I believe you are somewhat misguided in the thought that lasix is one of the reasons that horses are starting less times a year.  If you had spent millions of dollars racing horses you would never write that lasix should become a banned substance. Lasix is a helpful benefit to a horse to stop or help alleviate bleeding.  The exact opposite complaint could be made that horses that run without lasix/bleeder medication will run poorly due to bleeding and the betting public has been deceived because horses didn't run to their normal effort.  I think the steroid issue should be given two years to see how that effects the size of fields and number of starts per year.  Put up some of your own money into racehorse ownership and then have one of them bleed without lasix and we'll see how fast you ask your trainer and vet how can we prevent this from reoccuring - which is in the best interest of the horse's health.

Good grief Evan.  First you do a nice job of identifying problems then you come to the solution, ban lasix and reduce fields.  Quite a logical disconnect there.  Let's look at it:

1.  How does reducing the amount of racing do anything other than cause the continuing decline of TB racing from where it once was.  If you are talking about--let's figure out a way for a few rich owners to survive(and take over the sport NASCAR style), then, I'm with you.  If you want to talk about let's do what's good for most of us in this sport--let's find a way to get more racing, instead of less.

2.  Lasix:  nice misreading of the study.  "enhanced performance" in the terms of the study means that a bleeding horse can run normally.  If that is enhancing performance, how is that harmful.  There is nothing in the study that says that Lasix makes a horse run faster or farther.

Now, what does the industry need to do.  There were some strong hints in your article involving the internet.  imo the ball was dropped somewhere along the way to reiterating the anti-lasix prejudice.

YOU are RIGHT ABOUT BANNING THE DRUGS.

Totally agree! Out of state breeder is totally correct... If you ever witnessed a a bleeding episode up close and knew it could be prevented, then I would call you cruel. Small boutique meets fill a very unique niche; if we had no place to run our horses in an economical way ie without shipping all over, then we surely would be out of business. I don't post very often, but this nonsense had to be refuted. Thanks

Anybody care about the long term effects of Lasix? I took a little horse I claimed last year up to the races from the farm and he started urinating non stop even before he got  lasix! Continual use of this med beats the hell out of a horse's urinary system. And then they go back and get pumped with electrolyte! Sure. That's the fix. Ban it. There are natural anti bleeding herbs that do the job fine- I won 4 races with a bad bleeder. Vets cant turn a buck though so it's voodoo.

Lasix may well indeed help alleviate bleeding, BUT it also leeches calcium serum from the bones (of growing horses, remember, horses mature at 5), plus has been linked to dehydration effects: electrolyte imbalances (that can lead to "tying up"), heart palpitations, exhaustion, ulcers, etc.

AND it has been demonstrated that in its diuretic effects it can "mask" other banned substances...

NO RACE DAY MEDS...breed horses that don't bleed...Europe does.

Why does noone ever look at more even distribution of the purses so that more than just the winner can turn a profit?!?  Do you really think a lucky nose winner is deserving of three times the earnings of an unlucky nose second?  60/20/10 is not working.  If your average claimer averages a second or third place finish, which is VERY good, said claimer would lose money for the owner!  Thats absurd.  But thats just one small part of a huge puzzle of problems the business has.

Horse racing has a return of around 50% after a patron is roughed up for parking, admission, racing program, clockers, chartman, writers, handicappers, NTRA, stewards, individual tracks' hand-picked testing labs, racing mafia shake, federal take, the state's cut and mis-information. More of the days net winnings leaves through the informationally privileged owner-trainer-jockey parking lot (e.g.Valhol's Arkansas Derby, Cielo Canosa maiden win 8/13 at Del Mar) than the general parking lots in horse racing. In comparison, 100% of the days net winnings leaves through the slot patron's free parking lots

www.clockerbob.com/chapter8.html

How is less racing and banning lasix going to drive revenues up?

The only way to do that is to reduce takeout, believe it or not.

Sure, the game needs to be reinvented.

