USTA DAMAGE CONTROL

[Grandstand Handicapper]

i would have to say both are subsidising the harness racing industry.

Being that the original poster didn't answer, and you did, thanks for answering. That said, let's just look at this from a different perspective, and examine the monies, or subsidies, from the State. If these are subsidies, then what's the goal? Why give the monies? So the track doesn't shut down? Why do states and the US government give subsidies to----farmers, many other businesses, industries, and individuals as well.

For farmers and the farming industry, States and the US government provides subsidies----non-repayment loans, free gap and stop-loss insurance protection and coverage (they pay cash when weather and/or insects damage crops and agricultural products), and yes, cash, they give actual cash! They also pay to further develop and build new and modern farming practices, conservation efforts and practices, disaster aid, and more. Both give subsidies to defense contractors as well.

States and the US government gives----loans, tax breaks, and yes grants, to energy and energy development businesses. They also give subsidies to numerous manufacturing industries/companies. Same with the aviation industry/companies. Also broadband and telecommunication s companies. They do even more for the railroad industry. There is state and US government subsidies for education, private school tuition vouchers. Let's reach a bit further, in addition, there are state and US government subsidies for housing. Is Medicaid and Medicare not a form of subsidy?

My point is that people throw around the word subsidy, absent of facts, definition, and case-specifics. Maybe they are good, maybe bad. Maybe some are good and some are bad. Anyone and everyone who simply states without casinos and state money the track would close, are simply saying today is Wednesday. What's your point? Do you want to see the track close? It's Wednesday, yes, and that might be factually correct. But, it's not Wednesday everywhere in the world right now. Regardless, the person who says that----no casino/state money, no track---they are not a supporter or a fan of this sport and are not a participant in this business. Just because they say it's Wednesday. They can say they are. But IMO they are not. They are part of the problem, because they are not part of the solution.

[Grandstand Handicapper]

And BTW, does anyone really want the USTA involved in this type of discussion (subsidies, state monies, casino monies, purse accounts, etc.)? If I owned a racetrack, I would PAY MONEY to USTA to keep them out of the discussion. Isn't that a subsidy?

[Kenny]

The casino owners knew what they were getting into when they signed up with racetracks. They are the ones trying to wiggle out of their agreement.

Why should a business be forced to keep a product that loses money? Even worse. why should a business be forced to subsidies a business that loses money? The only "agreement" is something each state can rescind at any time.

The fact is 99% of taxpayers could care less about racing. They would rather it go to something they do care about.

[Kenny]

Being that the original poster didn't answer, and you did, thanks for answering. That said, let's just look at this from a different perspective, and examine the monies, or subsidies, from the State. If these are subsidies, then what's the goal? Why give the monies? So the track doesn't shut down? Why do states and the US government give subsidies to----farmers, many other businesses, industries, and individuals as well.

For farmers and the farming industry, States and the US government provides subsidies----non-repayment loans, free gap and stop-loss insurance protection and coverage (they pay cash when weather and/or insects damage crops and agricultural products), and yes, cash, they give actual cash! They also pay to further develop and build new and modern farming practices, conservation efforts and practices, disaster aid, and more. Both give subsidies to defense contractors as well.

States and the US government gives----loans, tax breaks, and yes grants, to energy and energy development businesses. They also give subsidies to numerous manufacturing industries/companies. Same with the aviation industry/companies. Also broadband and telecommunication s companies. They do even more for the railroad industry. There is state and US government subsidies for education, private school tuition vouchers. Let's reach a bit further, in addition, there are state and US government subsidies for housing. Is Medicaid and Medicare not a form of subsidy?

My point is that people throw around the word subsidy, absent of facts, definition, and case-specifics. Maybe they are good, maybe bad. Maybe some are good and some are bad. Anyone and everyone who simply states without casinos and state money the track would close, are simply saying today is Wednesday. What's your point? Do you want to see the track close? It's Wednesday, yes, and that might be factually correct. But, it's not Wednesday everywhere in the world right now. Regardless, the person who says that----no casino/state money, no track---they are not a supporter or a fan of this sport and are not a participant in this business. Just because they say it's Wednesday. They can say they are. But IMO they are not. They are part of the problem, because they are not part of the solution.

The difference at least some of those subsidze go to things the many taxpayers want. Very few taxpayer would care if racing ended.

