Don Antonio:
Good article. You do not need the Hubble Telescope to see that the quality of
Racing is in the toilet.
We the (wagering) people are really the only ones who have the power to change
these trends, by changing our wagering habits, through \"boycotts\" or \"buycotts\"
or whatever, but we probably will not.
It is the dichotomy I have discussed here and elsewhere, and pretty extensively.
While the quality of Racing has sunk to new lows, the opportunities to wager
have expanded--intertrack wagering and internet wagering, etc. Wagering
basically available 24 hours per day, seven days per week, 365 days per year.
Wagering menus have expanded--pick 3, pick 4, pick 6, dollar wagers, ten cent
wagers, etc. As bettors we are pacified, so to speak,by all the options we have
available to us.
While the quality of Racing is nowhere near what it was even 10 years ago, it
is much easier to make a buck playing the races now than then due to expanded
wagering menus.
Add to this the amount of handicapping information available to us now as
opposed to then, the existence of lines of communication provided by message
boards such as this one. A lot of what was once \"inside information\" has
been \"outed.\"
Most racetracks and off track wagering sites are much more user friendly than
they used to be, including Saratoga, though most of them have a long way to go
in terms of customer service.
So as a horseplayer, I am content. As a racing fan, I am disgusted. The
important question is how long Racing can exist without further improvement of
the breed, without the cultivation of a new generation of fans.
A lot of the folks who are in a position to implement change can not do so
without damaging themselves commercially. The two Steves -- Crist and Byk-- for
example-- can not say what they really feel about the quality of Racing due to
the fact that they need to appease their sponsors.
What would it do for sales of DRF, TGs or the Rags if Crist, Brown or Friedman
advocated horseplayers wagering less until the Racing powers that be were more
responsive to us?
The bottom line as always--- the lack of centralized leadership.