If parimutuel racing was invented tomorrow, the people who put it together would be capping takeout at 12% and hoping that wouldn't be too high in light of competition from other gambling vehicles.

Let the public last longer, and they will play with more money.  The odd winner created by lowering takeout will also cause a huge buzz and that would be the carrot needed to draw in new players, or players who have left for lower vig gambling vehicles.

Lower everything.  Experiment on racing horses without jockeys yes like Greyhounds. Workman compensation would be cut down to a minimum. The betting public won't have the jockeys to blame and would be less suspicious. They could be trained to race like Greyhound.

great column, evan! banning race-day medication is definitely the place to start if we want to regain trust and restore integrity to the sport. how many people are turned off because they no longer believe that the best horse finishes first? how many drugs can lasix mask? according to the lead author of the latest furosemide study, an undetermined number because the diuretic dilutes the urine and makes it difficult to find other drugs in the animal's system. though insiders like some of the above posters like to ignore it, the american thoroughbred has become weaker since the introduction of bute, lasix etc. the statistical evidence is in: horses in countries which do not allow lasix and bute race longer and more often. how many times does that have to be spelled out? the erosion of confidence and the sense that there is cruelty done to animals has turned away a huge part of racing's potential audience. horses are breaking down because they should not be running at all, but drugs can make it happen and that turns people off. without drugs, we could weed out bleeders and remove them from the gene pool, as they do in other countries. instead, we encourage bleeders and pay vets $100m a year for that race-day injection that causes such stress to the animal that one has to think that pulmonary bleeding would, in some cases at least, be a lesser evil. and there will be fewer races, that is inevitable. bettors are tired. they want quality, not quantity. they want full fields and excitement. not a handful of drugged up, sore legged platers limping around an oval. and they want to know that the horse they bet on has the same chance, in theory, as every other horse in the field, not just the ones treated by this vet or with this particular drug. racing needs to clean up its act and fast while it still has a shot at survival.

Great article. I agree, no drugs and much less racing.

Mr. Hammonds:

I admire you for telling us that you are against drugs and for less racing.

I think it's interesting that many of the European trainers that bring horses to race in the Breeder's Cup and other big stakes races put their horses on lasix while they're here.

Honesty at all levels and accountability by all participants must be first and foremost. NO DRUGS, NO TOE GRABS, LIMIT STUD BOOKS! Susan@UnbridledRacing.com

Thanks for your article Evan. I think most of the readers that posted here ignored the point you were trying to make, which I read as this:

THE RACING PUBLIC IS SICK OF SEEING BROKEN DOWN ANIMALS AND THERE ARE TOO MANY OF THEM!!  Sorry to break it to everyone in this industry...but there isn't enough interest in THOROUGHBRED RACING TO SUSTAIN THE NUMBER OF TRACKS AND THEREFORE THE PEOPLE MAKING A "LIVING" OFF OF THEM....THAT'S THE TRUTH....AND NOTHING ANYONE IS CURRENTLY DOING RIGHT NOW WILL CHANGE THAT!!!  

BARRY IRWIN IS RIGHT....AND THAT'S UNFORTUNATE FOR MOST EVERYONE WHO ISN'T PLAYING AT THE TOP OF THIS GAME.....THERE SIMPLY ISN'T "ROOM AT THE INN"....

By the time that "Everyone" in the Industry finally gets on the same page, there "Will Be" less Races because there will be less Tracks.

People have said for decades that we should've already had night racing and Churchill is just now Testing it ???

35,000 fans average per night and they still wanna take an opinion poll ???

If 35,000 fans isn't a big enough of an "Answer"...then you'll never get a clue.

Does Salix prevent bleeding or minimize the evidence of bleeding?  Do horses on Salix need more time to recover between races?  

Thanks for everybody's comments so far.

As for some early posts regarding drugs, it's been nearly a year since we published a special report in print and online titled "Losing the Iron Horse." Armed with the data (www.bloodhorse.com/.../losing-the-iron-horse.htm), we had several top industry insiders who are lot smarter than myself make comments. They all agreed the use of medication is the most likely culprit of the fact Thoroughbreds are "weaker" than they were 30-40-50 years ago and make fewer starts.

