Arnold Kirkpatrick Column - The Names (And Times) They Are A-Changin'

It was just a small item buried in the middle of the Thoroughbred Times TODAY, last November 19, but it aroused in me a deep sense of foreboding as an omen of a dark future for racing:
  “Mountaineer Race Track, the Chester, West Virginia, track officially has changed its name from Mountaineer Race Track and Gaming Resort to Mountaineer Casino Resort and Racetrack."

“Spokeswoman Tamara Petit told the Associated Press that the change reflects the facility’s newfound diversity and will be used as part of a new marketing campaign.  Mountaineer. . .opened 37 poker tables on October 19 and plans to add more tables plus another 50 games, such as blackjack and roulette, by January 1.” 

 That little announcement was followed by another in the December 29 Blood-Horse:
  “Philadelphia Park Casino & Racetrack received approval for its master plan from the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board Dec. 18 and how has a permanent license to operate slot machines.”
 So now, in less than a month, two racetracks have dropped the silly pretense that horses and horse racing are their raison d’etre and have openly acknowledged that the casino is now the primary emphasis of their operation.
 While both announcements were undoubtedly greeted with exuberance from short-sighted horsemen who view slots as “the savior of our sport” because they do result in increased purses, they just sent me back to an article in U.S. News & World Report which I have been saving since March of 1994.  The theme of the issue was “How Casinos Empty Your Wallet,” but I was particularly fascinated by one of the articles, “Tricks Of The Trade – The many modern ways casinos try to part bettors from their cash.”  That article is important enough to warrant a complete column in and of itself—and it will be the subject of my next one—but the essence of this column is that, while slots, etc., may provide a temporary fix to racing’s major problem, they are not in any way a solution for racing and we who are concerned with the long-term future of our  industry had better be looking at all these things as something to help us through a rough spot while we devise a more permanent solution to our problems, rather than as a solution in and of themselves.
While the majority of today’s racetrack operators apparently regard the average fan as a necessary evil to be barely tolerated, not welcomed, casino operators spend an inordinate amount of time and money trying to develop new fans, to get the existing ones to come back more often, to bet more and to stay longer when they do.
“Casinos have become pop-psych laboratories,” the article notes and continues, “. . . sensitivity to customer comfort abounds.
“Over a year, a special promotion or interior-design element that somehow keeps gamblers at play for just five more minutes a night can add millions to a casino’s gross.”
The point here is that casino operators are businessmen and not sports fans.  No matter how much we welcome them—and their money—if they haven’t done so already, it’s not going to take them long to figure out, as have Mountaineer and Philadelphia Park, that racing operations generate a very low percentage of their income and a very high percentage of their expenses.
Then, I suspect that we’re going to see a lot more name changes. . . and I’m afraid a lot of them will not just reverse the order of the priorities in their names; they may just drop the racing part entirely.

Arnold Kirkpatrick
 (14 February 2008 - Issue Number: 7 )

Arnold Kirkpatrick Column - Artificial Panacea?

Pan•a•ce•a [pànnə sée ə] (plural pan•a•ce•as) noun.  supposed cure-all: a supposed cure for all diseases or problems. 

For as long as I can remember, people in racing have been looking for a panacea for any and all of the problems faced by our industry—a panacea, that is, short of facing up to reality and making the hard, intelligent decisions that would actually solve the problems, rather than mask them.

In the ‘70s, Butazolidin and Lasix (now cleverly disguised by transposing the L and S to produce the anagram Salix) was touted by the veterinary profession as a panacea to cure problems with short fields (and racing careers) by enabling horse to make more starts.  How well did it work?  Well, according to The Jockey Club’s 2006 Fact Book, in 1970 the average number of starts per runner was 10.22; while in 2005, with most racing cards featuring 100% of the runners on Butazolidin and 90-95% on Salix, it was 6.45, the lowest figure on record.  Some improvement!

In the late ‘70s and early ‘80s, off-track betting and simulcasting were touted as panaceas to solve declining attendance and handle at the track.  Well, they have helped handle, but trends in national attendance for horse racing are such that they are no longer published, because they “. . .have become increasingly inconsistent with the expansion of simulcasting and off-track facilities, where attendance may be estimated, duplicated or sometimes not reported at all.”   Trust me, if attendance figures were positive, they would be published.

Now comes the artificial surface, which has been a resounding success at Keeneland and Hollywood in terms of reducing fatal or career-ending injuries and a more moderate success at tracks such as Turfway and Woodbine.  Further, it is scheduled to be installed in time for this year’s meets at Arlington Park and Del Mar.

For the record, these synthetic surfaces have indeed resulted in significantly fewer serious injuries and that’s a very, very good thing, but it could be premature to attribute all the improvement to the track.  The Keeneland fall meet, for instance, is a prime race meet with good stables and good horses, particularly in 2006 when a lot of horses were there to prep for the Breeders’ Cup in Louisville. 

A truer test might be Turfway Park which is now in its second winter with an artificial surface—and with horses of more average abilities and soundness than are to be found at some of the larger tracks. 

As first recognized by major bettors, and shortly thereafter by racing officials, the Turfway surface is somewhat slower than the older surfaces, but, when it gets a little wet or cold, it speeds up substantially—and, with the increased speed, the number of injuries rises.   That has been the experience at Turfway, this winter, where racing writer MaryJean Wall of the Lexington Herald-Leader has reported a substantial increase in injuries, also noting that the times for a mile in December of 2005 were all 1:40 or slower, while in December, 2006, they are as fast as 1:36 and change.

Now, I’m no logician, but, in the face of the Turfway experience, I cannot help but see an affirmation of the correlation between speed and injuries. 

There are always minor problems with anything new, whether it be cars or computers or race tracks, and maintenance crews are scrambling to address the problems and create solutions to them—essentially trying to devise a way to preserve the consistency that the new synthetic surfaces are designed to provide for racing and I’m certain that, in time, they will accomplish that.

In the meantime, however, it would be wise to remember that these surfaces are a tool—a very good tool—to reduce catastrophic injuries, but it is nothing more than a tool, not a panacea. 
 
It is no substitute for horsemanship, for good breeding or for conformation.    
 

Arnold Kirkpatrick 
(19 May 2007 - Issue Number: 3 )