> Hello USA

Hi GWS,

> I am not sure you can suggest it is marginal when around 150,000
> people went to the Kentucky Derby. If my understanding was
> correct this was the second largest ever crowd. I am not suggesting,
> of course, for one minute that you do not know what you are talking
> about, but I understood it was a thriving industry.

Unfortunately, it wouldn't be the first time I didn't know what I was
talking about <g>, but the Kentucky Derby (and the Triple Crown races in
general) are certainly not the norm as far as crowds go. It was indeed the
second largest crowd ever at the Derby, but much of the crowd is annually
made up of "infielders." I don't know if you've ever seen them on TV, but
it's doubtful many of them even knew when the race was being run. The beer
flows freely from the crack of dawn and the race is more or less an excuse
for a one day Mardi Gras. I wouldn't call that segment of the crowd
die-hard fans. They aren't very big bettors, either.

The industry surrounding racing, particularly breeding, has been thriving
(or was until the recent disastrous foal losses in Kentucky) dollar-wise.
The part of the racing scene which continues to fall off is the fan-base.
There's so much competition from other professional and college sports that
relatively few people follow racing as they did before television, and not
very many younger people. Only newspapers in the largest cities, such as
New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, and in Kentucky (where racing has an
obvious impact on the economy) have any kind of regular race reporting
anymore. On the other hand, you can open a newspaper any day in even the
smallest country town and read the baseball and football scores.

> The four days of Royal Ascot will only marginally beat the numbers for
> the Kentucky Derby. You enjoy a much greater spectacle with your
> major meetings but I am nor sure whether the gambling interest is as
> strong there as it is here.

That's an interesting point. Actually most race meets attract very small
crowds, but lots of gambling interest because of off-track and phone
betting. A first rate track like Santa Anita in California may be lucky to
get a crowd of 5,000 people most days, though the track handle will be very
good from simulcast betting. Tracks in the U.S., for the most part, have a
hard time attracting families. What little marketing there is for racing
here is not targeted well -- it's all over the place, as though the racing
authorities themselves don't really know who they're trying to draw to the
track.

Of course, I suppose the main difference between U.S. and UK racing may be
the length and number of meets. Since most racing here is on dirt, instead
of turf, the meets tend to run for two months or more, and there are usually
a couple of big circuits running at the same time in different parts of the
country. And there's no "off" season -- racing is truly year-round. The
result is lots of races with very small fields: not nearly as interesting
from a betting or even a fan standpoint.

> I read recently that around £75 millions are gambled everyday here in the
> United Kingdom - all forms of gambling of course. It is still on the increase
> and it is expected to rise still further when betting tax is abolished
> possibly in October 2001 or certainly January 2002.

I honestly don't know what the figures are for the U.S., but I think it
would be safe to say that casino gambling occupies a much larger share of
the gambling pot than does horse racing, even with Standardbred, Arab, and
Quarter Horse racing added in with Thoroughbred racing.

> I understand that in Europe interest is still very strong and of course in the
> Middle East you have an enormous interest and no real gambling.

> regards
> GWS

I knew the Middle East and Australasia (especially Hong Kong and Japan) were
very enthused about racing. I'm glad to hear that interest in Europe is
still strong.

I don't know how you, or others on the list, feel about what seems to be a
North American addiction to faster horses at shorter distances, but it's a
trend that I hate. I wish there were a better balance in the U.S. between
turf and dirt racing; and I really miss the longer races. One reason the
Belmont Stakes still stands out as a true test of a horse's courage is
because it is one of only a handful of 1 1/2 mile races left in North
America. I feel like I'm showing my age, but it wasn't that many years ago
that we still had two-mile races here. I really miss them. I think
distance races are much more interesting to watch, and I think they're a
much better measure of the Thoroughbred and of the skill of the jockeys.
Truly, how much strategy can you have in a six furlong race, which has
become the standard distance in America? Milers are now considered to be
"stayers!" However, I seem to be in the minority here.

When I look at photos or film footage of racing from the 1940s and '50s I'm
forcibly struck by the changes in Thoroughbred conformation. Northern
Dancer was a very good racehorse, and an amazing sire, but IMO, his
influence has become so pervasive, at least in North America, that he's
changed the breed from stayers to sprinters. Because of breeding practices
in North America, we also have a multitude of relatively unsound horses
racing, and making far fewer starts than horses used to make. And very few
good horses these days race past their three year-old year. We just don't
have the great handicap horses we used to have.

Sorry. My hobby horse. Just my opinions, of course.

Carlotta Cooper