To quote one: "We (the U.S.) are so glaringly different from the European countries, Japan, Hong Kong, New Zealand, Australia...they all have zero tolerance, no-medication race day policies, and their horses are all tougher than ours."

As for the comment we need more racing instead of less, the marketplace seems to already be taking care of that for us.

Locally, Churchill cut days from its spring/summer meet and Ellis Park has greatly decreased it's summer stand.

A recent report "Thoroughbred Racing Economic Indicators" notes purses are down 6% for the year to date and are down 10.3% for the month of June alone...and those totals include purses enhanced by alternative gaming.

Would like to make a clarification here:

I failed to mention the role of the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium, with the strong leadership of Dr. Scot Waterman, in tirelessly going state by state last year to help eliminate anabolic steroids in racing.

What about a change in the pari-mutuel business model?  This has been the model for how horse racing has thrived since 1927.  It clearly worked during the time period when horse racing had a monopoly on gambling; however with the dawn of the internet it has been crushed.  With so many substitutes available and racetracks raising their takeout rates to attempt to compensate for these smaller pool sizes they are just in fact alienating the public.  Why can't tracks add new betting methods on top of the pari-mutuel model?  States will in turn generate more money, and the racetracks won't become the left arm of the one armed bandits cropping up everywhere, useless.

Clearly a new kind of crowd must be drawn to horse racing if it is to survive and while Churchill has accomplished this in one aspect, physically getting the patrons to the track, it was also well reported that the pari-mutuel lines were not long.  These new patrons weren't betting as much as they should or could have.  

Americans are unfamiliar with the betting exchange model that has become dominated by the company Betfair worldwide.  This is a tremendous model that invites an entire new generation of customers to wager that effectively acts to reduce the margin (takeout) due to the sheer volume of wagers and would act to raise revenue tremendously. YES, a smaller margin on a much bigger pool size still increases profitability! This even falls under the definition of "pari-mutuel" in its purest form which means betting amongst ourselves.  Push to allow these tracks to operate a unified exchange before foreign interests move in and completely cannibalize the US horse racing market.  Having registered users has proven that it cuts down on cheats as there is no longer the anonymity of betting cash at the tracks, everyone has their wagers recorded.  This also creates better methods for recognizing problem gamblers and assisting them.

Instead of cutting corners, banning Salix, cutting races,  which is what everyone wants to do because the best idea that they can come up with are the ones that have been harped on over and over by executives everywhere, why don't we ADD to horseracing.  Develop new methods of wagering and draw people back to racing through intrigue and passion of the sport.

Two things the industry can live without are medication and workouts.  Layers of expense create yet more reasons for an already apathetic public to stay away.  The ‘cost’ of such a move?  The wagering public would be better served by reducing confusing aspects that surround intricate landscape laden with mystery (how did MINE THAT BIRD go off at that price!).  But, just as some of the responses indicate, Racing will expend energy to explain why status quo must be kept.  Your correct Mr. Hammond, racing is forever stuck in time.

When I started paying attention to racing, most tracks ran a Tuesday-Saturday schedule, with 8 races a day. In 1970, there were 56,192 races at different tracks. In 2006, my last BH SW book, there were almost the same number, 56,902, down from a high of 82K+ in 1989. Yet in 1970, there were 48,971 starters trying to win those races, while in 2006 there were 72,729 starters. Breeders have not reduced the number of horses bred to match the reduction in the number of races; owners don't have nearly as good a chance of winning a race as they once did. Breeders need to reduce numbers by not covering every mare that breathes; tracks need to reduce the length of race days and coordinate better with other tracks; and all trainers need to read and absorb Preston Burch's book before they can be licensed. And above all, every state racing commission needs to be purged of political appointees who have no clue what they are doing. Better yet, national standards for accreditation of racing. The JC, BC, and the TOBA can help there; no accreditation, no graded races and no BC supplements. Pipe dreams, I'm afraid.

