Another bonehead move

While California horsemen fret over the risk of customer cannibalization as a result of account wagering, Woodbine Entertainment officials say they have found just the opposite to be true: Televised racing drives wagering.
Nick Eaves and Andrew MacDonald of Woodbine Entertainment told the Harness Racing Congress Feb. 21 about their company's success by "employing any and all distribution strategies."

 http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/8217/woodbine-tv-combats-handle-cannibalization


 The above quote is a direct statement in 2002 by Nick Eaves, the current Chief Executive officer of WEG (Woodbine Entertainment Group).

Before I start this blog,  let me make one thing perfectly clear. What the Liberal government and the OLG, led by one of the most crooked politicians in my lifetime, Paul Godfrey, did to racing is deplorable. And nonsensical. To cut them down in one fell swoop with basically no warning or plan to serve private interest groups who will benefit along with themselves is something that should never have happened. It has always been my position that if racing had strong leadership--real,  true, smart, competent leadership--and had acted quickly and defiantly when it first happened, they could have put a stop to it and at least reversed this decision and got them to do it right. Kind of like the leadership that the Meadowlands now has with Jeff Gural. But that is a blog for another day.
The slots do have to go. That is a fact. But it didn't have to happen this way. The point was not to destroy horse racing in Ontario, the point should have been to make it self sufficient and within a reasonable time frame and chance to do so. My position, again, is that horse racing and slot machines can never co-exist. They are adversarial. They aim to take the same market, gambling money and entertainment created to get that money. One flourishes, the other dies at the exact same rate. You would never see a Las Vegas Casino put one of their prime competitors right on their own property and help them do well. It goes against all logic. And now, when the bird is ready to fly we see what the caretaker is left with: Nothing.
Horse racing in Ontario had 15 years to bridge this problem and become self sufficient. It has horribly failed in that time. It sits today at the mercy of the government and appears as beggars pleading with the government to give them more time. Meanwhile, the leaders in the industry do nothing. Or they make bonehead moves like Nick Eaves just did last week.
I preface it that way because I never want to appear to come of as someone who doesn't want to see horse racing succeed and prosper. I love racing and it is a great sport, despite its many problems with all sort of issues. If I was in power, whatever position that would be, I would do whatever I thought was beneficial to make it work better and be viable. I think it is worthy of continuing, but not on the track it has been on for about 40 years. My position has always been that if done right, it can work and everyone can win. That, sadly, has not happened for ages. Slot money covered that ugly reality up for 15 years. Now, it is exposed again.
That said, it is where it is. How did we get here and why does it appear that there is less and less hope every day that it will survive?  I will attempt to answer that and bring up only the most recent example of why it seems anyone who has any clout is doing the exact wrong thing to fix this.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/2012/03/12/ontario_horse_racing_industry_calls_provinces_proposal_to_end_slotsatracetracks_program_irresponsible.html 

When the news came almost a year ago that horse racing in Ontario was going to lose the slot money that has carried it for 15 years it was a shock. A shock to most. Not a shock to me, as I predicted this more than 10 years ago. As soon as governments started to get in a deficit position, they were going to look for places to increase revenue. It doesn't matter that they will actually lose revenue--from a net gain perspective--with a move like this. They were still going to do it, because it sells with the general public who view slot money to horse people as charity and a subsidy. In some respects, it is charity.
 Sure, it is a business arrangement where the government benefits greatly from the deal. No doubt about that. And it doesn't cost the government a cent or cause them to take any financial risk. All that is true. But they could already do anything they wanted with respect to Vegas style gaming without the horsepeople if they wanted. And now they do want that. And as we have seen, the big players are lining up to get a piece of the action. 
So, the only motivation was to keep the horse racing industry viable by propping it up. And make no mistake, it needed propping up. And still does. Without the slot money, horse racing on any significant level in Ontario basically doesn't exist anymore. Racetracks like Elmira, Goderich, Leamington, Orangeville, old Barrie racetrack and others perished because they were not viable. Sudbury, Kawartha, Hanover, Clinton, Sarnia and Fort Erie would have if not for the slot money. Before the slots, they raced for purses so low you could not make a profit racing unless you won just about every week. And even then, over time, you would lose money as an owner and be broke as a driver or trainer if you had a bad month or two. That was the reality, and when the slots vanish it will be a reality again. Unless.....
I will get to that later.

