Who is "RACING"

[Gingertipster]

When we here people talking about "for the good of racing", and such expessions, who is "racing" supposed to be?

It is normally expressed by those who want the bookies to cough up more money, and what do they want more money for?
Prize Money, or rather, owners, trainers and jockeys.
Where does the money actually come from?
No not the bookmaker, the punter. Robbing the poor to pay the comparative rich. Bookies would just have a bigger overound figure.

So if "racing" means owners, trainers and jockeys, surely it is in their best interests to have as uncompetitive racing as possible. So it is easier for them to win races, therefore making more money.
No wonder none of them ever come out against a 4 day Cheltenham or Ebor festival.

If we have more uncompetitive racing then…

Is for the good of racing really for the good of racing?

Value Is Everything

[Artemis]

Gingertipster,

I think racing is much more than just owners, trainers and jockeys, even though without any of these three groups the sport could not carry on as we know it.

As in any pluralist society, there are many interest groups that shape the politics and economics of any sphere of activity, and each group has a different agenda.

So, when people talk about ‘the good of racing’, they probably won’t all agree on what that term means and they will almost certainly have different views on what is likely or not to promote this ‘good’.

Some groups want uncompetitive racing and some don’t. There is no right answer, just a course of action that is followed as a result of the persuasive powers of various interest groups. A microcosm of Democracy.

A boring reply to your point, but worth mulling over, GT.

[Seagull]

Removing corruption would be good for racing.

Removing cruelty to horses would be good for racing.
By having much tougher bans for those jockeys that keep whipping horses without just cause or even whipping them so they will get a ban under the totting up rules at a time when it suits them.

Having tougher bans for jockeys that do not ride right out to the finishing line would overall I think also be good for racing.

Having just one dedicated televison channel that was free would be good for racing.

For racecourses to get away from the Family Days and not to promote themselves as a place to get p****d up with a load of your mates on stag or hen parties would also be good for racing.

Un competitive racing in the end is no good for bookmakers, punters, racecourse attendances or in the end the levy.

[cormack15]

There is no one entity ‘racing’. It is comprised of various bodies, most of whom have divergent interests and priorities, hence the conflicts which arise.

[kentdougal]

So if "racing" means owners, trainers and jockeys, surely it is in their best interests to have as uncompetitive racing as possible. So it is easier for them to win races, therefore making more money.
No wonder none of them ever come out against a 4 day Cheltenham or Ebor festival.
These two statements seem to be contradictory.

[chateauonline]

Good thread this.

I kinda think Gordon Brown/Alastair Darling know they get loads of money from the punters via the bookies. If the bookies lost all the time the government would get less and less. So the maintenance of this status quo suits Dowing Street fine.

The bookies over time have seen less and less of their profits generated from racing so they feel aggrieved that they still pay so much to the government via the levy which is then given to racing.

The owners/trainers seem to live in a cloud. They provide the spectacle, but could just as easily do so on South Shields beach as Royal Ascot. The rich state of racing in this country is provided courtesy of bookies and punter alike.

With the FTSE-100 today on a 9/11 esque dive, and all the signs a global economic recession is upon us, racing could be in for a tough time in the next few years.

[Author]

Posts