I beleiev Rob Whitely disagreed with your sentiments as to why there are fewer starts. He also said at the round table discussion that it is simply because of the economics of the game we play that we don't have as amny starts per year and as many starts per career of the horse.  It is now between $3000 nad $4000 per horse for monthly expenses at many of our racing circuits.  We as owners have to pull the plug a lot sooner or send them to the farm to try and get things sorted out instead of keeping them in training and continually running as might be the case if our expenses were in the $1000 - $2000 range. It's not the breed it's the economics - but you wouldn't know you don't put up any money you just are a sidelight of our industry that makes money from our industry.  I continually notice how small the monthly bloodhorse magazine has become - it's the same reason - the economics of less ad money has made you a lesser magazine. Is it because you are not as good a publication as you once were or just lack of funds to produce a better more informative magazine?  

There is no need for racing during the week.  Not enough people in attendance to support it.  Belmont on Wednesday afternoon with 3,000 people is just a sad sight.  Night racing on Friday is a good idea.  It should have been started a long time ago.  I agree, we need to ban all drugs including Salix and decrease the number of mares bred, cap the stud books to an economically reasonable number of mares.  But as always in the industry the powers that be, (the ones with the money) are also driven by the almighty dollar.  Not much will change until the industry figures out how to market itself and pays attention to the two dollar bettor.

Once again the public has no idea how much the professional horse person wants what is best for the equine athlete.  When you get sick, you take some kind of drug, and go to work.  Don't you?  Well sometimes a little ache and pain is nothing more than that.  Ask any other athlete.  Sounds like to me, the couch potatoe has no idea what they are talking about.  As for the answer to bringing back the good old days.  They are gone.  We need new ideas.  Sponsorship, like the NFL, NBA, Baseball etc.  This will bring new money.  The complex situation of starts/horse/year, is just that complex.  Breeders, need to pick stallions that race past 3.  We need to stress soundness more.  I was a stallion manager for three years.  Not once did I hear the question, what retired him.  It was always the race record, and pedigree.  Half the people looking could not see a bowed tendon, from an offset knee, or upright pasterns.  Then the owner being impatient, pushing the trainer.  Storm Cat is a prime example. J Sheppard did a great job with him.  He was told to push him on his return to racing.  He took the best interest in the horse and said no.  The owner then sent the horse to L Jolley.  Three days later Storm Cat was being retired.  Bowed tendon.  Just like any other sport or business, there are good and bad people.  The press loves to report on the bad.  The good goes by unwritten.  I could go on.  Evan Hammonds, you need to spend some time walking in other peoples shoes before you make any more comments.  

so, scott, things are fine as they are and all critics are couch potatoes with no direct experience or knowledge? or they don't talk to enough horsemen? there, i daresay, goes the reason the sport is in the absolute mess it is in and its future so endangered. those who make the rules and those who follow them blindly think things are just fine as they are. yes, the media does focus on the negative and, by golly, in this industry they have a lot to work with. tell me, what are the tolerance levels for commonly used drugs in all 30-plus states with racing? do they differ? and where can you get away with a slap on the wrist for snake venom or no penalty at all, if you can hand your string over to a proxy and take it back in a few weeks? and does lasix mask illegal drugs, as the lead author of the furesomide study argued? but this is not a problem? when you have vets and trainers confused over what they can and  cannot administer on race day (and what they can get away with), it is time for important change, as evan has proposed. as one non-couch potato, i would say that no change to this patchwork quilt of medication regulation and enforcement equals oblivion as bettors continue to lose confidence and interest, the cost of sustaining unnecessary drug regimens bankrupts owners, the constant and the steady deterioration in the soundness of the breed and escalating publicity of break-downs and mistreatment drives away both couch potatoes and those of us who believe that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is insanity.

Butch Coyoca 07 Jul 2009 4:57 PM

No jocks? Train them like grey hounds? You are brilliant! Do you own a track? Or maybe the CEO of one? You sure think like they do.

