suffolk downs closed???

General on-topic discussion.

Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster

User avatar
skeenan
Grade I Winner
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:40 am
Location: NH
Contact:

Postby skeenan » Thu Apr 06, 2006 8:47 pm

andy wrote:The permanent closing of Suffolk Downs would be the best thing that can happen for the animals.

Think of it this way. Let's say 20 Suffolk horses go to slaughter every year. If the track closing sent 40 to slaughter, wouldn't that be a price you'd be willing to pay?


:shock: :shock: :shock:

I'm not trying to be mean, Andy, but I just don't get that rational...

Pedigrees don't determine where a horse runs... I've seen plenty of horses by expensive stallions on TVG that are not blazing the tracks. And if you've followed the CANTER listings in NE, there have been some really nicely-bred horses for sale.

Exceller is the best example that I can think of... even the best can end up in a slaughteryard... doesn't matter where they ran...

Louise
Maiden Special Weight
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:11 pm
Location: Western NY

Postby Louise » Fri Apr 07, 2006 1:29 am

skeenan raises a good point, andy. A lot of the horses that run at these lower end tracks are not illbred. Check any of the Canter listings, check the Exceller listings. They can't run fast enough for the major tracks, so they end up at a level where they are more competative. As for why the closing of one track won't stop the breeding of any TB's -- because there are many, many more tracks out there that will accomodate these horses.

Look at what is happening at CBER. People are breeding these horses, even if they have no place to go. So, they end up, foals, yearlings and the like, at the feedlot. And yes, there are thoroughbreds among them.

So, as I said before, I'd rather have these horses at a track where there is a Canter, an Exceller Fund, a Lope, or any of the other organizations that work to place them, than at a track that will not support these types of efforts. And that is exactly where many of the Suffolk horses will, unfortunately, end up.

User avatar
andy
Weanling
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:56 pm

Postby andy » Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:23 am

Louise wrote:skeenan raises a good point, andy. A lot of the horses that run at these lower end tracks are not illbred. Check any of the Canter listings, check the Exceller listings. They can't run fast enough for the major tracks, so they end up at a level where they are more competative. As for why the closing of one track won't stop the breeding of any TB's -- because there are many, many more tracks out there that will accomodate these horses.

Look at what is happening at CBER. People are breeding these horses, even if they have no place to go. So, they end up, foals, yearlings and the like, at the feedlot. And yes, there are thoroughbreds among them.

So, as I said before, I'd rather have these horses at a track where there is a Canter, an Exceller Fund, a Lope, or any of the other organizations that work to place them, than at a track that will not support these types of efforts. And that is exactly where many of the Suffolk horses will, unfortunately, end up.


Of course not all low-level horses are poorly bred. The large majority are.

I personally know Suffolk owners whom will be out of racing if the track closes. A few are backyard breeders, others purchase yearlings and two year olds at the less prestigious sales. One of my mares was bred to race by a Suffolk backyard breeder.

If one track closing is bad for horses in the long run, would horses be helped by 100 low level tracks opening, as long as Canter is involved?

You seem to think highly of Canter NE. Do you think that they share your feelings?

mini's mom
Allowance Winner
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:12 pm
Location: amherst nh
Contact:

suffolk downs web site info

Postby mini's mom » Fri Apr 07, 2006 8:54 am

from the suffolk web site:Suffolk Downs will resume simulcasting on Friday after the approval of simulcasting legislation by the Massachusetts State Legislature and Governor on Thursday.

The track had not been open since Friday, March 31, when previous simulcasting legislation had expired.

Friday’s simulcasting menu includes the opening day program from Keeneland in Lexington, KY.

Saturday’s simulcasting menu will include three key prep races for this year’s Kentucky Derby: the Wood Memorial from Aqueduct, the Illinois Derby from Hawthorne, and the Santa Anita Derby. The third and final pools of the Kentucky Derby and Oaks Future Wagers will also be open from Friday through Sunday.

“We’re happy to be back in business, especially as we get ready for live racing next month,” said Bob O’Malley, chief operating officer of Suffolk Downs.

