FanDuel - WFBC

August 01, 2006

Barbaro's hopes fade: and Salon wonders if the future of horseracing itself is in doubt.

posted by Fence to other at 07:53 AM - 25 comments

Half of that article is hidden behind Salon's subscriber only section, but just click on the "sponsered" link and you'll get to it. So is horseracing on its way out in the States? Over here it is bigger than ever, despite the race-fixing saga in Britain

posted by Fence at 07:58 AM on August 01

No racing here is still really big and getting bigger i think

posted by meatsfactor at 08:54 AM on August 01

While there are long odds for Barbaro, this story doesn't offer anything new but some unattributed quotes. Especially the one about the owners wanting to put the horse down but the insurance company won't let them. I really like to know more about that one... At least more than "someone in a barn." Shoddy journalism to say the least. I could be wrong, but I think some casual fans were probably chased away, and they might have missed a chance to land some new fans. But typical fans aren't going anywhere. Every so often a story pops up about the ugly underbelly of the sport, (I remember a particularly nasty SI story about how they electrocute horses in the late 80s or early 90s) but it's soon forgotten. That said, there aren't many people at a track because they like horses. It's primarily a vehicle for gambling.

posted by SummersEve at 09:06 AM on August 01

I have read that the tracks are losing much of their "market share" of gambling money, due to the proliferation of on-line gambling and the advent of riverboat gambling, etc. I don't think it (horse racing) will disappear completely, but many of the regional tracks here in America may fall by the wayside.

posted by mjkredliner at 09:27 AM on August 01

"He's in a lot of pain, thats for sure." "The owner wants to let him go, but the insurance companies won't let him." Shoot the Insurance Companies. Fuckers.

posted by mjkredliner at 10:22 AM on August 01

It's really amazing that with all the oulets with specific reporters assigned to this story, Salon.com comes through with the insurance company angle. Also amazing that there are two owners, a husband and wife, but this refers to "him" in the singular. Nitpicking perhaps, but an example of laziness or sensationalism... or both.

posted by SummersEve at 11:37 AM on August 01

I am not a horse racing fan nor knowledgable about the sport. Am I wrong to think the only reason they are keeping this horse alive is for his sperm?

posted by panteeze at 02:02 PM on August 01

Am I wrong to think the only reason they are keeping this horse alive is for his sperm? Depends on who you ask. If his leg ever heals enough for him to support his weight while breeding, he'll be worth a fortune. If it doesn't, he won't, because you can't artificially inseminate thoroughbreds. That's what I've been led to believe, anyway.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 03:12 PM on August 01

That Salon article certainly gives a very different impression than this one from AP...

posted by MAYANKEE at 04:40 PM on August 01

Black Hand, you can artificially inseminate thoroughbreds, but the resulting foals won't be able to race, not unless the rules change. Although depending on the bloodline they might go on to become showjumpers, eventers or endurance horses. But these aren't worth as much, and often thoroughbreds just aren't suitable. Also, just because he manages to cover a mare doesn't really mean anything. It all depends on the foals produced. Sometimes a great racing stallion will make a very poor stud. Most other articles I've read on the subject suggest that it is the owners who want to keep the horse alive, to give him a chance once he isn't in pain.

posted by Fence at 04:50 PM on August 01

Perhaps I was unaware, does Salon have a reputation for sensationalism rather than journalism? And if so, why post bullshit?

posted by mjkredliner at 04:55 PM on August 01

You can form your own opinion if you visit their homepage... Here's some more info on them... Trying to be diplomatic, I'll say they might sometimes shape a story to fit their style. I really don't mean that to be as critical as it sounds, it's typical in today's magazines. If I read a political story in Sports Illustrated, I'm skeptical, ditto for this. While Barbaro is in bad shape and laminitis is apparently a super-painful disease, I just don't think it's proper journalism to throw out lines like the insurance company won't let them. Especially when she's in New York and the owners (or owner, in her book) is in South Eastern PA.

