview of Ministry of Finance not Agriculture. Angry? Focus your comments to OLG.”
When asked about Hamilton and Flamboro April 20th:
“OHIRA is on it. They are seen as the "official voice" of the horseracing industry. That said I facilitated a Ham/OLG meeting.”
From May 1st and 2nd:
“SO largely privately operated now. Slots being redeveloped with willing-host municipalities and with new business models.”
“the decision to terminate the slots at racetrack program was taken by the OLG based on their land-based gaming strategy.”
Sounding like a pompous ass:
“Industry will survive with new business models. Can only predict future by creating it. Stop complaining/get to work”
When told he let rural Ontario down by voting for the budget, he accepted no responsibility:
“Decision made by the OLG not me. I believe horseracing will survive with new business model(s) and will work to that end.”
May 10th to present. He finally knows that there will only be rental agreements with the racetracks, so the deals will be between tracks and the new operators. He seems mixed up and clueless, oh and pompous and uncaring:
“so get on with developing new business models in concert with tracks/OLG and municipalities. Predict future by creating it.”
“Key is tracks/municipalities and horsemen working together to est. interest in new business model. Then discuss RFP with OLG.”
“I hear you. OHIRA/OLG the two key players on the horse side while municipalities/OLG will make RFP and venue decisions.”
Here he debates a PC MPP who supports the slots at track program. Again, he abstains himself of any responsibility but he does keep with the theme that he really doesn’t give a care what happens to the 60,000 people in the industry:
“Pointing fingers is easy and lazy. Use your skills to help OHIRA/OLG develop new effective business models”
“Try being honest rather than partisan. Decisions on horseracing were taken by OLG. OLG ?'s go to Minister of Finance”
My turn to confront him. I hate disingenuous behaviour. Again, he shows no knowledge that the industry is a 4 year cycle. It is kind of like telling a 64 year old that he won’t get his pension next year, but he “thinks” the industry can make a new plan by next year without much devastation:
Cangamble: RU being blatantly dishonest or just plain ignorant. Drummond Report never stated to end slots program.
McMeekin: @Cangamble Talked openly about need for land-based gaming strategy and rationalization of slots at tracks. The study led to end of program.
Cangamble: @TedMcMeekin Horse crap sir. There was no study based on the Drummond Report the gov did. I don't know of 1 Drum. rec to be implemented.
McMeekin: @Cangamble Gov. said all along Mr. Drummond would make recommend and the gov make decisions. Several Drummond recommends not implemented
McMeekin: @Cangamble OLG land-based study parallel to Mr. Drummonds work. The slots/track deal will end 3/31/13.Time to find alternative bus model."
Finally, he implies that the government (not the OLG) has been working on their plan to kill racing for two years. Consultations? With who?:
“Gov. is not one-dimentional. The study took two years. There was extensive consultation and then some tough decisions taken.”
I think any partial person can conclude that Ted McMeekin simply doesn't care what will happen to up to 60,000 people with jobs either directly related or partially related to the horse racing industry. It is hard not believe that McMeekin is nothing but Dalton McGuinty and Dwight Duncan's bitch who was given a political favour (yeah that happens) to get his new position. It may sound harsh, but I believe its true.
After all, if you check his resume, he has little experience with the agriculture industry, and obviously doesn't even understand the horse racing industry, or the repercussions of cutting the slots program with tracks within a year. Both he and Dwight Duncan don't even know the exact number of people who will be impacted by this "OLG decision." That isn't responsible government, not even close. He may appear to be like a pompous buffoon with his position and knowledge about the Ontario horse racing industry, but he still looks like a scholar compared to Finance Minister Dwight Duncan (my border collie does too, so I'm not saying much).
Both should do the right thing, and resign their positions yesterday. They make Ontario look like a farce. To call them embarrassments is to give them too much credit.
To check out McMeekin on Twitter (though he might close his account after I hit publish): @TedMcMeekin Dwight Duncan: @DwightDuncan And finally, if you like to laugh, here is parody Twitter site that mocks Dwight Duncan(It might actually reflect what Duncan is really thinking, not really saying): @HonestDwight I don't know about you, but I expect more from politicians than what I've seen from these elected officials.
8 May 2012
If OLG's Evil Plan Comes To Fruition There Will Be 6 Tracks Tops
It is amazing to me that the OLG's plan to destroy horse racing in Ontario hasn't been spelled out in full. Kind of gutless if you ask me, that details seem to trickle out every once in a while bit by bit.