Horses do not chase rabbits. They are a herd animal. If left alone, they move behind an accepted leader who always arrives first. Play the slots. Lot simpler and eats a lot less.

This game prefers to die slowly but surely. At least in the USA. We use to be number one. Now? Bottom of the international barrel. Every aspect of our economy is controlled internationally. Dominated by countries we considered 3rd class 30 years ago.

If the Feds had not stepped in, we would be one large depression camp with 50% to 60% unemployed by now. Could still happen. In 5 years, we will be lucky to have 5 major tracks left. They WILL NOT make any change that favours the fan. Not one.

I like the idea of wagering exchanges like Betfair. But, they are also controlled by the "Whales". Every exchange allows users with software to access current for/against wagers to mine for value and to place wagers when it is found by the software.

Me? After 35 years, I gave up handicapping and am having a good deal of success and enjoyment playing poker. I will sadly continue to watch the meltdown...

On a large enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.

Winning is a habit. Unfortunately, so is losing.

Keep it up Evan.

Until the TRA and the TRPB quite handing out eclipse awards to the biggest cheaters in the game ( remember when Ramsey had to apologize for attempting to fix a race before getting his Eclipse Award?)

Until the big name trainers with 20+ drug violations are rulerd off all track grounds for LIFE, we are on our way to no industry at all.  

We need a national racing commissioner with "teeth". Cheaters need to be banned for life. But it's the breeders who have killed the goose.Good studs used to cover 30-35 mares. Now, sky's the limit. Breed has suffered and the racing product along with it.

How about more racing with the handicapper in mind.  The landscape is certainly changing, more and more we are becoming a simualcast businees.  Its amazing how we can only have a couple of tracks running and every race is run on top of each other. Its time to work together, post times need to be controlled on a macro level, racing needs to get back to the basic fan who is gambler.  

As far as meds, although I'd like to see zero tolerance I'm am on the fence regarding Lasix as I am just to un-educated  I guess my question is in regards to our foreign competitors...is bleeding simply not an issue because of breeding/training/racing styles?  

My guess is that the idea to reduce the quantity of racing is to simply improve the quality of the product.  I like the idea but realize that there is a trickle down.  The smaller breeder and trainer could be pushed out because of less opportunities to race, especially if tracks are closed.   Less racing days means less employment for track personnel.  I have no answers to the problem but am really tired of racing chasing its tail.  I do like the idea of offering the product at times when folks are most available to participate..evenings and weekends! Again I have to ask will it make a big difference in the long run.  I watch harness and quarter horse racing at nights. What is the attendence and handles at those tracks.  Be interested in the comparison.

for two recent posts:

'Barry Irwin': Thank you - those few short words carry a lot of weight with me.

As for'nosedoutagain': I couldn't agree with you more. Can't there be a 'meeting of the minds' somewhere to give each race their own minute and 40 seconds of fame?

Of course horse racing is doomed, but for none of the reasons ever mentioned in any industry publication. Not only does the house takes too big a cut but no one can beat a 20% takeout. As a professional gambler -- I am CEO of TrimTabs Investment Research, a tipsheet on the stock market partially owned by Goldman Sachs -- why would I want to play a game where the house averages a 20% take out 20% when I can bet on sporting events or play high stakes poker with a 10% or so take out?

Y'all in the horse racing business (I haven't owned a race horse in 15 years now) seem to forget that current take outs worked when governments gave horse racing a monopoly on sports gambling.

Only a fool can really believe that slot machines and lotteries compete with horse racing these days.

The real competition for sports betters are football, basketball and poker.

The last three times I made a bet was on the triple crown races from home via TVG. And that's only because I love the sport, but not the management.

The last real money I made in horse racing was shorting Magna Entertainment on its way to perdition.

Everyone wants to compare european racing to US.  It isn't apples to apples.  There are very few tracks that race on a daily basis over in europe - very few horses are running. We probably have 30-45 racing jurisdictions or more that race on a daily/regular basis.  