But none of that matters anyway. It is going to happen. Why?
Because horse people are so focused on saving the slot money that they still don't get it. The only way out of the mess is to get people back to the track and betting. Steady. On horse races. Period. If that doesn't happen then there is no point. There is an industry because people want your product. If they don't, then there isn't. Just because you can sponge off the slot money doesn't mean you should. It was nice while it lasted, but it was bound to end. Now, it has.


http://www.standardbredcanada.ca/news/2-19-13/no-more-bet-night-live.html

In 2010, WEG rebranded its former Race Night On The Score show to Bet Night Live, designed to "introduce new people to the sport and immediately experience the excitement and anticipation of horse racing and the thrill of winning." 
 "Included in the cost reductions announced last Wednesday was a significant reduction in our network TV programming," Woodbine CEO Nick Eaves told Trot Insider. "We will still produce the Queen's Plate on CBC and we hope to showcase other major races on network television however the Bet Night Live program has unfortunately been cancelled."

Based on a move like this, I think the time has come to ask if Nick Eaves is the right person to be manning the ship at WEG. He was very eager to cut and slash staff, and maybe some of that was justified. But, at a time when it appears the only chance you have to maintain your product, which the last time I checked was horse racing, is to gain new customers and keep the ones you have on the fence interested, the last thing you should do is cut your media presence. Looks to me that he just wants to keep getting his big paycheck for as long as he can until it all collapses, which it will if this is the type of move he thinks is a wise one.


 Nick Eaves is the CEO and president of WEG.
CEO. What does that stand for? Chief Executive Officer. Let's break that down. 

A Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is the highest-ranking corporate officer (executive) or administrator in charge of total management of an organization. An individual appointed as a CEO of a corporation, company, organization, or agency typically reports to the board of directors

Chief

-Highest in rank, authority, or office. Most important or influential. 

Executive

 -A person or group having administrative or managerial authority in an organization.

Officer  

-A person holding a position of command or authority

If we put it back together, what we have is the person of highest rank, with administrative and/or managerial authority who holds a command position.
From this type of power and decision making ability, you expect a level of expertise and leadership skills.

http://www.harnesslink.com/www/Article.cgi?ID=103507

Because of this, I have to question Nick Eaves credentials. So, I decided to look them up. Here is what I found.

http://www.oddsonracing.com/docs/PersonalityofthemonthMAY2007NickEaves.cfm

There isn't that much out there on the internet about Nick Eaves credentials. He ran a painting company during his college years and eventually came to run and off track betting parlor. He then spent 12 years with WEG before becoming COO of the company in 2006. His responsibilities were basically the internet and gaming aspects of the business. Slot machines and off track wagering. That is what he worked hardest towards. And with good reason. He had no experience with racing and knew nothing about it-by his own admission.

"I hadn't been exposed to racing that much prior to joining the Woodbine group back in 1994," Eaves said.  "I had been to Western Fair Raceway in London where I was going to school and to Greenwood in Toronto, but I knew very little about horse racing."

It appears nothing has changed. He doesn't have a big Ivy league pedigree. He doesn't have hands on experience in the racing business. It doesn't appear he has ever owned any racehorses. He doesn't even claim to work to build the racing audience and fan base. He just fired the most qualified person in the company, Bruce Murray, that was capable of doing that.

