Suffolk Blues
Barry Roos on the latest sign of New England racing’s decline:
Sadly it appears the end may be near for racing in New England. The HBPA is blocking the NYRA signal as no agreement was reached with the horsemen. After the worst meet in racing history and no extended gambling passed last year, I didn’t think there would be much chance of racing returning. I figured Suffolk would just fade away.
When live harness racing ceased at Rockingham Park last year, it went with a whimper. The same could happen at Suffolk Downs, the last link to a once great thoroughbred racing circuit. Neither the Boston Globe nor the Boston Herald published even a paragraph on the dispute between the New England horsemen and track management over 2011 purses and days that resulted in the NYRA signal being blocked. The horsemen allege negotiations not done in good faith (PDF), the track that the financial situation is grim:
“The unfortunate fact of the matter is that absent expanded gaming, the business model for 100 days of racing here is not sustainable,†said Chip Tuttle, Suffolk Downs chief operating officer. “The horsemen are having a very difficult time coming to grips with that.â€
We’ve been here before with Suffolk. After the stakes schedule was cut in 2005, I posted a pessimistic piece melodramatically titled, “It’s Dying,” and worried about the inevitable end of thoroughbred racing in New England. The economics have only worsened since, but the track, which celebrated its 75th anniversary last year, still has found a way to open for racing each spring. Management has been betting on slots, and in 2010, thanks to intense lobbying and a state leadership largely in agreement on expanded gaming, their wager came tantalizingly close to paying off, before the bill foundered over the number of racinos the governor would approve.
A new casino bill was filed at the start of the 2011 state legislative session. The game’s still on, and I’m willing to bet, racing will be too, for another year.
Whether that’s good, at the likely purse level, is another matter. Suffolk is offering $75,000 per day for the state-mandated minimum of 100 days. The horsemen want $106,000, which Suffolk countered by offering reduced race dates. Daily purses of $75,000 would be the lowest on the East Coast, and the racing, for that sum or $106,000 per day, over 100 days or 67 days, is certain to be a reprise of last year’s bottom-level cards. That’s not only bad for bettors, it’s bad for the horses and humans on the backstretch.
Meetings Taken
Santa Anita and Del Mar executives recently met with horseplayers to discuss the January 1 takeout increase and other concerns. Art Wilson reports:
A HANA-backed boycott of California races is believed to be a factor in Santa Anita’s declining handle numbers this meet. HANA president Jeff Platt and the group’s California representative, Roger Way, met with Santa Anita president George Haines and Allen Gutterman, the track’s marketing director, on Sunday at Santa Anita and with Del Mar president Craig Fravel and marketing director Craig Dado on Monday … Aaron Vercruysse, hired recently by the Thoroughbred Owners of California to advise the group on betting matters, attended Sunday’s meeting …
The meetings are evidence that horseplayers, as represented by HANA, have gained the clout to compel conversation about customer issues. And while conversation isn’t action of the sort that’s going to end the players’ boycott, it is a start, one that went over well with Andy Asaro, a California horseplayer who attended both meetings. I talked with Asaro last night and he was positive about the discussions, describing the Santa Anita and Del Mar executives as “very interested” in the bettors’ perspective and open to making adjustments. He was less appreciative of the TOC, represented by Vercruysse. Although Asaro found Vercruysse pleasant and knowledgeable, he felt his presence was perfunctory. “He was there for the TOC to be able to say they talked to us,” said Asaro, suggesting that wasn’t enough. “They need to show goodwill.”
1/31/11 Addendum: HANA president Jeff Platt answers questions about the meetings. Noted: “However, I think there might be at least partial support at this point within track management to rescind the takeout increase. I say that because they reached out to us. They are looking for solutions.”
The Disconnect
From Matt Hegarty’s must-read on the state of the racing business:
But continuing to fatten purses is a solution that directly serves horsemen, not bettors. In a macroeconomic sense, it’s hard to argue that the $318 million in subsidies distributed to purses in 2009 made the game better. The U.S. foal crop cratered, the bloodstock market remained in its doldrums, and handle continued to decline at unprecedented rates.