Secondly, horses do bleed over seas and if you polled their trainers lasix would be a slam dunk to be used on race day. One only needs to see that when euro horses come stateside to run they place their horses on lasix.

I am in total agreement with poster Charles B. the days of 20% take outs are now killing the handle.  

I also believe that trainers that test positive should have a result whereby there is a stiff suspension of days - 90 days first offense - 1 year second offense and third offense is a lifetime ban.  While the suspension is served all horses under the trainer at time of suspension must be moved to another trainer or the owner can't run the horse during the suspension.  The days of letting the assistant take over has zero penalty for a trainer who cheated and was caught.

Evan, you have given a fair summary of the problems of horse racing.  However, banning unnecessary drugs, while a good goal in itself, will not solve racing's problems.  Fewer tracks and races may be the way we're headed and may be necessary.  However, you need to realize that fewer tracks/races will change the sport drastically into one controlled only by a select few and will have almost the same effect as the entire sport failing where 95% of the people involved will be out of business.  The primary reason that racing is in crisis is that the economics don't work.  Owner's are losing money right and left.  Tracks are losing money right and left.  Fans are complaining about high takeouts compared to other ways to wager.  And, as you mention, the publications are now hurting financially.  I'm really tired of everyone thinking that if they just got a bigger piece of the pie, racing would be wonderful.  Racing is a VERY expensive show to put on.  Reducing takeout is an admirable goal, but the money to pay for the horses to be trained and taken care of has to come from somewhere.  The money to pay for and maintain the tracks has to come from somewhere.  The existing purses just don't do it.  It's not like poker where all you really need is a table, chairs and a deck of cards.  There is only one real answer to fix racing without turning it into an another elitist sport controlled by the mega-wealthy.  And that answer is to dramatically increase its popularity.  Can that be done?  I don't know, but the tracks need to start promoting the sport like you would any business.  I can think of dozens of ideas for improving the racing experience for very little cost and so could anyone who with half a brain. (Clean/pleasant facilities, good food, reshowing past great races, barn/farm tours, advertising;  the ideas are endless).  But, everyone is in survival mode and, instead of promting the sport, is cutting everything to the bone and hoping that slots will make it all better.  Slots may provide some stopgap money, but it is NOT racing.  Racing needs to fix itself.  Few businesses can thrive with the negative, me-first, survivalist mentality that everyone seems to have.

As much as I love horses, and that is why I come here, the beauty of the horses can't mask the ugliness and greed of the sport.

If people in the industry continue as they are now--there will be no future in horse racing.

The breed is not holding up, the drugs are bad...mmmkay! In reference to lasix horses that bleed in my opinion shouldn't be racing and they shouldn't be creating more bleeders.

It seems more than half of the people in the industry only love a horse when it wins. They only love a horse when it makes them money.

One more major no no that needs to stop is that fans are needed to fill your tracks and place bets online or wherever they may go to see horse racing. Stop scrutinizing the little guys...without them the industry becomes nothing. How long can you breed and pass horses around in auction if no one wants to come see them race. Just because I am not some big owner, or someone with connections in the industry does not mean I am going to get a tour of Three Chimneys Farm or several other large farms for that matter.

noholme, I am not suggesting no changes.  As for bleeders, they do bleed overseas. They just use different drugs to stop the bleeding that are not detected.  Where do you think amacar came from?  Are there cheaters, yes.  But there will always be cheaters in any sport.  New England Patriots cheated three years ago. I think they should be suspended.  And they are.  I was traing in 6 different jurisdictions, never showed positive for anything.  Each state is different.  Did you know in NJ its illegal to drive with a cell phone on unless you have some bluetooth device.  Its ok in Pa though.  Its a trainers job to know the difference.  Del Park will not accept any checks to claim a horse.   Only cash or wire transfer.  Pa is different.  They will take a cert check.  I feel the start of the thoroughbred race horse has to start with the breeder.  It doesn't matter how many we breed to a stallion, just as long as that stallion produces sound and fast offspring.  We need our sires to race past 3.  Jess Jackson is the best thing that has happened to horse racing.  Curlin showed he will bring solid pedigree to this industry.  When we get this, then the fans will be able to follow a horse for years; instead of months.  Its great to have a Ky Derby winner be a gelding.  You can follow his career for a long while.  This will get the fan base back.  That and alot more of other things.  