[Brown jug]

a couple of thoughts here for
did nobody here the POTUS rhyme off the billions of dollars the USA government wastes with absolutely no return, just sending money to pit holes in other parts of the world, just to clarify harness racing does provide jobs and does have a significant multiplier effect on the economy, trucks, hay, vets equipment etc  etc
you make it sound like any "subsidies" just get pissed away with no return
harness racing keeps many people from needing to go on unemployment etc
and stop whining about the casinos, they did the deal and they would do it again in a heartbeat based on the money they make from being allowed to have casinos and wagering on race track land

ease up already

[ferdinand the bull]

Harness racing should welcome HISA or at least an across the board regulatory body that has no bias . Racing jurisdiction bow down to certain connections now and it's not just and a huge part of the reason why it's in the state it is now. A lot of the article is true and that's the scary fact

[wisha roder]

a couple of thoughts here for
did nobody here the POTUS rhyme off the billions of dollars the USA government wastes with absolutely no return, just sending money to pit holes in other parts of the world, just to clarify harness racing does provide jobs and does have a significant multiplier effect on the economy, trucks, hay, vets equipment etc  etc
you make it sound like any "subsidies" just get pissed away with no return
harness racing keeps many people from needing to go on unemployment etc
and stop whining about the casinos, they did the deal and they would do it again in a heartbeat based on the money they make from being allowed to have casinos and wagering on race track land

ease up already

Well said.  Totally agree with you and Grandstand's comments.

[MIKE CAMPBELL]

Why should a business be forced to keep a product that loses money? Even worse. why should a business be forced to subsidies a business that loses money? The only "agreement" is something each state can rescind at any time.

The fact is 99% of taxpayers could care less about racing. They would rather it go to something they do care about.

Learn the law before you spout misinformation about the casino/racetrack agreement. Taxpayer remorse is a separate issue.

[Grandstand Handicapper]

Why should a business be forced to keep a product that loses money? Even worse. why should a business be forced to subsidies a business that loses money? The only "agreement" is something each state can rescind at any time.

The fact is 99% of taxpayers could care less about racing. They would rather it go to something they do care about.

Why should a business be forced to keep a product that loses money? Well, generically speaking, not case specific, normally a business can't be forced into that...unless it is legislatively mandated. Meaning, unless it's the law. That changes the entire complexion of the conversation. For example, like in FL. It was the law. When a casino bought a racetrack in FL, they did so with full awareness and knowledge of what the law was, what they had to do, were obligated to do, etc. So, they knew the deal, every single part of the deal----because it was the law. And guess what, they did it anyway. Yes, they then tried to change the law, and they did...but until then, you cannot say "forced"----it was their acceptance of the law, and their decision. No forcing at all.

Then you say, "why should a business be forced to subsidies a business that loses money?" I don't even understand what that means. A business forced to subsidies a business? Do you mean subsidize? As far as your reference to an agreement, that too, I simply don't understand. If a state gives money, it's legislative. It has to be, because it is part of the budget. I don't know what agreement(s) you are referring to.

When NJ passed a law that said you can have VLT's outside of Atlantic City, Monmouth Park got the right(s) to get them, there on the grounds of the racetrack. The Atlantic City casinos decided----decided! They were not forced----to PAY Monmouth Park NOT to get the VLT's. Was that a subsidy? Absolutely not. It was a business decision. It was a business transaction. The fact that Monmouth Park made a bad deal, and didn't make intelligent decisions with the money, is Monmouth Park's problem. If anyone says that was a subsidy, please, say it clearly and loud so I know who to ignore moving forward.

[Kenny]

a couple of thoughts here for
did nobody here the POTUS rhyme off the billions of dollars the USA government wastes with absolutely no return, just sending money to pit holes in other parts of the world, just to clarify harness racing does provide jobs and does have a significant multiplier effect on the economy, trucks, hay, vets equipment etc  etc
you make it sound like any "subsidies" just get pissed away with no return
harness racing keeps many people from needing to go on unemployment etc
and stop whining about the casinos, they did the deal and they would do it again in a heartbeat based on the money they make from being allowed to have casinos and wagering on race track land

ease up already

The "deal" was the government. If you were a casino owner you would be trying to eliminate racing. Why keep a business that loses money. This is taxpayer money. Why should that money go to something the taxpayers could care less about? The racing industry took the handouts and turned its back on its customers. The industry does not deserve the handouts.

[Kenny]

Learn the law before you spout misinformation about the casino/racetrack agreement. Taxpayer remorse is a separate issue.

The reality the "law" is what ever the state says the law is. PA has already made attempts to change the "law". The next time there is a budget crisis in PA the handouts are gone.

[Kenny]

Why should a business be forced to keep a product that loses money? Well, generically speaking, not case specific, normally a business can't be forced into that...unless it is legislatively mandated. Meaning, unless it's the law. That changes the entire complexion of the conversation. For example, like in FL. It was the law. When a casino bought a racetrack in FL, they did so with full awareness and knowledge of what the law was, what they had to do, were obligated to do, etc. So, they knew the deal, every single part of the deal----because it was the law. And guess what, they did it anyway. Yes, they then tried to change the law, and they did...but until then, you cannot say "forced"----it was their acceptance of the law, and their decision. No forcing at all.

Then you say, "why should a business be forced to subsidies a business that loses money?" I don't even understand what that means. A business forced to subsidies a business? Do you mean subsidize? As far as your reference to an agreement, that too, I simply don't understand. If a state gives money, it's legislative. It has to be, because it is part of the budget. I don't know what agreement(s) you are referring to.