Slots are the subject above, but unleavened takeout increases are similarly flawed. We’re seeing the results of a horsemen-first view in California now.
2011 Suffolk-NEHBPA Dispute Timeline
January 26, 2011: In negotiations for the 2011 live racing season, Suffolk Downs offers the New England HBPA $7.5 million in total purses for a 100-day meet, or higher purses for a reduced meet, which would require a change in the state legislation regulating racing days.
See: Suffolk Blues.
January 29, 2011: The New England HBPA, rejecting Suffolk Downs offered terms for a 2011 meet, blocks the Aqueduct simulcasting signal. The NEHBPA demands $10.6 million in total purses, no reduction in the legally mandated number of race days, and a 50-50 simulcasting revenue split.
See: Wild Talk in NE; The Other Side; Stalemate Update.
February 5, 2011: Negotiations at a standstill, the Ohio and Florida horsemens’ groups pull the Beulah, Tampa Bay, and Gulfstream simulcasting signals from Suffolk Downs in solidarity with the NEHBPA.
See: Digging In; “A Slap in the Face.”
February 9, 2011: Oregon horsemen pull the Portland Meadows signal.
See: The Impasse, Continued; Suffolk Scene; Negotiations to Resume?
February 10, 2011: The NEHBPA presents Suffolk Downs with a counter-offer for the upcoming meet. Horsemen hold firm on their earlier demands for purses, days, and the simulcasting split, but do concede purse guarantees. Maryland horsemen pull the Laurel simulcasting signal from the track. Suffolk Downs threatens legal action against the NEHBPA.
See: Point by Point; New Proposal, Laurel Cut; Sharing the Risk.
February 14, 2011: On the first Saturday that many Massachusetts bettors are unable to wager on Gulfstream, Aqueduct, and several other signals, Rockingham Park, in New Hampshire, and other nearby facilities report an increase in attendance and handle.
See: Betting Elsewhere.
February 15, 2011: Suffolk Downs replies by letter to the NEHBPA proposal. The communication is not a formal response, but a request to restore simulcasting signals, and a counter-argument to assertions made by the horsemen’s group in support of their demands.
See: Suffolk Responds; 100 Days or No Days.
February 17, 2011: Negotiations resume.
See: Later Today; Horsemen, Suffolk Talk.
February 21, 2011: There are indications of a breakthrough in talks.
See: No Consensus (Yet); NEHBPA Discussions Continue; It’s Not Critical; Proposal Revised, Talks Continue.
February 25, 2011: After several days of discussion, the NEHBPA rejects the latest offer from Suffolk Downs, which raised total purses to $8.4 million for 75-85 days of racing and provided for an equitable simulcasting split. The track also asked that the horsemen agree to not oppose legislation reducing race days. In a late-night development, however, the NEHBPA announces it will accept a modified offer, one that provides $8.25 million for 100 days.
See: What’s Next?; Unaminously Accepted.
February 27, 2011: Suffolk Downs officials state the NEHBPA accepted an offer that was never made and reject the proposal.
See: The Offer That Isn’t; “Sink or Swim.”
March 1, 2011: Following additional talks, Suffolk Downs and the NEHBPA agree in principle to terms for the upcoming meet.
See: Almost There.
March 4, 2011: An agreement is announced. Suffolk Downs and the NEHBPA agree to a two-year contract that provides $8.25 million in total purses for 80 days and a 50-50 simulcasting split. The agreement also stipulates that the backstretch will be open from April to November and that the NEHBPA will remain neutral on race-day legislation.
See: Suffolk Deal Struck; The 80-Day Compromise.
Timeline originally published on 2/8/2011 and updated through 3/5/2011.
Expert Opinion
John Pricci on the DRF bloc voting Blame as Horse of the Year:
The shocking portion, however, was Daily Racing Form’s tally, a margin that looked very much like a third judge at a heavyweight title fight who was looking the other way while a battle was joined.