Evan.  Thank you for the article. You are exactly right about the drug issue, of course.  There is no way to know whether it's just rearranging chairs on the deck of the Titanic,though.

Those who would defend lasix do not mention it's capacity to mask the presence of other drugs, nor do they mention how racing could have thrived in the pre-lasix days.

Evan. Thank you for your insight. Hay, Oats and Water, less racing and better distribution of purses.  Millionaire hores with a 6 race resume. Grade 1 races with a big pot, one good horse and a bunch of allowance types. Grade 1 races should be for graded stakes performers only. Create racing scenarios where the good horses who might be great have to face off to get the money and greatness. Thoroughbred racing should be about the sport of racing horses not a support activity of the breeding industry. Money first has corrupted the grandness of the sport. Poor leadership, conflict of interest abounds. The inmates are running the asylum. We need a czar who doesn't own a racetrack, 28 broodmares and has the top contender for Breeders Cup Classic. The public is turned on by Mine That Bird, Rachel Alexandra and Zenyatta not the antics of their connections or the over the top marketing endeavors. Millions of dollars for horses that don't run, can't run or break down makes the sport look foolish. I will now get off my soap box. Thank you.

Charles Biderman is correct regarding the high takeout as being racing's primary problem.  I realize the horses are expensive to maintain, but racing must find a way to reduce takeout or the slow fade to oblivion will continue.  There is evidence that takeout reductions can actually have a long term positive influence on handle.

Agree with the author that there are simply too many tracks and too much live racing, particularly in the summer months. The resulting short fields and boring racing dominated by odds on chalks are a complete turn off. Friday-Sunday race cards should be the norm.  I'll bet that most U.S. tracks lose money on midweek racing anyway.

Racing also has a product distribution problem. I live in SC and can't legally bet on races unless I drive 4 hours out of state.  Somehow racing needs to lobby other states to permit pari mutuel wagering via OTB's or the internet.  With virtually every state in a fiscal crisis, the timing is right if racing leadership can coordinate a concerted lobbying effort.  

Evan,

Less racing-Are you crazy! Fewer races plays right into the hands of the "big-time" owners and trainers that can afford to breed to "over-priced" stallions. The "little guy" who finally wins a race with a 10K claimer is living "his dream", something you "suits" will never understand. Most of us "normal" horse owners race horses for the excitement of trying to win a race in allowance or small stakes. Less horses = Over priced horses in the sale ring (sounds very familiar). I wonder who can afford to buy these 6-7 figure horses? hmmmm. Could it be the same ones who win all those "fewer races" in the country?

Your comment on a reduction in average field size showing 8.70 in 1980 and 8.17 in 2008....almost 30 years and you can only come up with this very small reduction...please get real.

Night racing-when do you think most people are off from work? Do you think the "big boys" will ever get a clue.

"Slot States"-they have figured it out....it's not all about horse racing...it's about bringing money to the track to fund purses and keep our indutry alive and if you pick up a few new "slot fans", than so much the better. Tracks who have not figured this out will certainly "die on the vine". Slot staes want more races...not less!

Boutique Meets-Again, are you crazy! No trainer (except our big name buddies} can survice with "boutique meets".

Finally-Expectations from our fans. Would the average fan rather cash a $20 win ticket in a claiming race or a $2.20 win ticket on that "something special" horse. You guys need to come down from your "ivory tower" and stop listening to the advise of the "Kentucky Derby" trainers. I wish I has more time to comment on Salix...Quite simply....I know horses that would have NEVER won a race without the benefit of this anti-bleeder medication.....oh....but once again it's not about the "little guy", it's about the "big shots" who control the horse racing industry!!!