Slots tracks luring bigger names
I'll be the first to admit that I don't "get it" when it comes to slot machines. Watching lemons, cherries and bars spin for a fleeting moment will never rank up there with the 1988 Breeders' Cup Distaff in this gourd. Heck, it won't compare with a tough beat in the opener on a Thursday afternoon at Churchill Downs.
But the lemmings come en masse. Studies show that more than 70 percent of all casino money bet gets raked in one arm at a time by the bandits. So if that many casino gamblers want to groove to the mindlessness of slots, how can a horseplayer even try to rationalize?
Slots are a 24-7, 52-weeks-a-year business, but perhaps the "cha-ching" is more prevalent this week than any other on the racing calendar. Kentucky's legislators have gathered in Lexington to discuss the possibility of video gaming throwing a life vest to the state economy, in general, and the horse racing industry, specifically.
Meanwhile, slots-rich Charles Town sticks out its chest and offers a pair of $250,000 races Saturday night that have lured some of the biggest names in the sport to a track once considered the dregs. A little bit north of there, slots-infused Presque Isle Downs features four stakes Saturday totaling $375,000 for Pennsylvania-bred horses. This at a track that did not even exist before Smarty Jones took that state's racing industry off life support and almost single-handedly campaigned voters for slots passage.
Once upon a time, I disdained slots at racetracks. The original "racinos" were jazzed-up casino wanna-bes on one side of the facility, while the racing side could not even muster a new coat of Dutch Boy on the dilapidated grandstand seats and benches. They were more a sign of what's wrong with racetrack management than any sort of solution to a problem.
These tracks offered gaudy purses, but no one of any consequence came to run. In short, lousy horses were running for inflated money. When $5,000 claimers dash for $13,000 a race, it's hard to argue that you've improved the racing product to anyone other than the horsemen. After all, these were the same $5,000 claimers from the same barns and owners that pre-slots were running for $5,200 in the same spot. Just because state-bred maidens were running for $28,000, were we supposed to flock to Iowa-breds as horseplayers?
But the quality of racing at these slots-induced ovals clearly has improved recently.
While America's tough economic times of the past two years have tightened many personal and business budgets, they also have served to loosen some arrogance. Rich people are not as rich as they once were, and don't have the leisure to pick and choose where they want to sip daiquiris on a Saturday afternoon in hopes that their horse can get a piece of the purse money. Now more than ever, they need to see at least some sort of return on investment. In layman's terms, you have to be less snobbish when you need the dough.
The biggest boon has been for those tracks with slots, where owners can run for more money while taking the path of least resistance. While the racing has improved at these once out-of-the-way racetracks, no one will argue that an allowance race at Belmont Park still remains a far tougher task to win than one at Philadelphia Park. But do you want to run your guts out for $49,000 in New York, or take your chances down I-95 for $41,000?
Check out the roll call of nationally known trainers competing at the Delaware Park slots parlor this Saturday alone. Here you'll find Cody Autrey, Kelly Breen, Christophe Clement, Tony Dutrow, Bobby Frankel, Larry Jones, Michael Matz, Graham Motion, Todd Pletcher, Linda Rice, Mike Stidham, Ronny Werner and Nick Zito trainees.
At once-lowly Charles Town, Preakness Stakes pace-setter Big Drama tops the marquee in Saturday's $250,000 Red Legend Stakes, but that race is not even the featured event, playing second-fiddle to the $250,000 Charles Town Invitational Dash. The track lured the winners of the Whitney and Hollywood Gold Cup earlier this year for its Classic, not to mention four different trainers who had Triple Crown wins on their resumes. On Saturday night, the conditioner's list reads like a Who's Who: Steve Asmussen, Larry Jones, Eddie Kenneally, Scott Lake, King Leatherbury, Michael Matz, Doug O'Neill, Ben Perkins, Tim Ritchey, Derek Ryan, John Servis and Marty Wolfson among others.
Earlier this week, we learned that Kentucky Derby champ and everyone's favorite little gelding, Mine That Bird, would be pulling the one-armed bandits at Mountaineer Park Racetrack and Casino later this summer in the $750,000 West Virginia Derby. This might be the most glaring example of arrogance finally being undressed in the horse racing industry. The Mountaineer event long has carried a big purse, but seldom lured any horses above Grade 3 quality. In the past, big-name trainers like Bob Baffert came with their "c" team for a shot at the easy money, but no horses of legitimate national consequence had been seen hanging out in such a neighborhood.
It's amazing what a little home-spun humility will do, isn't it? Mine That Bird's owners are rich, don't get me wrong. But they have a different kind of money. And they don't see a trip to Chester, W.V., as something you should hide from your neighbors. It's a perfect prep for the Travers, and there's no shame whatsoever in rural America. Plus, again, do you want to be the big fish for $750,000 or battle your eyeballs out for $1 million in Monmouth's Haskell Invitational, traditionally a far-tougher race on paper? In these economic times, common sense wins out over bravado.
We've seen video gaming propel Oaklawn Park into a late winter/early spring dynamo on the racing calendar, offering record purse levels and a quality of racing unmatched in its long and already storied history. Oaklawn might be the best example of alternative gaming actually working to improve a major racetrack. The same has not followed suit at Gulfstream Park, where slots have done little to improve a major league racing venue.
The jury is still out on if slots can actually make the racing any better on the biggest stages. Can they possibly make the racing any stronger at a Keeneland or Churchill Downs if legislation passes in Kentucky? I doubt it. It certainly would make for fuller fields in the lower-tier races, stuffing 12-14 horses in every bottom-rung claiming event. There's no shortage of those types of horses. No doubt, slots would help level Kentucky's playing field with neighboring states who have purged the lower claiming ranks.
Fuller fields are more attractive to gamblers who seek juicy payouts; so there's definitely upside. But even with slots, you might see the quality races dwindle in favor of the blue-collar claimers. There just aren't that many top-quality allowance and stakes horses among the 1,500 or so equines roaming the backstretch anywhere. That's why these races historically have been the ones on the program with six, seven and eight names attached. Such a statement is not a new phenomenon, but rather a product of elimination and simple math. Only one horse wins each race and moves up in conditions, while countless others remain mired in the lower ranks.
Slots have a far greater ability to boost the racing product of a track that started near the bottom than, say, a track already steeped in aristrocracy. In Kentucky, for instance, my projection is that slots would help the overall racing product at Turfway and Ellis Park far more than Churchill and Keeneland. Think of it this way: It's easier to improve your grades from a C or C-minus than it is to go from an A to an A-plus.
Certainly slots will help the bottom line of the track operators and horsemen, but their ability to make the top-end racing any better for fans is doubtful. If they can't fill a rich $64,000 allowance race now, how many more are going to show up for $78,000?
I no longer disdain slots at racetracks like I once did. I've seen how they resurrected a palacial facility like Remington Park back to its rightful place in the Oklahoma City economy. But as a fan of horse racing who enjoys seeing the best competition possible, I still implore the industry to downsize, even if that means simply reducing race dates at existing tracks and not shuttering any windows. The best way for quality control remains quantity control.
Jeremy Plonk has been an ESPN.com contributor since 2000 and is the managing partner of the handicapping website Horseplayerpro.com. You can E-mail Jeremy about this topic or anything racing-related at Jeremy@Horseplayerpro.com.