Opening Day of the 2006 live racing season at Suffolk Downs is Kentucky Derby Day, Saturday, May 6.
---------
As far as the slot machine issues is concerned my personal opinion(for what it is worth) is that the government is intruding in our lives every day and to tell us (the American public) how and where to spend our money and time is taking one more of our Consitituional rights of "liberty" - the state of mass as well as nh looses l.2 BILLION dollars every day to out of state gamblers who go to Foxwoods and Moheghan Sun to spend a leisure day and if people can't go there they go to the local grocery store and buy a lottery ticket - it is not going to change how and where people spend their money - both states need the money in order to survive - racing in new england for another summer - might be the last - and it is the legislature that is to blame because with out the expansion of gambling I don't see any way that they can survive in the future -

mini's mom

Crystal
Freshman Sire
Posts: 2799
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 12:58 pm
Location: Lexington, KY

Postby Crystal » Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:14 am

Andy,
Who did you have your horses in training with. I know the majority of the MA breeders and trainers. They don't seem to share your outlook. They seem to hope that they will have jobs to go to. And it's not just the BYBreeders who will be out of the TB biz. But also the companies that just do business with the racetrack. Feed, bedding, tack, trucking companies.

User avatar
andy
Weanling
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:56 pm

Re: suffolk downs web site info

Postby andy » Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:21 pm

mini's mom wrote:racing in new england for another summer - might be the last - and it is the legislature that is to blame because with out the expansion of gambling I don't see any way that they can survive in the future -

mini's mom
Why should slots prop up the MA racing industry that can't support itself?

If the state wants gambling in order to keep the gambling dollars at home, why not build a facility that would compete with Mohegan/Foxwoods?

austique
Grade I Winner
Posts: 1734
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 3:10 pm

Postby austique » Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:33 pm

I have to go with Andy there. Slots are not the answer. They haven't made a huge impact in OK and as everyone keeps getting them they are less of a novelty.

Tracks have really got to move toward more customer service, more creative advertising, and better facilities. I saw the new and improved Gulfstream on TV and thought "Now that's where I want to go to the races!" Most racetrack grandstands have the warmth of a morgue, folks aren't friendly, service is horrible, its expensive to park, expensive to get in (if you don't have a license :wink:), etc... Slots aren't going to magically fix all those problems.
I don't have low self-esteem. I have low esteem for everyone else. ~ Daria

redone
Suckling
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:46 am
Location: Lowell,MA

Postby redone » Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:21 pm

Mass Lottery had 4.4 billion in sales last year. They payed back 3.2 billion. 1.2 billion went to the State. Net profit was 936 million. I don't think the Legislature wants to lose any of this income. Anyway who would want to go to Suffolk or Wonderland just to play slots?

User avatar
skeenan
Grade I Winner
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:40 am
Location: NH
Contact:

Postby skeenan » Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:31 pm

andy wrote:You seem to think highly of Canter NE. Do you think that they share your feelings?


I think very highly of CANTER, too. If it weren't for CANTER volunteers getting the word out on this forum when my mare and three others were at an auction house (and there was worry that they might end up in a feedlot), I never would have known about her situation. Her previous trainer was very upset about it and was glad to hear she was OK.

I won't speak personally for any of the volunteers, but I know that they all work their tails off to ensure that these horses have the best chance to land in the best situations possible after they retire. If you had spent a year or more on this forum as I have, you would know many of the dedicated people who go above and beyond to save even just one horse.

The racing industry isn't perfect, and neither is the system. But accepting inevitable equine casualties as part of the band-aid solution to solve one problem (shutting down a long-standing, yet failing track) is to me, the equine equivalent of the war mentality—well, what's sacrificing a few lives for the greater future well-being of all—not only does it not solve anything or make any sense (losing lives to save lives??), to me, it's just an unacceptable proposition... period.

I'd rather have the track stay open, knowing that CANTER is helping those horses who are retiring (in somewhat managable numbers), than to think about where ALL of the horses will end up if the track suddenly closes, and large numbers of TBs suddenly need to go somewhere... because it won't be a good situation for many if that happens.

That's just my opinion... I don't have the answers, but to me, the welfare of the horses (and those whose jobs it would displace) should be the first and biggest concern...

mini's mom
Allowance Winner
Posts: 378
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 1:12 pm
Location: amherst nh
Contact:

suffolk downs, closed??

Postby mini's mom » Sat Apr 08, 2006 9:16 am

maybe the slots are not the answer but keeping the revenue that goes out of state at home (either mass or nh) would be. the majoirty of the cars at Foxwoods are from either mass or nh - and if you listen to the radio the commercials are now are for foxwoods or mohegahn sun - wonder if someone at the legislature got paid off by them to keep the slots out of mass by voting against the legislation. Just a thought seeing that we dont have a corrupt government.