posted by SummersEve at 06:06 PM on August 01

Tacky crappy reporting; one wonders where the writer gets the info, apparently not from New Bolton or the family. Dr Richardson has kept the odds at 50/50 at best even when he is personally pleased with the status. Barbaro is getting the best treatment and evaluation available; the entire staff is practicing the best in the science and the art of veterinary medicine. The vast majority of people in the racing industry all over the country are keeping their hopes up, knowing what the odds are. I've spoken to some jockeys at Del Mar who agree it's a long tough row. They are all pulling for him, are appreciative of the care he is receiving and have great admiration for the owners, the staff at New Bolton and most of all for Edgar Prado for his actions at the time of the injury. I speak as a retired DVM when I state this "reporting" by Salon is a bucket full of cow patties

posted by jazzdog at 06:30 PM on August 01

The stockhorse gelding I am currently agisting for some friends bucked me off yesterday. I ended up in hospital. Death to all horses. (Joke)

posted by owlhouse at 06:57 PM on August 01

Salon wouldn't have a huge sport content, but I was actually less interested in their coverage of Barbaro than in their coverage of the whole horseracing industry. The main reason I posted the article was to see if this is in any way an accurate report of the view of the general public regarding racing in the states.

posted by Fence at 03:38 AM on August 02

Black Hand, you can artificially inseminate thoroughbreds, but the resulting foals won't be able to race, not unless the rules change. Fence, that was where I was going, but I wasn't 100% familiar with the rules; thanks for the clarification.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 05:58 AM on August 02

Please some one finally put this horse out of its misery. Or is that my misery? No matter. It's painful for everyone.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:52 AM on August 02

Then don't click here, Weedy. A blog updating Barbaro's condition from a guy who rides with Michael Matz. Averaging 10,000-12,000 hits per day.

posted by SummersEve at 08:24 AM on August 02

Then don't click here, Weedy. A blog updating Barbaro's condition from a guy who rides with Michael Matz. Averaging 10,000-12,000 hits per day. I'm a little surprised it's that low. I also think the horses need to re-negotiate their CBA.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 09:18 AM on August 02

/sending good karma Barbaro's way.....

posted by commander cody at 01:40 PM on August 02

Barbaro, Barry Bonds, Lance Armstong, Terrell Owens, a christian and a homosexual are all in a boat...

posted by SummersEve at 02:54 PM on August 02

Barbaro, Barry Bonds, Lance Armstong, Terrell Owens, a christian and a homosexual are all in a boat... Now that sounds like a bad spofi thread!

posted by commander cody at 06:28 PM on August 02

horse racing is in danger. it is losing out on the gambling dollar and the casual player which was a big part of it's success long ago. problem is that the new look of racetracks are like casinos or las vegas sports books. a place like saratoga will never die. charlestown, delaware and soon philadelphia and aqueduct will just be slot havens that happen to run horses now and then. relegating the horse player to an upper level so the slots can run 24-7. good horse racing will never die. full fields, smaller takeout and treating the betting publics winnings the same the casinos are treated. ie lower the takeout and players will come back. eliminate a lot of tracks and shrink the amount of live racing days. less is more. saratoga, del mar, belmont, churchill, santa anita, keeneland et all are still huge handle draws. they don't race all year round like a philadelphia or mountaineer would. but there'd be more interest if these tracks didn't run 250 days a year. say 50 days instead. i love the track. it's good fun. a lot better than playing lotto or scratch offs. good people too, if they are not degenerates (which unfortunately is all that's left at some tracks these days as simulcasting and internet playing has left some of the smart players home). there's still nothing like a cold beer in the paddock looking over the form and speculating with a couple of dollars who's going to win. it's the casual horse player that's being pushed out....and if it continues, then with the exception of a very select amount of tracks then there's not going to be much good left in any of it.

posted by oliver_crunk at 10:16 PM on August 02

good people too, if they are not degenerates For some reason, that line just made me spit soda all over the counter.

posted by The_Black_Hand at 04:43 AM on August 03

:) Yeah, I figured you knew that it was technically possible. From what I remember there is actually cloned racing somewhere, or proposals for cloned racing. Not within the "official" thoroughbred sport though. As far as the whole sport of horseracing goes, I've always been more of a fan of jumps. The horses stay around for years, so you get a sense of knowing them, although it is more dangerous, for both horse and jockey. Yesterday, for example, saw a ten year old horse try to win the Galway Plate for the 3rd year in a row,(he lost) so you have the longevity. But it also saw a horse fall and break his neck.

posted by Fence at 05:40 AM on August 03

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.