 Yes, he is slick and well spoken. No doubt about that. He has the corporate lingo and game down pat. He is a good face on the brand. I will give him that. He wears the very nice suit. He has the very nice, responsible haircut. Every hair is in place. He will never say anything that will cause the company to call him into the boardroom to explain himself. He is very "executive". He has that part down pat. He is also certainly an officer of the company. He follows the party line and does what is expected of him. He won't make waves. He won't take any chances. He is no Steve Jobs. He will get his big fat paycheck, he will do what he is told and at the end of it all he will leave with a big fat golden handshake while the rest of the industry dies a horrible death. The one thing he is not is "a chief". 
Chief's don't kiss ass. Nick Eaves is a total ass kisser. He has been kissing the governments ass, a government who is ass fucking his enterprise, for months now. How does that serve the horsepeople he is supposed to represent? It doesn't. Why? Because he doesn't actually represent you. He represents himself and his career. So, what to do about that?
What is a chief? A chief leads. He takes charge and makes decisions that benefit the people under him. The people who follow him, trust him and put their faith in his ability to do what is best for the whole group. A chief doesn't get rid of the soldiers most able to help the team win the battle. A chief doesn't make decisions that help maintain his level of power while at the same time ensure the cause will be lost at the end of it all. 

Nick Eaves...is not a chief.

 Eaves was quoted in March 2007 edition of The Harness Edge magazine as saying: "We have to provide a fantastic product to today's customer and make sure we're putting on the best racing and that our restaurants are as good as they can be and our facilities are as clean as they can be and that our communications are as succinct as they can be.  We're focused on that and I think we're doing a really good job."

Explain to me how the recent decisions are "focused on that?"

 http://www.drf.com/news/woodbine-daily-average-handle-jumps-13-percent-us-betting-increases

Horsepeople are very eager to blame the Liberals, and there is plenty about them to blame. And the OLG and Paul Godfrey. But they are an easy target. They are clearly the enemy here. But when your allies, or apparent allies are your actual enemies and are more allied with the other side than your own, if you do nothing to correct that you might as well wave the white flag. You have no chance. You can't fight your enemies when you have no competent leadership on your side. It simply won't work.

http://xwebapp.ustrotting.com/absolutenm/templates/article.aspx?articleid=48753&zoneid=1 

 "How are we expected to compete when the referee is also our opponent?" Eaves emphasized.

Mr. Eaves concluded his remarks by saying, "WEG hopes that the government will include the successful and participatory integration of horse racing into the province's overall gaming strategy. Otherwise it is hard to see the numbers working to allow WEG to be more than, at best, a pale imitation of its current status as a renowned international leader in both the Thoroughbred and Standardbred industries and, the anchor of Ontario's horseracing and breeding industry."

June 21, 2012
 
That was then. In his recent press conferences, he still refers to the government as "our partners".
Which is it Mr. Eaves? Are they the opponent and competitors or are they our partners? Do you even know? Or care? It appears not. 

What kind of idiot wants to partner with a government who has demonstrated they are out to screw you and destroy you? I have to wonder why this person has any power or interest in the best interests racing. I conclude he does not.
Nick Eaves is neither a chief or a competent executive. If anything, he is an officer with loyalties to the government, and not the horsepeople who are putting their livelihoods on the line. When the short term aid money is gone in two years, the whole model breaks down. By then, Nick Eaves will be long gone and on to his next job. Where will the horsemen with no viable alternatives be?
They will be on the internet bickering amongst themselves and wondering why they didn't speak up to get rid of the Nick Eaves of the world and promote the sport they love and make a living from. By then, it may be too late. It may already be too late. 
Nick Eaves is the Captain steering the Titanic towards an iceberg and telling you it is just a tiny piece of ice. Don't complain later when the iceberg sinks the ship. Speak up now and avoid the iceberg.   
Based on recent actions and decision, Nick Eaves must go and the whole team at WEG must be replaced. If not, big time racing in Ontario will be completely dead in 2 years.  

I will conclude where I started this blog, from the same article. This is what Nick Eaves said in 2002.

  "He (Nick Eaves) painted a picture of Woodbine in the early 1990s as a business in serious decline. It was failing to attract a new audience, its distribution was limited to live racing, it had little TV exposure, had no technological advances, and experienced a steep drop-off in wagering due to competition for entertainment and gaming dollars."

If it was important then to have a strong TV presence, isn't even more important now?

Perception vs. Reality

 I was reading an article on Standardbred Canada's website this morning. You hear all the time of a horse really down on his luck. The trainer just about ready to give up on him. Some do give up on them and then someone else comes along and the horse becomes great for them. Rambling Willie was that kind of story. 