The argument about the horses - I would have to go with crystal in that many of the trainers that I know are adamant about the care of their horses - same with any backside employee - the horses are cared for and treated better than some people care for their kids - many that are home breds are considered members of the family by the people that bred them - and if the race track went out of business then the people in the pour over part of the b usiness ie vets, blacksmiths, truck drivers, van companies, feed dealers ect woudl all loose out - and the poor guy who worked at wonderland (as an electrictian)for 25 years and now has kids in college - he was complaining about not being able to pay for his mortgage or college tuition and if he looses his job, is the State of Mass going to pay for his reeducation and unemployment, welfare and college payments? Doubt it? Bet he would be on his own and at an older age it would be tough for him to find other employment -

the slots are not the answer but the expanision of gambling is means to fix the lack of revenue that both states have. And I include Rockingham park because it is in the same position that suffolk downs is in and who knows what is going to happen after they race for 2006.

mini's mom

User avatar
andy
Weanling
Posts: 40
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:56 pm

Postby andy » Sat Apr 08, 2006 5:48 pm

You want to keep gambling dollars at home? Build a destination casino.

I strongly disagree with any notion that slots should be allowed so that racetrack workers can keep their jobs.

It's not the government's responsibility to make sure that you have a job, nor is it the government's responsibility to subsidize a company that can't turn a profit. (There are a few notable exceptions, some farming operations being one.)

I don't care that the racetrack workers can't do any other job. The fact that the MA racing industry is dying shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who works in it. They've had years to plan for this day. Not to mention, they're free to pack their bags and move to a different track.

The "but I have a family" argument? People who aren't financially stable shouldn't be having kids. Again, the same solution applies - relocate to find employment.

Sinatra
Suckling
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 6:04 pm
Location: MA

Postby Sinatra » Sun Apr 09, 2006 7:37 am

andy wrote:You want to keep gambling dollars at home? Build a destination casino.

I strongly disagree with any notion that slots should be allowed so that racetrack workers can keep their jobs.

It's not the government's responsibility to make sure that you have a job, nor is it the government's responsibility to subsidize a company that can't turn a profit. (There are a few notable exceptions, some farming operations being one.)

I don't care that the racetrack workers can't do any other job. The fact that the MA racing industry is dying shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who works in it. They've had years to plan for this day. Not to mention, they're free to pack their bags and move to a different track.

The "but I have a family" argument? People who aren't financially stable shouldn't be having kids. Again, the same solution applies - relocate to find employment.


While I agree on some levels with your post, in the case of MA and racing, the gov't has spent years making it difficult for the industry to survive here.

Government oftens intervenes on behalf of industry to help create a beneficial enviornment or to attract more businesses; Biotech being the hot one currently. I have no problem with this if it's going to benefit the state as a whole.

As nothing more than a fan, I'll be sad to see horseracing end here; especially since with a good, long term plan it could be a boon to the state. Maybe this seems impossible, but wouldn't it be great (for all parties) if Suffolk Downs became a destination, an attraction?

User avatar
skeenan
Grade I Winner
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 5:40 am
Location: NH
Contact:

Postby skeenan » Sun Apr 09, 2006 11:25 am

andy wrote:You want to keep gambling dollars at home? Build a destination casino.


There you go! Perfect solution... build a destination casino... at Suffolk Downs!

Brilliant! 8)
Keeping money at home and bringing people to the track...

Louise
Maiden Special Weight
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 5:11 pm
Location: Western NY

Postby Louise » Sun Apr 09, 2006 3:04 pm

I apologize for being so slow to respond, I took a long weekend, totally away from computers -- ahhhhh.

In the meantime, skeenan has stated things, again, very well. I do think very highly of Canter volunteers. I, too, have seen how hard they work to insure that these horses land in good, second careers. I don't have the slightest idea how many horses Canter NE placed last year. I don't have access to any of the statistics. But, I know that it was way more than a few and that every single one of the horses listed there got national exposure, and many were placed in geographic areas far beyond what would have been available to them otherwise. That didn't happen at tracks that didn't have a Canter, or an Exceller, a Lope, or any other of the volunteer organizations that work so hard for the benefit of these animals.

I, also, don't think that slots are a permanent solution. Eventually, these tracks are going to have to succeed or fail on their own. Hopefully, slots will give them some breathing space, and they will wake up to the fact that it is in their best interest to find as many different ways as they can to promote racing.

I do think, however, that slots have benefits in the short run, for these horses. I am an Exceller Fund volunteer. We run a BB modelled on the Canter example for the Finger Lakes Race Track. One of the exciting things that is happening at Finger Lakes is the inception of another placement organization there, the Finger Lakes Thoroughbred Adoption Program. That organization is a joint effort on the part of track management, and the trainers at the track. It is my understanding that it is the first of it's kind anywhere in the US.

