Many horseplayers have said that they should not be the one who should pay for racings never-ending mistakes, through takeout hikes and all the rest. Jeremy Plonk on ESPN.com thinks so, and says so publicly.
"But don't insult me with another tax hike that makes the game even less attractive. I'm not an addict, and neither are the vast, vast majority of other horseplayers. We don't need to wager seriously on the game if we have absolutely no chance to win.
What this bill essentially says should be of no surprise to anyone who has watched the national news in the past several years. Now, more than ever, it's the consumers' responsibility to prop up horse owners who have overspent on their operations and have forgotten that racing a horse once was a privilege and sport, but now has become a painful ink stain on a spreadsheet to too many. It wasn't horseplayers who drove up the yearling prices, or who decided that because a drugged-up 2-year-old worked in 11 seconds at an auction preview, that he or she suddenly became worth $140,000 when the same horse should have sold for $20,000 based on pedigree. "
Many horse owners believe the same thing. A lot of this business's problems are on the supply (i.e. horse ownership) side, because of increases in costs, and other factors, that have nothing to do with the takeout. Using takeout to address problems, does not fix the supply side and cost problems, it only delays them for another day. Which is why in 1908, takeout was 5% and it has grown to almost one quarter of the betting pools, and we have more problems than ever.
Even if that does not register with people let us ask: If raising the takeout is the answer, why don't they raise it to 80% and fix everything?
Much more at link.
No comments:
Post a Comment