All it takes is a vote and signature and the law is gone.
When NJ passed a law that said you can have VLT's outside of Atlantic City, Monmouth Park got the right(s) to get them, there on the grounds of the racetrack. The Atlantic City casinos decided----decided! They were not forced----to PAY Monmouth Park NOT to get the VLT's. Was that a subsidy? Absolutely not. It was a business decision. It was a business transaction. The fact that Monmouth Park made a bad deal, and didn't make intelligent decisions with the money, is Monmouth Park's problem. If anyone says that was a subsidy, please, say it clearly and loud so I know who to ignore moving forward.

[The Exporter]

When the original contracts were done at harness tracks in NY, there were specific benchmarks that were in place as targets or goals. The money was to enhance the purses as to recruit and retain new owners. To enhance the live experience of the sport. To give harness racing a protection from lost market share of the gaming industry.
 Also, a a separate earmark was awarded to the breeding industry to enhance the breed and spread the industry out with new investment of farms and foal count.
 Everyone was in complete agreement this was just what the industry needed. A subsidy that would accomplish the goal of expanding the fan base , shore up the purse accounts. Protect the game and expand everyone's business. I clearly recall how so many people thought VLTs were great for mom as dad would plat the horses.
 Only one of these goals would happen. The purse accounts swelled. Everything else went even further backwards.   
 The original contract was for 7 years. But, because performance was never factored into renewals, the same shit was renewed. The next 7 years was more of the same. Everything dropped but the purses.
 The breeding actually dropped by half!!! During the second contract , breeding numbers were at there lowest point since the inception of the program. There were twice as many foals and stallions standing in NY the year before the 2004 opening of the first VLTs at Saratoga.
In the 3 rd edition of welfare, the industry wide drug sandal was the top story. With witnesses claiming , under oath to have fixed races along with the drugging of horses.
 So, what has the industry done to deserve additional welfare?

[Kenny]

When the original contracts were done at harness tracks in NY, there were specific benchmarks that were in place as targets or goals. The money was to enhance the purses as to recruit and retain new owners. To enhance the live experience of the sport. To give harness racing a protection from lost market share of the gaming industry.
 Also, a a separate earmark was awarded to the breeding industry to enhance the breed and spread the industry out with new investment of farms and foal count.
 Everyone was in complete agreement this was just what the industry needed. A subsidy that would accomplish the goal of expanding the fan base , shore up the purse accounts. Protect the game and expand everyone's business. I clearly recall how so many people thought VLTs were great for mom as dad would plat the horses.
 Only one of these goals would happen. The purse accounts swelled. Everything else went even further backwards.   
 The original contract was for 7 years. But, because performance was never factored into renewals, the same shit was renewed. The next 7 years was more of the same. Everything dropped but the purses.
 The breeding actually dropped by half!!! During the second contract , breeding numbers were at there lowest point since the inception of the program. There were twice as many foals and stallions standing in NY the year before the 2004 opening of the first VLTs at Saratoga.
In the 3 rd edition of welfare, the industry wide drug sandal was the top story. With witnesses claiming , under oath to have fixed races along with the drugging of horses.
 So, what has the industry done to deserve additional welfare?

In Pennsylvania this arrangement can be undone by the government. Up till now the legislature had enough votes to block it. When the situation where taxes have to go up to pay for things the voters actually care about like roads, bridges, and schools, they will not be able to block it. The question is why should this money be used to support an industry the vast majorly of voters could care less about. What has the industry done to make itself self-supporting? What has the industry done to attract more customers? The answer is nothing. The industry took the handouts and turned its back on the customers.

[Yonkers1A]

When the original contracts were done at harness tracks in NY, there were specific benchmarks that were in place as targets or goals. The money was to enhance the purses as to recruit and retain new owners. To enhance the live experience of the sport. To give harness racing a protection from lost market share of the gaming industry.
 Also, a a separate earmark was awarded to the breeding industry to enhance the breed and spread the industry out with new investment of farms and foal count.
 Everyone was in complete agreement this was just what the industry needed. A subsidy that would accomplish the goal of expanding the fan base , shore up the purse accounts. Protect the game and expand everyone's business. I clearly recall how so many people thought VLTs were great for mom as dad would plat the horses.
 Only one of these goals would happen. The purse accounts swelled. Everything else went even further backwards.   
 The original contract was for 7 years. But, because performance was never factored into renewals, the same shit was renewed. The next 7 years was more of the same. Everything dropped but the purses.
 The breeding actually dropped by half!!! During the second contract , breeding numbers were at there lowest point since the inception of the program. There were twice as many foals and stallions standing in NY the year before the 2004 opening of the first VLTs at Saratoga.
In the 3 rd edition of welfare, the industry wide drug sandal was the top story. With witnesses claiming , under oath to have fixed races along with the drugging of horses.
 So, what has the industry done to deserve additional welfare?

Exporter knows NY racing. Generally when subsidies are enacted you get more of, makes sense, subsidies Wheat , the Wheat farmer grows more because he’s price protected. Exporter correctly points with subsidies, it’s gone the opposite way, this is telling that the public doesn’t want it and it’s time to end the subsidies.