In this case, the trainer, Joe Cirasuola decided to keep the horse, Ruff Me Up, and slowly and steadily the horse turned around to become a very nice WEG horse. At the time Cirasuola got him, he first raced him in a 6 claimer at Sarnia. The horse raced terrible and he was thinking of selling him for 4000. He didn't, for whatever reason and within a few months he completely turned around.


“I was going to sell him for $4,000 last fall at Sarnia after he didn’t fare well,” he remembered, of the horse that was originally a $61,000 purchase at the 2005 Lexington Select yearling sale. “But it didn’t happen, so we just moved on from there.”
Not long after, Ruff Me Up showed signs he was getting things on-track, punctuated by a strong second-place showing at Flamboro Downs on November 6, in a time of 1:54.2, after leading the field through a half-mile in a scorching :52.4.

Ruff Me Up winning at WEG

Or did he?
Lets take a look at Ruff Me Up to see what kind of horse he was before he was down on his luck.


As mentioned in the SC article, Ruff Me Up was a $61,000 yearling. And for good reason. He is by Real Artist, who is a popular sire. His dam, April Ruffles, is a half sister to JD's Buck (p, 2, 2:01.4f, 3, 1:57f, 4, 1:54.3 -'81 ($1,153,031) 39 wins. and Tough Hombre p, 2, Q2:04f, 3, 1:52.1f, 4, 1:51.3f -'93 ($631,656) 26 wins. Both of those horses were high end FFA horses back in their day. JD's Buck raced consistently against Cam Fella in his prime and then against the top FFA horses in the world for a couple of years. Tough Hombre was very competitive in the top stakes and was third in the Breeders Crown. 
April Ruffles was also the dam of RUFFED UP (g, Western Hanover) p, 2, 1:55f, 3, 1:52.2f, 1:49.2 -'02 ($650,089) 33 wins and FAST RUFFLES (m, Western Hanover) p, 2, 1:52 -'04 ($413,758) 6 wins, who was a winner in her elim of The Breeders Crown and second in the final. The pedigree was clearly there. The talent was clearly there.


 Of course, lots of well bred horses that have a big ticket yearling price end up being nothing, but in this instance, that wasn't the case.
Ruff Me Up was raced hard and early at 2, and he made the Woodrow Wilson final at the Meadowlands. You don't do that unless you have real talent. He paced his own mile in the final (where he finished 6th) in 1:52.1 in August. While he may never have been destined to beat those type of really high end horses, he certainly had some level of class. He was also second in the Smullin at Rosecroft just after that before they shut him down.
At 3, he won multiple Pennsylvania Sire Stakes and was good enough to race in the Little Brown Jug. He was thought that highly of. Unfortunately, he drew the 7 hole, was parked from before the half and finished last, beaten only 5 lengths, his own mile in 1:51.3. 

Two horses that beat him in that elim were Tell All and Southwind Lynx. That is very good company to keep.

He also won a division of the Reynolds stake that year.
After that, he tailed off badly in his 4, 5, 6 and 7 year old season, many times missing large chunks of time for whatever reason. Clearly he was raced hard young and was fried. That happens. That is the business. People pay $61,000 for a yearling and they expect to get their investment back as soon as possible.  By the time he hit the starting gate the first time as a 2 year old, his owners were likely in the hole for about $100,000. His first lifetime start was in the Goshen Cup,  where he paced in 1:54.1 and then his second lifetime start was in the Wilson elim. He was thrown to the wolves without much preparation. And as time went on, he paid the price for that. The two horses who beat him in his Wilson Elim basically fell off the radar and were never really heard from again. That is how it goes.
A trainer I once had said that most 3 claimers are made, not born. I have always agreed with that.  Sure, some horses just don't have much ability, but for the most part the ones that end up at the bottom rung of the ladder are ones that were pushed too hard or not taken time with when that time was necessary. That doesn't mean that many of them will make it back to where they were born to be, but some can.
I think it is safe to say that if you go back and look at most of the starters in the Woodrow Wilson, you will find that very few go on to do much after that. Racing two year olds is a big time gamble, as is buying yearlings, and racing in the Wilson is like playing roulette at the casino. You might get the big score, but if you don't you will likely lose it all. That is the gamble you take when you race in those types of races.
In the case of Ruff Me Up, that gamble didn't pay off. He certainly never paid back that initial investment plus expenses and the yearling buyer lost, big time.
As we all know, those of us who have been to the racetrack, picking up losing tickets off the floor in the grandstand is a fools game. You rarely find one winner. But it does happen. 
In the case of Joe Cirasuola, that ticket, the one he picked up and almost threw away, did come back to pay off for him. He recounts his first impressions of the horse.