A large part of FLTAP's funding comes from the donation of $1 for ever horse in every race run at that track, from the fees that track management collects for these races. That adds up quickly to a lot of dollars and I think that part of the reason that track management was able to do that was that the slots operation there is doing so well. Last year FLTAP did a bang up job of placeing more than a few horses from that track -- as did Exceller, if I may blow our own horn for a moment.

So, of course I would not like to see 100 lower level tracks spring up, as long as they were supported by a Canter type organization. That was not my point at all. I just grieve that many of these horses will migrate to tracks where they have less of a chance to find a good life after the track.

doublete
Allowance Winner
Posts: 445
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2004 7:34 pm
Location: Sandy Spring, MD
Contact:

Postby doublete » Tue Apr 11, 2006 7:19 pm

Uhoh.

You hit a sore spot with me Andy.

Suffolk Downs is a "low level track" simply because the purses are terrible. Remember, Cigar ran there, Offlee Wild ran there, Funny Cide even came there. The purses are low because ta da... the track isn't allocated enough money to up the purses. ENTER SLOTS. Slot machines would add some revenue, meaning the budget for purses would go up. This would entice more trainers and owners BACK to Suffolk. Rewind to 5-10 years ago. MANY good trainers and great horses trained and raced there. As the years piled on, and the purses got less and less, and the race days were decreased, these excellent owners and trainers had to relocate. And when they got a stall at another track, they didn't want to give them up just to go "home".
If you'd like to speak in terms of breeding... Go compare Penn National's race card to a Suffolk card any day. Tell me what you find.

And you're wrong that the horses are crap. Yeah, there are at least 1-2 in every race that were not incredibly bred. BUT, that is a small minority. How do you think these horses and trainers are able to survive the winters? They move down to more "prestigious (in your eyes)" tracks. How do they do that? Because, even though they race at Suffolk, they have quality horses.
I'm not saying every horse is nice. Not by a long shot. But most can hold their own at many other tracks.
I've had several go on from Suffolk that do excellent at other tracks.

If you look at Pennsylvania... when they passed the slots, horsemen said "hey... I need to get in there". Because they've seen what slots did for the purses at Charles Town. The purses there are excellent. I'm not sure what it is now, but it was that you could only enter if you hadn't run for 28 days. This was not because it is a HIGH QUALITY track with high quality runners. It is because there are so many horses to fill the races, they can't afford to have all 25 of the horses that fit that condition trying to fill the same race every week-10 days. So they had to figure out some way to split up the fields in each condition. So now horsemen are getting stalls at Philly and Penn, and even buying land there to invest in the PA breeding program.
Honestly, I don't see how anyone can argue against slots if you own and train- heck, even if you don't. The purses go up, and owners and trainers are more willing to rest the horses, treat the horses well, and actually have a little income. Jeez... At Suffolk, one purse for $5000 claimers (which you may say are crap horses.. I agree they CAN be.. but look at most fields.. there are lots of old class horses that just want to keep running- and they do) barely even pays the vet, jockey, training, feed, shoeing bill for 2 weeks. It's pathetic.

With slots not being passed, and Suffolk having the possibility (and likelihood) of closing, the races this summer will be tiny. The purses will suck. But people have called Suffolk home for a long time. It has been a home to Graded stakes races, and anyone remember reading that back in the day Seabiscuit started running there. The trainers and grooms and all other employees that have called Boston home for so long have to make a choice- give up the horses and the job that they must love (cuz the money ain't there darlin'), or give up their home. I do know quite a few trainers that did just that.. They sold their MA homes and bought closer to another track, Penn, CT, MD tracks....
And I am going to have to hop on the CANTER NE support wagon. I have helped them over the past few years, and they work very hard. They certainly won't be sad to see the track close because their neverending work will be over. BUT, they, as much as all the rest of us, know that doesn't end the work that needs to be done. The same horses that end up at Suffolk, at the end of the line because they have old injuries and are being pushed to run, or perhaps just are losing interest in running... well they won't have Suffolk to end up at. The owners and trainers at other "prestigious" tracks will have to make a decision. Without someone to help them sell their horses quickly, yeah.. a LOT of horses won't be saved. At least with CANTER NE being at Boston, most of the trainers and owners now go to them first when they have a horse that might need to retire soon. Most have now realized that instead of running them into the ground, they may be able to recoup some money by selling as a show horse. Why in the world would you be excited about a track that has a program that actually ends up decreasing the number of TB's that get lost closing? This program isn't going to go anywhere else, and the horses that come to Suffolk won't have anywhere else to go. If this track closes, another doesn't open in its place.
Racing and retraining.