Suffolk Downs made their final presentation today to....

yes, advancement of the racing product. not the savior of has been race tracks. why is this so hard to understand? the better the racing offered at any track means the more money will be wagered. meaning the more money will be taxed and taken out for the horsemen, not just the better for the gamblers. snd the more horses running per race is what causes all of that. the only thing keeping that venue open does is make the "loyalists" or those that want to go down memory lane happy. it does nothing to better the product. just dilute it.

Where has he run a better more profitable RACINO than Mohegan?? Did you listen to the presenttions or read about them? Wynn made an ass of himself!

Don't even use the word bias. You won't be happy until all East coast tracks are closed, Mr King of the East/West "bias". LOL You keep touting CA which is simply a local venue, same as Suffolk, ecept for 1 day of the year - few shippers, small fields, (Suffolk has larger fields overall BTW), a totally incompetent racing board, drugs galore - oh - enough already!

How is putting the horse industry in MA out of business going to help?

I'm going to agree to disagree because you are a GAMBLER and I am a RACING FAN!

not all just the shitty ones that are no longer needed...........just like bay meadows and Hollywood were here!! nothing biased about that. when was the last time I "touted" ca. or said anything about the current meet here other then the weather is great and it is the best choice to hold a day of championship racing? I know the fields are horrible right now and that is why I haven't said anything. but even with those horribly sized fields, ca. tracks still dwarf tracks like Suffolk in both interest and daily handle. you really want to compare Suffolk to ca.? what is suffolks daily handle again? now just imagine what the handle would be here compared to Suffolk or those other small venue tracks if there were more horses to go around that weren't being wasted at places like Suffolk. let me ask you this. do you think there are any tracks in the country that should be closed? or do you think that we should just open them up like 7/11's on every other street corner?

wiz, unfortunately all is not cut and dry or absolute. I think what Evelyn is talking about is how I feel - in a perfect world neither of us would like to see any established, long time, and historic race tracks go away. But then again, you're right too. Some marginal race tracks probably should disappear, even some that have casinos. Unfortunately it looks like some of the casino owners who have bought out race tracks to get their casino licenses have gone out of their way to actually discourage racing in the hopes of getting rid of that "nuisance" race track. I've been to a lot of race tracks over the years, and have seen the transformation of a number of my favorites due to the addition of a casino.

Some examples of BAD conversions are Aqueduct, Yonkers Raceway, Penn National, Gulfstream Park, Hastings and Fraser Downs in Vancouver, Lincoln (a greyhound track in Rhode Island, previously the Lincoln Downs thoroughbred track decades ago) In those cases, the racing has become less than insignificant to them - they have almost gone out of their way to make it uncomfortable for the racing fans, seemingly to destroy racing and then use that to justify discontinuing it eventually (this actually did happen at Lincoln - they drove the dog racing down so low that they petitioned the state to discontinue it because it was a losing proposition, and they succeeded!) I'm afraid that some of the Midwestern staples in Ohio will wind up like these - River Downs, Beulah Park, Raceway Park, and Lebanon Raceway.

Some examples of GOOD conversions are Delaware Park, Woodbine, Mohawk, Flamboro Downs, Finger Lakes, Saratoga Raceway, Parx, Calder, Pompano Park, Vernon Downs, Pocono Downs, and a few more. In those cases they didn't shove the racing operation into a dark corner somewhere out of the way of the glitzy casino. They either build stand-alone casinos or put the casinos in parts of the existing building out of the way of the racing operation, and then bolstered their racing programs, which was part of the original intent of the enabling legislation.

And, I have to add, over the last several years I've been to each and every one of those tracks mentioned - the good ones and the bad ones.

Now, as far as some tracks going away? As much as I'd hate to see any close, look at my post in the Midwest forum, Ohio specifically. It's a great old-time race track with lots of history, but I think Beulah Park falls into the category you're talking about. Their racing operation has deteriorated to the point of being pathetic. Only 39 runners on a Saturday afternoon? Only $250 live handle per race? Again, I hate to see any tracks close, but if Beulah Park were a thoroughbred horse, they'd put up the green canvas screen in front of it and shoot it to put it out of its misery. BUT, it's probably going to suck in thousands of slots customers once they re-open 200 miles away.

So, I guess my point is that we, as racing fans, don't want to see any tracks go away or see the racing industry contract any more. But as practical people, you may be right - some tracks probably should go away.

Finally, Hollywood Park was a unique case in all of this - it was a victim of its environment.  Although I never had any problem with it, even on the few Friday nights that I went there, a lot of people were scared off by the neighborhood.  Couple that with disinterest in racing in lieu of poker, blackjack, pai gow, etc., and it was doomed years ago.