It wasn’t necessarily love at first sight.
“I never really liked grey horses and when we got this guy, the first three months, he couldn’t get out of his own way,” recalled Cirasuola. “He had issues his entire life, all kinds of things, and he just couldn’t seem to put it all together.”

I remember a horse who had a very similar story. Back in the late 80's, an unraced son of Storm Damage called Soft Light was bought by Garth Gordon. The story goes that he had a very significant injury training down as a young horse,  possibly a bowed tendon, but he had now healed. 
Soft Light was a very well bred horse,  and Gordon took a chance on him.
Soft Light's dam, Lantern, p,3,T1:57.2 ($96,952) was a fantastic broodmare who had produced multiple good performers including:

SAVE FUEL p,5,1:511m (h, Bret Hanover). Winner of 23 races and $325,377.
GUIDING BEAM p,3,1:534m (m, Bret Hanover). Winner of 25 races and $205,854.

STEELY GLOW p,6,1:54f (h, Bret Hanover). Winner of 24 races and $201,001.
and many others.

Lantern's dam,  Flicker was a full sister to  FLY FLY BYRD (h, Poplar Byrd) p, 2, 2:03.3, 3, 2:00.3h, 4, 1:58.2 ($244,601).

My memory is that Soft Light didn't make his first lifetime start until the middle of his 4 year old season. But he went on to be one of the top FFA and stakes horses of his generation and lasted for 5 or 6 years at that level. Much the same way that JD's Buck and Tough Hombre went on to be better horses as aged than they were as 2 year olds. It is mostly a family of horses that get better with age.

SOFT LIGHT p,4,1:523q (h, Storm Damage). Winner of 55 races and $691,220.

Now, in the article, the writer lists Cirasuola as crediting the mother of one of his workers for the good fortune he has with Ruff Me Up.



"Cirasuola still marvels at the way the mother of one of his workers can walk down his shedrow, analyze a horse’s current physical state, and be bang-on in her assessment.
So, when the woman told Cirasuola a grey horse would one day win a lot of races and money for him, he didn’t pass up the opportunity, just 48 hours later, when he had the chance to purchase Ruff Me Up, a pacing son of Real Artist, in 2011."

 I don't need to be a physic to figure out this horse was bred to be good and has talent. I can read a program and a sale book just fine.

The perception is that he was a horse who was no good anymore and was an underachiever his whole life. The reality is that he was just a horse who was a victim of his circumstances and needed some care and a chance to shine again. No witchcraft or psychic powers are involved in that.

Why do we race horses? The cart before the horse

The issues in racing these days are very complex. I am not so naive that I don't understand that horse racing these days is a business first. Approximately 65,000 people are employed in Ontario alone and it is a billion dollar industry that ripples into many different aspects of the economy. I get all that.
But, I think in many ways it has gone too far. It is too much business and not enough sport and entertainment. And I mean strictly the racing aspect.  I understand that a lot of tracks have tried to make the experience at the track more entertaining with music and other fun events. 

Industry day 2008 at Grand River. Drivers riding for the cause.

