Hey, there! Log in / Register
Gaming Comission says it will try to keep thoroughbred racing going in Massachusetts
By adamg on Thu, 09/18/2014 - 2:05pm
In 2012, Robert Greim interviewed jockeys at Suffolk Downs.
Next Thursday, the state Gaming Commission plans to discuss the imminent shutdown of the track and what to do about it - and the workers who are losing their jobs:
The Massachusetts Gaming Commission fully understands and is saddened by the impact discontinuance of live thoroughbred racing at Suffolk Downs will have on the lives of the dedicated men and women who have played a role in racing at the track for many, many years. The Commission and its Racing Division are fully committed to an extensive and sustained exploration of every available option that may preserve the long tradition of thoroughbred racing in the Commonwealth. In addition, the Commission is also dedicated to assisting racing employees through workforce development and by identifying additional employment solutions.
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Have racing in Brockton
George Carney has stated he wants to bring racing to the fairgrounds in the past. I don't know if the overall infrastructure is there for 6 months of racing 3 or 4 days a week, but the track is there. Heck, do something with Raynham a la what Los Alamitos did when Hollywood Park closed and things could be interesting.
It will be a shame that there will be no more racing at Suffolk Downs. It is a great, though low level, track, but there are opportunities out there.
When you think, less than 50 years ago tracks were fighting over who gets which dates, this is where we are now. I hate casinos, for ruining the sport.
Track Dimensions
While you have an intriguing idea, the track dimensions at most fairgrounds - including Brockton, as I recall - are smaller than those at a major league track, which is what Suffolk was/is (even if on a level lower than many others.) The turns are tighter and the distance of races that could be readily accommodated would be fewer. Of course, there'd have to be a major overhaul of the racing surface itself, anyway, so maybe a general expansion of the track could be done at the same time.
As for Raynham, the entire plant would have to be rebuilt for horses. Maybe the owners would be up for something of that nature, but it would be an expensive proposition. A better bet might be Wonderland, just down the street. Similar general problems, but closer and still accessible via the same transit line. I'm guessing not enough of any of those facilities could be saved to make it much less expensive than totally new construction of a track.
Suldsog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
I thought Carney upgraded
I don't know why he dd it, but I read that relatively recently (last 5 to 10 years) he was pondering a short "fair" season in October or November, but needed Suffolk to sign off on it, which they wouldn't.
To be fair, I've never set foot in the Brockton Fairgrounds, save going to a Rox game when they were in the Can Am, so I cannot say about the dimensions. Hastings Park in Vancouver is 5 1/2 furlongs, and Fairplex in Pomona is the same, versus 8 furlongs (1 mile) at Suffolk, which is standard.. If Carney could do what happened with Los Alamitos, I could be taking Jr. to the track in a few years time.
Horse racing is enjoyed by
Horse racing is enjoyed by people older than 65 years of age, it's like placing a giant bocce court at Suffolk Downs.. They might as well build a nursing home at Suffolk down when they reopen as a horse track.. Because I truly think no young adults will show up to bet on horses.. The 1950's -1970's are over !!!
All sound and fury signifying
All sound and fury signifying nothing, as Shakespeare would say.
Regarding the Gaming Commission, not you, Waquoit.
Are you dedicated to helping racetrack employees?
THEN WHY DID YOU PLACE A CAP ON LICENSES, YOU WORTHLESS MORONS?
Suffolk Downs told you straight up that racing needs to be subsidized by slot machine idiots to exist. Your sincerity rings hollow. Yeah, let's have 100% of the traffic crush Everett and Charlestown on the first day instead of giving both sites a license and requiring them to open on the same day so that 50% of the traffic could go to one and 50% of the traffic could go to the other.
Why is everybody in this community an idiot? I thought we were supposed to be a smart town.
Go yell at your state rep
The commission is only carrying out a law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. That's where the limit on licenses was set, not by the commission.
I try to
But that fat piece of crap Kevin Honan doesn't answer the phone. I tried giving him a piece for voting yes on Romneycare.
Let me break it to you gently
There is no future for horse racing at Suffolk Downs. Stop throwing money at it, face facts, and plan for layoffs in the near future.
Why can't anyone (meaning, public officials, workers) accept the reality?
Because it's an artificially forced reality
I'm still waiting for a good reason why there's one casino license for Greater Boston.
NO!
Horse racing died because it wasn't popular. It's not the state's job to prop up industries that the general public isn't interested in.
Enough with corporate welfare!
You're right, it's not the state's job
But if somebody wants to play slots to subsidize it, then what's everybody's problem?
Still No
They have a failed business model (Horse Racing). Nothing they can do short of forcing people to gamble on horses will make that business model profitable. I'm sorry for people who's business is related to horse racing but that's life in capitalism -- you only make money if you offer a service which is in demand.
Because you are suggesting the laws be changed to help one company. You could also change the laws to allow drinking at age 16 while on Suffolk Downs which would make Suffolk Downs widely popular. Either way you are suggesting the state give Suffolk a break other businesses don't get. And that's wrong.
How is it different from Fidelity?
Or the motion picture industry to get breaks that other businesses do not get?
I was writing my thing about the Race Horse Development Fund while you posted this, so I won't repeat it. It is a better deal than what the Commonwealth got from Fidelity or most film companies.
Huh?
What makes you think I'm in favor of the other business tax breaks? It's all corporate welfare and it's always a bad idea. Either lower taxes across the board or better yet spend tax money on things which help everyone such as improved roads, schools, services, etc.