The campaign that Dalton McGuinty, Dwight Duncan, and the OLG have waged to date has been not only very deceitful but very confusing for everyone involved or keeping an eye on the developments. The slots for racing program is dead, but there was still a lot of ambiguity surrounding tracks still having slots in the future and profiting from it.
Well, in the last week or so, some of the answers have been leaked out, and it amounts to horrible news for the racing industry. If the OLG gets their way, slots at racetracks will be run by casino operators who made a successful bid with the OLG on a track to track basis. The casino operator can't be anyone, it has to be a company that has operated casinos in the past, and a company most likely with a decent balance sheet. This means companies like Great Canadian Gaming, Caesars, and MGM (not sure if Larry Tanenbaum's Plaza Gaming and Entertainment have experience actually operating a casino) are the early front runners to takeover operating casinos from the OLG. I imagine, the OLG could still operate a casino or two if no acceptable bid comes in at certain tracks, but they would rather divest from it.
In the end, these casino operators will wind upgetting a subsidy with revenues of close to the amount that racetracks and Horsemen were getting. And much of that money will not be spent in Ontario.
Now, more news, which could have been guessed at, as come to surface. The tracks that still have slots in the future will only get revenue generated through rent to the operator.
How much rent? That can only be speculated upon, but it has to be enough to pay for the cannibalization that slots takes from parimutuel betting. There will be no onus to split the rent with the Horsemen, and no requirement to race in order to keep slots open.
So here is how this will probably play out. Harness tracks that are for profit will shut down. None can be profitable right now on parimutuel wagering alone. In all likelihood, the tracks will either rent to the new operator or sell to the new operator, and then sell the land that isn't needed for the slots operation, including bulldozing the racetracks. Racetrack land isn't that easy to sell in most cases because of environmental damage to the site but that is a different story. Lands will be cleaned up, and tracks will be sold. Not for profit and non profit tracks may try to continue. Hanover, Clinton, Grand River, and Western Fair are owned by agricultural societies mandated to race.
The reality is that outside of Western Fair, handle is microscopic at the other venues, and even if they can stretch rent from the slots operators and the revenues from betting on horses, it is unlikely that any of these tracks will be able to race for more than 10-20 days a year each, and at much reduced purses. The only horse owners these tracks will attract are owner trainer driver types. Flamboro and Georgian Downs are both owned by Great Canadian Gaming. It is pretty much a given that GCG will operate and expand casinos in these locations, but it also pretty much a given that racing will cease at these locations as well. All other harness tracks, including Rideau Carleton will be toast. And unless a special deal is made, I doubt Ajax will have any incentive to run live races either.
As for Woodbine/Mohawk, they will survive as 60% of their operation is funded by wagering on horses, though Woodbine Entertainment may reevaluate whether to continue a racing operation in Mohawk. Woodbine also stands to gain a full cut of all wagering in home markets that cease to have racing in the future. As for their rental agreement, well that depends on whether Toronto is forced to have a referendum or not. If Woodbine is the only acceptable location for a casino, then they can ask for and get the moon from whichever casino operator takes over.
The same is true in other municipalities throughout Ontario. A mandatory referendum for expanded casinos will slightly help the horse racing industry in getting better rental deals, but not enough to save the 10 tracks that will be eliminated from racing....unless lawsuits come about or the Ontario government changes its direction (OHRIA seems to be the only hope available to sway the government), there will be carnage brought upon most of the 60,000 people who derive all or some of their income thanks to the horse racing industry.
As for Fort Erie, these new revelation have me wondering what the EDTC thinks they can possibly accomplish by asking to run the casino and paying the government $1 million a year. First, they don't qualify to run a casino, and secondly, the government isn't interested at all in a million dollars a year, from a competitor to their Niagara Casinos.
Again, an enormous case can be made that a B thoroughbred track in needed in Ontario to keep the industry from dying, but the government doesn't seem to care about keeping the industry from dying, in fact, they are the one pulling plug.
Keeping everyone in the dark got the budget through. What I learned about politics through this: Andrea Horwath looks like a dupe. Minister of Agriculture Ted McMeekin proved himself to be a Liberal Party shill, and Propaganda Minister Dwight Duncan is either the biggest idiot on this planet or one of the biggest liars on this planet.