But on the race track, with the actual racing of races,  I think they have failed. And for a very long time. The "Wow" factor, the reason to keep them coming back,  is simply not there. That is just my opinion. All of this is an argument based on opinion. But the facts would back them up if I wanted to make this a fact based blog. I don't, so I wont. Anyone who wants to look up the facts will find that the attendance at the racetracks to view the races and the betting handle are shockingly low.  If not for the slots almost every track but WEG would be closed by now. Even the Meadowlands was in jeopardy up until Jeff Gural rode in on his white horse to hopefully save the day. 
Who of us ever thought that The Meadowlands, the mecca of harness racing, would ever be closed? Then again,  who thought back in the 1950's that Roosevelt would be by the late 1980's.
This is not a new development. Long before the issues of low attendance, dwindling betting handle, aging population and tracks closing we have had this problem. Since the mid 70s, and long before that in some cases, horses were being raced and carded so that owners, trainers and drivers could make a living.
There is nothing wrong with that, on its face. Of course if people are going to put on a show, they have to have the expectation that they can earn a living to support themselves and their families. Or simply get some kind of return on the investment they put in as owners. That is reasonable. However, that cannot be the primary reason that we race horses. That is the motivation of the participants, not the customers who show up and patronize the event. Industries exist and continue to thrive because that industry serves a need that customers want. Once that need dissolves, that industry will die and new ones will spring up.  That is basically why the slots have taken away the gambling share of the market from live horse racing.
So lets step back and go way back to the roots of how racing horses for money and to entice betting began.
As we all know, in the old days (pre WW1 and WW2 days) horses were primarily raced so that those who thought they had the best horse could prove so. Others would bet on those races because they believed that one of the parties was correct, and one was not. Many great horses were bought for large sums by wealthy people who knew that they would never recoup their investment. Nor did they really care. Their goal was to have the best horse and race him to prove that they were the best. The best against the best.
 Anyone who has seen the movie Seabiscuit understands that although much of the movie was not entirely accurate, the match race between Seabiscuit and War Admiral was basically a race to see who had the better horse. In that way,  it created interest because there was a wide difference of opinion on who that horse was. In harness racing, the Cam Fella vs. Its Fritz battle had the same idea.

Back in those days (pre 1960), horse racing was primarily not a business. Most trainers were hobby farmers and raced the horse they kept around or bred. The point of racing was to see who was the best horse in the race. Most owners and trainers did not make much money or profit. The greatest horses of the day, Adios ($33,000) and Billy Direct ($12, 000) barely earned much in their whole careers. Even a very decent horse didn't make much more than $10,000 in their entire careers, which usually spanned 6 or 7 years. Most horsemen, even the very successful ones, had day jobs to support their participation in the racing. There wasn't much racing at all in the winter, so even the very successful could not earn much of an income from racing alone. There were exceptions, but they were very rare.

Roosevelt Raceway, in its heyday. The grandstand was packed.

But the crowds were large and the betting was fierce. The attendees had a vested interest in the horses that raced and bet accordingly. Meets were much shorter and the quality of the racing was better. The overall quality of the horses as compared to today was not, but the ideal under which they raced was. And the patrons came back week after week. The racing was an event, entertainment and viable in terms of attracting real interest in the actual product.
So, why do we race horses these days? I think it all starts there.  Before we can sort out the other issues,  we have to wonder why the customer, the betting public,  the guy and his family who will have to get in their cars and drive to the track will want to show up. Is it to watch a 4500 claimer race 3 times a week in January just to fill a card so that the trainer and owners can make money? Certainly not.
I am aware that this also happened back  in the day,  but not to the extent it does now. Racing has become, for the most part,  mundane and repetitive on a daily basis. This did occur back in the heydays as well, but it has become the norm, not the exception these days.
A lot of us don't want to hear this, but a reduction in racing dates is the right answer. Less overall racing,  but better quality is something that needs to be looked at. The fan, the bettor,  the spectator needs a reason to want to come to the track.  Just filling race cards so that horsemen and owners can make a living is not a good reason. 
It is great to draw the fan in with promotions like free live music and fun events for kids, but the main focus has to be a great live racing product. That is what will keep them coming back for a lifetime. I can go find great live music in tons of places.  I don't need to go to the track for that. It might get them there once, but it wont keep them coming back.
Yes, that would mean a reduction and consolidation in the industry as a whole. No tracks need to be shut down,  and in fact they can flourish. Instead of 20 mediocre dates, they can present 12 great ones. Some people will be out of work. That is true. I don't deny that. In all industries today,  that is happening,  and will continue to happen.
One only has to look at when the crowds still come back in large numbers.
Why do you think the grandstand is packed on North America Cup night and Queens Plate day? 
Simply put, the quality of the racing is better. Racing horses for an audience is a show. The better the show, the better the turnout. 
Old home week is another example. That is excitement. While there is a lot to do there, it is all about the racing.  Little Brown Jug week is the same. The examples are there. It is not rocket science. People will still come out in droves if you give them a great racing product.
While I understand that everyday can't be a huge stakes race..or match race...it can still be exciting..and not repetitive.