It shouldn't be the government's job to pick winners and losers, even if intentions are good. Build a well functioning state in which it's easy to conduct business and enjoyable to live and jobs will be created across the board.
As for the horse racing fund as part of the Casino bill, either Suffolk is bluffing in hopes of getting a sweeter deal of they've decided that even with the fund they still won't make enough money to stay in business.
The government picking winners and losers
We agree on that! What do you think our government just did? They picked Wynn's project. That's the winner. They didn't allow for Suffolk Downs to have a casino license. They're the loser.
Yet the tax breaks are there
And like yourself, I think they stink.
However, what Will wants is for the industry to support itself with the okay from the Commonwealth to fleece people from their money playing penny slots. You'd be surprised to know how many of us out there were hoping for Suffolk Downs to be able to grow through this other type of gambling that people tend to like even though it is brain and money sapping, as opposed to the skill (and luck) of handicapping horse races. Yes, Sterling Suffolk could have done better, but somehow it seemed like the Gaming Commission was out to get them. I mean, saying that Caesars was unsuitable less than a month before the referendum? Then choosing Wynn even though there are some unsavory characters attached to their proposal, they have no traffic plan, and they are not even trying to get a deal with the very large city abutting the project?
Back to my first comment, I just want the racing industry to survive. Even though I like Suffolk Downs, I want the people in the industry to be able to keep on doing what they do.
Because Wynn
didn't just get a huge advantage from the state that other businesses are unable to get - right?
Try tried and failed
Suffolk had a chance at getting a casino just like everyone else who applied. They lost. Sorry. An early version of the casino bill guaranteed Suffolk a license and that's far more objectionable.
The owners of Suffolk have a huge plot of land with a blue line T station! If they can't figure out how to make money without a casino they are fools. The owners are greedy and instead of developing the race track to have other non-gambling attractions they dug in their heels and claimed the "only" way they could survive is with slots and tables. They played doubled or nothing and lost. Not the state's fault.
Are you dense?
They lost because there was a game in the first place. If the game was "anybody can get a license and we'll let the gambling community decide which places stay in business," then they wouldn't have lost.
The only thing stopping Suffolk Downs from having casino gaming is that men with guns will storm their building and compel them to stop if they try.
Actually, it is the state's fault.
By setting up a system whereby only one enterprise can have gaming in the Boston area.
But I guess a law that stated "Anyone who wants to have slots and can meet our requirements is eligible for a license" is somehow not as good as "guess what - only one person can get a license"
Horses
It might be the state's fault that didn't win a casino license. But it's not the state's fault horse racing isn't popular.
When other businesses see a decline they change with the times to offer other services which they hope will be more in demand. Suffolk chose the other path and begged the state for a casino. If they had spent all the money lobbing for a casino on improving their offerings maybe they wouldn't be needing to close.
If horse racing was popular this would be a non-issue -- they would continue racing with or without slots.
Am I talking to a (expletive) wall?
Nobody disagrees with your assertion that it isn't the state's fault that horse racing isn't popular. That's clear.
Horse racing is quite popular. It's well past the peak of its popularity, but it remains a pastime that reaches plenty of folks.
Suffolk Downs cannot card races for horses which don't exist. The thoroughbred population is finite and the population of sound thoroughbreds that run consistently true to form is even more finite yet. A person truly dedicated to horseplaying (myself included) prefers meets that reach better horses. The New York, Southern California, Florida, and Kentucky circuits offer the best racing, both for wagering purposes and for championship purposes.
Many smaller tracks exist because of subsidies from slot machines. It's a great concept...the lazy gambler that's willing to play against a computer that is programmed to make a fixed cost each day can pay for racing animals, a thinking man's game. Whether or not that would have worked in Boston should be up to the free market, not up to elected officials who decide how many casinos can exist and where they can exist.
One might argue that Suffolk could have enhanced their marketing of the sport. One might also argue that I should drive a Bentley. Let's both bend over and (expletive) out the money to make both things possible.
No, I'm not suggesting the laws be changed
We have a law (albeit a tentative one) on the books that allows slots (among other games) in Massachusetts. They're looking to build a casino in Everett. You might have heard.
What about the Race Horse Development Fund?
It's in the gaming legislation (starting at Section 59.) That should allow for some funds (perhaps akin to what goes into the Emerald Downs purses, or perhaps what NY and CA do with their bonuses for local breds.) That's not taxation. That's a moving of funds from one gaming source to another.
See Will, the government
See Will, the government heard you complaints that horse racing would be gone in MA and is going to find a way to subsidize your hobby. You win!
The government doesn't need to subsidize anything!
All Suffolk Downs wants is the right to offer casino games so that other gamblers can subsidize horse racing! Is this Illiteracy Day on Universal Hub? They have money. They want to construct a building in Revere. The residents of Revere agree to have this building exist in their city. I want to go to this building. I want to bet on a horse race. I want to play a few hands of blackjack from time to time.
Give me a good reason why I, William Paul LaTulippe, should be barred from doing any of these things. "Traffic" is not a good reason. "Everett will already have one" is not a good reason. "Because the Legislature said so" is not a good reason. "Because the voters said so" is not a good reason.
The only good reason is "because Will LaTulippe is spending money on gambling instead of paying child support or alimony." Oh, wait, I don't have children or a wife. So screw this community.
I think you might need to
I think you might need to brush up on this whole "democracy" thing.
It is a good reason
When we're picking the president or the governor or the mayor. Not so much when it's to decide whether or not strangers can convene to play card games.
Stop beating a dead horse!
Stop beating a dead horse!
Actually, wouldn't that be
700 dead horses?