I'm not the only one who shares this opinion of Duncan. Yesterday, in Ontario Legislature, PC MPP Jeff Yurek deservedly ripped Duncan apart:
`I think one of the problems is that the Minister of Finance just isn’t understanding finance. For instance, up until yesterday, the government was very adamant about cutting the so-called subsidies to the horse racing industry. When you use the term “subsidy,” this sounds like a very reasonable thing to do. After all, a subsidy uses money collected through taxes and puts it forward to some program or business. If, in fact, the government is paying the horse industry a subsidy, cutting it would enhance the province’s fiscal position.
But I have just one question for the Minister of Finance: Does the government use tax revenue to subsidize the horse industry through the slots-at-raceways program? The answer is no. I would hope the government realizes this, because the agreement between the OLG and the horse industry is very clear. The horse industry does not receive a dime until someone inserts a coin into a slot machine located at their track. This is not a subsidy; it’s actually a revenue-sharing agreement. I’m sure the minister will tell me he has made some responsible concessions.
The reason I bring this up is because before the budget was released, the Minister of Finance made the slots-at-raceways program a very big and public issue. Given the amount of time he has dedicated to talking about it, one would be forgiven for thinking that this one measure in itself might balance the budget. He tried using an example of how the government was going to prioritize health care and education over less pertinent items. In all his tough talk, the minister failed to mention how he would make up the $1 billion in profit the government receives from the program. That’s right. One program, the slots-at-racetracks program, is not a subsidy, but it actually is providing $1 billion that is used to fund essential services like health care and education.
This is our Minister of Finance: someone who doesn’t know the difference between an inflow and an outflow, a subsidy from a revenue-sharing agreement. This is the man in charge of the province’s finances, a man who would cut a revenue source that provides $1 billion each year just because he doesn’t know the definition of the word “subsidy.” It’s either that or all the minister’s talk of horse racing was less about actual finance but instead a political game he was playing to stick it to rural Ontario.`
The campaign that Dalton McGuinty, Dwight Duncan, and the OLG have waged to date has been not only very deceitful but very confusing for everyone involved or keeping an eye on the developments. The slots for racing program is dead, but there was still a lot of ambiguity surrounding tracks still having slots in the future and profiting from it.
Well, in the last week or so, some of the answers have been leaked out, and it amounts to horrible news for the racing industry. If the OLG gets their way, slots at racetracks will be run by casino operators who made a successful bid with the OLG on a track to track basis. The casino operator can't be anyone, it has to be a company that has operated casinos in the past, and a company most likely with a decent balance sheet. This means companies like Great Canadian Gaming, Caesars, and MGM (not sure if Larry Tanenbaum's Plaza Gaming and Entertainment have experience actually operating a casino) are the early front runners to takeover operating casinos from the OLG. I imagine, the OLG could still operate a casino or two if no acceptable bid comes in at certain tracks, but they would rather divest from it.
In the end, these casino operators will wind up
Now, more news, which could have been guessed at, as come to surface. The tracks that still have slots in the future will only get revenue generated through rent to the operator.
How much rent? That can only be speculated upon, but it has to be enough to pay for the cannibalization that slots takes from parimutuel betting. There will be no onus to split the rent with the Horsemen, and no requirement to race in order to keep slots open.
So here is how this will probably play out. Harness tracks that are for profit will shut down. None can be profitable right now on parimutuel wagering alone. In all likelihood, the tracks will either rent to the new operator or sell to the new operator, and then sell the land that isn't needed for the slots operation, including bulldozing the racetracks. Racetrack land isn't that easy to sell in most cases because of environmental damage to the site but that is a different story. Lands will be cleaned up, and tracks will be sold. Not for profit and non profit tracks may try to continue. Hanover, Clinton, Grand River, and Western Fair are owned by agricultural societies mandated to race.
The reality is that outside of Western Fair, handle is microscopic at the other venues, and even if they can stretch rent from the slots operators and the revenues from betting on horses, it is unlikely that any of these tracks will be able to race for more than 10-20 days a year each, and at much reduced purses. The only horse owners these tracks will attract are owner trainer driver types. Flamboro and Georgian Downs are both owned by Great Canadian Gaming. It is pretty much a given that GCG will operate and expand casinos in these locations, but it also pretty much a given that racing will cease at these locations as well. All other harness tracks, including Rideau Carleton will be toast. And unless a special deal is made, I doubt Ajax will have any incentive to run live races either.
As for Woodbine/Mohawk, they will survive as 60% of their operation is funded by wagering on horses, though Woodbine Entertainment may reevaluate whether to continue a racing operation in Mohawk. Woodbine also stands to gain a full cut of all wagering in home markets that cease to have racing in the future. As for their rental agreement, well that depends on whether Toronto is forced to have a referendum or not. If Woodbine is the only acceptable location for a casino, then they can ask for and get the moon from whichever casino operator takes over.