So why do people come out for the big days, and big races, and then not come back more often.
My opinion is that the fan is looking for the Rocky moment. Seabiscuit facing off against War Admiral is a Rocky moment. The underdog slaying the giant.

That was a Rocky moment. we need Rocky moments in racing. In daily life we are all bogged down by the drudgery and boredom of every day life. We want the "Wow" factor at the track. we want a favorite horse. We want to see competition,  triumph and drama. That is what sells any entertainment to the paying customer.
A Seabiscuit or a  Somebeachsomewhere to cheer for. I remember many horses that were much lesser than those that accomplished that.
One I remember particularly was called Knightwind. He was somewhere between a 25 claimer and at his best a Saturday night horse. Another was a horse called Keystone Madden.  They weren't world beaters,  but they could compete with the best and were mostly always in the race. And both were around for 5 or 6 years at their peak,  week in , week out and raced well until about 10 or 11. Those were horses the fan could follow and identify with. Those are still  around,  but not anywhere near the amount we need them. 
I just used the boxing example with Rocky. Horse racing and boxing both have something very important in common. At around the same time, they were the number one choice for entertainment in the realm they lived in. And they both fell out of favor because they became mundane and ordinary. Stars and fights like Ali, Frazier,  Foreman, Sugar Ray and Mike Tyson became replaced by MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) that offered a better brand of competition when boxing no longer could produce stars that endured. Harness racing is no different. 
Having nobody's fight against nobody's and trying to make them out as prize fights is very similar to having ordinary horses race day after day and putting that out there as quality entertainment. In that way, harness racing has driven the fans to the slots, which in the fans eyes, is simply better entertainment. Racing, as with boxing needs to be fresh. We need to make racing fresh again. 
Over racing ordinary horses just so that owners, trainers and drivers can earn a decent living is like putting the cart before the horse. Much like the movie Field of Dreams, if you build it,  they will come.  Make a better racing product, the fans will  show up and the money will be there for those to earn that living. 

What we first need are stars and we need  them week in and week out. Build a following, make the fans want to come out and keep coming out and want to come back..and stay. They don't have to be superstars like Seabiscuit and Somebeachsomewhere, just stars the fans can identify with,  connect with.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAoqUrdYYio

In my next blog, I will start to make arguments as to how we do that.

Make it worth their while to stay racing.

 In Garnet Barnsdale's latest blog he discusses Jeff Gural's plans for the Hambletonian and also his "out of the box" thinking.



"The Meadowlands will also be carding The Hambletonian Maturity starting in 2014, which will offer a $400,000 purse to eligible 4-year-old trotters. A possible field of 16 horses will race 1 1/8 miles in the Maturity with all entrants earning part of the purse. It’s a novel concept to promote interest in a sport where variety has never been encouraged or embraced."

http://www.horseracingnation.com/blogs/driveon/THE_HAMBLETONIAN_RETURNS_TO_HEAT_RACING_IS_THIS_DEBUTANTE_WINNER_A_123 

While I agree that Gural is an out of the box thinker and a refreshing change to the status quo that has killed the industry for decades,  I would  argue that he could do way better than this. How about this concept?:

A Hambletonian Maturity,  but only for those who are kept eligible for the Hambo as 3 year olds, as in those that make the first or second payments that year.  Then,  to further make it palatable,  how about giving the winner, if he wins both the 3 year old Hambo and the Maturity a 5 Million dollar bonus. Don't you think that is a bit of an incentive to keep a legit champion trotter racing as a 4yo?
And if he wins it as a 5yo too, make it an additional 10 million.
You only have to look at the final leg of the thouroughbred triple crown to see how much interest there is when the really big bonus is on the line.