Solving the horse shortage
It's a Wednesday, and that used to be a great day for the horseplayers. Most major tracks don't race on Mondays and Tuesdays, but roared back into action and began their week on Wednesdays. But not today. There is no live racing at Hollywood Park, Pimlico, Churchill Downs, Arlington and Belmont. Those looking for quality racing will have to settle for Woodbine and, perhaps, Delaware and Philly Park. Those who will bet on anything can quench their gambling thirst at places like River Downs, Indiana Downs and Thistledown.
While most have been distracted, riveted by a terrific Triple Crown season, a sobering problem has largely been flying under the radar: there aren't nearly enough healthy horses out there to sustain an insane glut of racetracks and racing dates we have on this country.
The answer? That's obvious. There has to be less racing. That can be accomplished by revitalizing the concept of racing circuits.
Within the last few weeks, Churchill and Hollywood management announced they were abandoning Wednesday racing programs and going to a four-day week in order to shore up field size. Horseplayers find nothing less appetizing than races with small fields dominated by favorites, which meant those tracks had no choice but to cut back.
Those decisions came around the same time that Del Mar announced it would not race on Mondays this year and would, instead, go with a five-day-a-week schedule. Arlington, Pimlico, Philly and Delaware are also racing just four days a week. (Belmont is closed today only because it ran a special Monday card on Memorial Day).
By racing fewer days each week, tracks have managed to reduce the number of races with small fields, but the approach hasn't exactly been a panacea. When Churchill Downs returns Friday it will have, before scratches, just 77 horses competing on a 10-race card and there will be four races with just six horses. The situation is only mildly better at Arlington, where 10 races drew 81 horses and there are two six-horse races.
But what if Arlington and Churchill weren't both racing at the same time?
Imagine a Kentucky-Illinois circuit with only one track running at once. And why not? Both Churchill and Arlington are owned by the same company (Churchill Downs Incorporated), are reasonably close geographically and feature about the same level of racing. Churchill could open when it does in the spring and race until mid-June. The action could then shift to Arlington, which could race through September. Both tracks would thrive.
Many of the problems at Pimlico and Laurel could be solved by working in concert with Delaware Park, reviving a Maryland-Delaware circuit that flourished for decades. Pimlico and Delaware are about 50 miles apart and it's insane for both tracks to be running at the same time. Let Pimlico have the dates in and around the Preakness and then step aside for a summer meet at Delaware Park, while also keeping Laurel dark.
Similar circuits can be worked out all over the Mid-Atlantic states, where Monmouth and Philly shouldn't be running at the same time and there's no reason to have three tracks currently operating in Pennsylvania. Couldn't Charles Town and Mountaineer divide up the racing dates in West Virginia? With the best racing in America and having the luxury of operating Saratoga, New York can stand alone, but there's no reason why Aqueduct should be running in dismal conditions in February while serving up the type of bargain-basement racing that caused one racing writer to dub it "Finger Lakes North."
By joining forces, tracks can create meets infinitely better than what they're offering now. The fields would be larger, the racing better. Because tracks would be dividing up their available dollars among fewer racing dates, the purses would be richer than they are now. With fewer tracks out there for players to bet on, those that were running would see an increase in handle.
Fans would be energized. Not only would they have better racing to wager on, but also the live racing experience would become a lot more appealing. The most successful tracks in the country are those who run short, boutique meets. The endless churn of race after race, day after day, appeals to no one.
There's little doubt that most racetrack managements would be thrilled to enter into such arrangements. The current business model isn't working and there have to be economic advantages to running less often. It's the horsemen that would need convincing.
On the surface, small fields and an overabundance of races are great for owners and trainers. Who wouldn't want to compete in five-horse fields where you're guaranteed a check and you might just have the 2-5 favorite?
But horsemen need to look beyond their own short-term self-interests, something that no one or group ever does in this dysfunctional sport. These are tough times for the game and it's clear that the status quo will no longer do. Everyone needs to work together to create viable solutions, like shorter meets all across the country. The alternatives are no longer acceptable.
Bill Finley is an award-winning racing writer whose work has appeared in The New York Times, USA Today and Sports Illustrated. Contact Bill at wnfinley@aol.com.