The same is true in other municipalities throughout Ontario. A mandatory referendum for expanded casinos will slightly help the horse racing industry in getting better rental deals, but not enough to save the 10 tracks that will be eliminated from racing....unless lawsuits come about or the Ontario government changes its direction (OHRIA seems to be the only hope available to sway the government), there will be carnage brought upon most of the 60,000 people who derive all or some of their income thanks to the horse racing industry.
As for Fort Erie, these new revelation have me wondering what the EDTC thinks they can possibly accomplish by asking to run the casino and paying the government $1 million a year. First, they don't qualify to run a casino, and secondly, the government isn't interested at all in a million dollars a year, from a competitor to their Niagara Casinos.
Again, an enormous case can be made that a B thoroughbred track in needed in Ontario to keep the industry from dying, but the government doesn't seem to care about keeping the industry from dying, in fact, they are the one pulling plug.
Keeping everyone in the dark got the budget through. What I learned about politics through this: Andrea Horwath looks like a dupe. Minister of Agriculture Ted McMeekin proved himself to be a Liberal Party shill, and Propaganda Minister Dwight Duncan is either the biggest idiot on this planet or one of the biggest liars on this planet.
I'm not the only one who shares this opinion of Duncan. Yesterday, in Ontario Legislature, PC MPP Jeff Yurek deservedly ripped Duncan apart:
`I think one of the problems is that the Minister of Finance just isn’t understanding finance. For instance, up until yesterday, the government was very adamant about cutting the so-called subsidies to the horse racing industry. When you use the term “subsidy,” this sounds like a very reasonable thing to do. After all, a subsidy uses money collected through taxes and puts it forward to some program or business. If, in fact, the government is paying the horse industry a subsidy, cutting it would enhance the province’s fiscal position.
But I have just one question for the Minister of Finance: Does the government use tax revenue to subsidize the horse industry through the slots-at-raceways program? The answer is no. I would hope the government realizes this, because the agreement between the OLG and the horse industry is very clear. The horse industry does not receive a dime until someone inserts a coin into a slot machine located at their track. This is not a subsidy; it’s actually a revenue-sharing agreement. I’m sure the minister will tell me he has made some responsible concessions.
The reason I bring this up is because before the budget was released, the Minister of Finance made the slots-at-raceways program a very big and public issue. Given the amount of time he has dedicated to talking about it, one would be forgiven for thinking that this one measure in itself might balance the budget. He tried using an example of how the government was going to prioritize health care and education over less pertinent items. In all his tough talk, the minister failed to mention how he would make up the $1 billion in profit the government receives from the program. That’s right. One program, the slots-at-racetracks program, is not a subsidy, but it actually is providing $1 billion that is used to fund essential services like health care and education.
This is our Minister of Finance: someone who doesn’t know the difference between an inflow and an outflow, a subsidy from a revenue-sharing agreement. This is the man in charge of the province’s finances, a man who would cut a revenue source that provides $1 billion each year just because he doesn’t know the definition of the word “subsidy.” It’s either that or all the minister’s talk of horse racing was less about actual finance but instead a political game he was playing to stick it to rural Ontario.`
3 May 2012
Chantal Sutherland Nude? You Decide! Oh, And My Derby Picks
Just did a Google search on the internet and I found this alleged picture of Chantal Sutherland that was allegedly in Vanity Fair, allegedly taken by Bo Derek:
My Kentucky Derby Picks
I like Hansen. Ramon Dominguez is arguably the best jockey in North America, and he got to choose between two contenders. He picked Hansen. Hansen had a real good speed figure two starts ago, came back 42 days later to run a great prep race, leading on polytrack most of the way in pretty quick fractions. With that race under his belt, I expect a peak performance. The gamble is can he rate? I think he can.
Trinniberg figures to take no prisoners, and morning line favorite Bodemeister won't be too far off in second. I question whether this one can rate, so I am pitching him.
Alpha, the horse Dominguez didn't choose looks like he'll be part of the exotics when the official sign goes up. Creative Cause can also roll in for a piece of the pie. He hasn't been worse than 3rd in 8 mostly difficult races. The Cangamble long shot is Optimizer. I expect a perfect trip and he is prime to reverse his form from that last start. His previous race makes him a contender.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)