Joe Drape on the same subject:
Not surprising, but how un-expert. (via @raypaulick) DRF block went for Blame 38-21. How can DRF say it’s the authority on horse racing?
The argument could be made that the DRF bloc made the least shocking, most expert pick, going for a male winner of multiple Grade 1s over main track dirt with a narrow edge in speed figures (five triple digits to Zenyatta’s four) — a horse who beat the other the one time they met in the race that everyone said would decide the title (before the race was even run). They voted the dogma, which, most years, nicely aligns with what happens on track. That it didn’t this year says much more about how ultimately unsatisfying both leading HOTY contenders’ 2010 campaigns were than it does about DRF voters’ judgment.
Based on the rancorous debates of the past couple years surrounding the HOTY title, Todd Lieber argues in the Thoroughbred Times that Eclipse voters should have set criteria to guide their votes:
It would be up to others with far more knowledge and greater standing in the industry than this correspondent to determine what those criteria should be, but since I’ve raised the issue I will at least hazard a suggestion. The honor should go to the horse with the most consistent record of achievement at the highest level of racing during the year. To be sure, this will not stifle debate, but it would at least focus the questions.
Well, that’s awfully vague. How about a points system for HOTY?
Congratulations, Ramon
Ramon Dominguez’s 15-year career as a jockey has been more journeyman than money rider. Before moving his tack to New York in 2009, where he swept the leading rider title at every NYRA meet that year and scored his 4000th career win at Aqueduct last March, he dominated the mid-Atlantic circuit, only occasionally breaking through nationally, as he did when Better Talk Now won the 2004 Breeders’ Cup Turf or Scrappy T collided with Afleet Alex at the top of the Pimlico stretch in the 2005 Preakness Stakes.
In 2010, hard work and talent not only made Dominguez one of the most consistent and capable jockeys in the game, it also made him one of the most successful, with earnings of $16,911,880 and 369 wins, including 43 stakes, five of those G1s. Last night, out-polling Garrett Gomez 124-60, Dominguez won his first Eclipse Award. Of the honor, NYRA handicapper Andy Serling said it best: “Glad to see Ramon Dominguez win the Eclipse for Jockey of the Year. People like him make me proud to work in this industry.”
More Dominguez! Here’s a Flickr gallery of the jockey, with stakes winners Better Talk Now, Gio Ponti, Haynesfield, Fabulous Strike …
More Eclipse Awards: Steve Crist counts votes, Claire Novak recaps, Bill Dwyre celebrates with Horse of the Year Zenyatta’s connections (“I’m so happy for the fans”), Foolish Pleasure lists. And even more reactions via Raceday 360 …
More SA Numbers
Santa Anita executives went on the offensive over the weekend, releasing figures showing the handle decline isn’t as bad as numbers bandied about in discussing a horseplayers’ boycott suggest. Art Wilson reports:
While cold, hard figures show Santa Anita’s overall handle was down 17 percent through Thursday, track officials contended Saturday their handle was down only 8 percent if you use “comparable days” rather than “calendar days.”
According to Santa Anita director of mutuels Randy Hartzell, it’s “not fair,” for instance, to compare opening weekend last year to the meet’s first two days this year (something I brought up, somewhat in jest, last month). Handle on comparable days totals $97,086,816 for 12 days of racing this year, said Hartzell, down from $105,784,974 last year; that compares to an overall total of $79,085,032 this year, down from $95,191,018 last year.
I asked Wilson the source of the article’s totals, and he replied that the numbers are derived from DRF data, not the CHRIMS data recently referred to by Scott Daruty on the Paulick Report, which gave rise to questions about how the track’s total handle figures are determined. “I am told by more than one person (Santa Anita and the CHRB) that according to CHRIMS daily average handle is only down about 8.2%,” wrote a California bettor seeking an explanation of the differences in an email I received this morning:
If that is true then Equibase and DRF are putting out false handle numbers to the public and have been for years…. How do DRF and Equibase come up with the handle numbers they disseminate? Can someone from Equibase and DRF respond to this please?
Good question. But — and I write this as someone who would also like to know how the figures are derived and their accuracy confirmed — it’s a tangent here. I mean, hey guys, you’re arguing about how much your handle is down. Your handle is down, at the same time that Tampa is booming and Gulfstream is reporting gains. Aqueduct isn’t up, but that’s because NYRA was especially hard hit by NYC OTB’s closure, and they’ve admirably met that challenge so far by treating it as an opportunity to cultivate new customers, take over the OTB TV channel, and get live streaming video on the NYRA Rewards site.
Santa Anita’s handle is down, and track executives are debating by how much? Instead of admitting that customers might have a point — that maybe the product is overpriced, or not all that enticing — and considering how they might respond positively to reverse the slide, they’d rather defend how they’re running the business. The way things are going, that’s right into the ground.
Reading the Numbers
Nick Kling on the first 11 days of racing at Santa Anita:
Through Sunday, on-track attendance at Santa Anita is down 9 percent. Total all-source handle is down $11.5 million, a decline of 13.4 percent.
On-track and intra-state (within California) handle is down 7.8 and 6.7 percent, respectively. The most significant loss is in inter-state wagering, which has fallen 19 percent.
The trend: After the first seven days of racing at Santa Anita, average handle was down 18%, out-of-state handle down 21.9% over the previous year. After the first two days, total handle was down 26.2%, out-of-state down 32.3%.
Things are going great at Gulfstream: Five days in, total handle is up 17.2%.
Tote Improvements
Last-minute late odds drops may be less of a frustration for horseplayers by late 2012, when the TRPB plans to fully implement a new tote security system that will make it possible for racetracks to display real-time decimal odds. Frank Angst explains in the Thoroughbred Times:
The decimal odds would allow a horse that is 2.60-to-1 to actually be listed as 2.60-to-1. Currently, a horse that is 2.60-to-1 is listed as 5-to-2. If that horse’s odds fall to 2.40-to-1, it currently is listed as 2-to-1, which creates the perception of a more dramatic odds change that what actually occurred. The system initially will focus on win odds but plans would allow for the eventual addition of other pools.
According to the press release sent out by the TRA on Tuesday, the new system will also include a standardized stop-betting process — which should help end the sort of past-posting incidents handicapper Mike Maloney has publicized, such as this one at the Fair Grounds, or this one at Hollywood Park.
1/10/11 Addendum: If only such a system were already in place. Then, the odd betting that manifested in Sunday’s sixth race at Santa Anita might not be so mysterious. PTP speculates that one bettor may have been responsible.
Tax Break
Get a FREE racehorse in 2011, courtesy of the IRS. From an analysis of the recently passed federal tax bill in today’s TDN:
Bonus Depreciation was increased to 100 percent for eligible horses or farm equipment placed in service after September 8, 2010 and before January 1, 2012. In other words, the entire cost of eligible horses or farm equipment purchased and place [sic] in service during that period can be written off. For example, two yearlings purchased and placed in service in 2011 at a total cost of $1 million can be entirely written off that year.
Just in time for Keeneland January shopping. (And a reminder that there are more ways to support ownership than increasing takeout for purses.)
I haven’t done more than skim the sale catalog online, but @irish_1 pointed out on Twitter this morning that Antoniette, dam of G1 La Brea winner Switch, is up for auction next month as hip #267 in foal to Roman Ruler.
About
Jessica Chapel writes and edits in Massachusetts. Railbird is a Thoroughbred horse racing blog published from June 2004 to July 2019. More / Contact
Elsewhere
Find Jessica on Pinboard and Instagram, Railbird on LibraryThing and Twitter.
Etc.
Links
Search
Boston Racing
Spreadsheets/Data
← Home
Copyright © 2000-2023 by Jessica Chapel. All rights reserved.