Balance is a key element of the economy whether one looks at trade or beyond. In racing we are constantly trying to create a balance that works both for those who supply the product and those that wager upon it. Judging from the existing landscape our business has not achieved a balance and in fact now weighs too heavily to one side. With what passes as the American way these days, we can learn a lot from other countries that appear to handle certain elements in a better fashion than we do. Specifically when it comes to wagering, it seems the number of horses in a particular race is a material factor in increasing handle. Yet despite this knowledge our sport clings to the theory that all horses should start behind the starting gate almost in the same fashion that certain people grip to the Second Amendment. In reality we have shot ourselves in the foot by clinging to this argument too tightly. In numerous cases where larger fields may have produced a better wagering handle, we have divided stakes and late closers into fields of 5, 6 or 7 in order to give those paying in a better chance at cashing in. Though the argument may be about safety or for that matter equal rights to be on the starting gate, the scale tilts too heavily to the horsemen and not far enough in favor of those looking to make a wager and get a return above $2.60. At Yonkers, when it comes to providing a product the French can wager on in large numbers, field size is expanded as best as possible. However, when late closers are carded the track takes an entirely different look at the product. It was troubling to see the late closers carded at Yonkers this past Monday and Tuesday and think gamblers interests are included in the thought process before fields are split from a larger pool. Specifically, Yonkers drew 33 fillies and mares into its Petticoat first round on Monday and 35 male pacers for its Sagamore Hill series on Tuesday. On Monday bettors had two 6-horse fields and three 7-horse fields. On Tuesday five races were drawn with seven horses in each. With a healthy $20,000 purse for each division, the shorter fields automatically increase every participant’s chances of making money. However, at the same time the short fields more than likely reduce the overall public interest in any of these contests and weaken the product. Here’s where the sport must do a better job of balancing what’s good for the horsemen and good for the horseplayers. From 33 horses, the Petticoat could easily have had just four divisions with 8 in three and 9 in a fourth. The Sagamore Hill could have had three divisions with 9 horses and one with 8. If these measures were taken, the track’s late-closer purse account could have saved $20,000 on each night (though in fairness an additional race may have cost the overall account money). Still $40,000 not spent is considerable and one has to wonder when we try to balance the equation if there is thought on the best way to spend the money as opposed to what seems the easiest way to divide it amongst the most horsemen? There’s no secret that horsemen for years have argued that there weren’t enough races available for young horses. Those buying yearlings made the common argument that average horses not equipped to race in stakes company were not given a fair chance to earn money while gaining education. With that in mind, Yonkers and other tracks took the initiative to create non-winners of 2 through 8 races conditions that methodically allowed horses to race, earn money and eventually move out of the classes. As with much of what we’ve done, these changes look great on paper but don’t always play out to the advantage of the horseplayer. Almost every trainer we’ve spoken to over the last few years is in love with the program. Ultimately it is perfect for 3 and 4-year-olds as they are protected and can earn at the same time. Such protection though comes at a serious cost to the bettor, who can clearly recognize when there is no incentive for drivers or trainers to try, since a win may put them in a class where future earnings are more limited. There are a great number of success stories in these classes with horses running second and third with regularity and “milking” these classes for a full year. In principle creating this conditioned system was a good idea for those heavily invested in yearlings and young horses, and certainly return on investment is something that should concern everyone. However, I have to wonder why these races must contain just 8 horses or less each week to exist? Why not increase the field size in some of these races in order to provide a better product for those wagering on it and a little less certainty of collecting money for those attempting to milk the class? Whether going added distance or increasing field size, it seems those across the pond appear to have a better understanding of what players are happy betting on. While the Meadowlands currently struggles to fill large fields, it is clear that the concept of larger fields with added movement did coincide with increased wagering. Thus we have been able to pull this off before and gain a reasonable traction from bettors. Ultimately one has to wonder whether the best way to spend purse money is to offer fewer races with more horses in each of them. Larger purses in each race should be the result and in theory money would trickle down to the right places over time. If we can’t achieve balance where the interests of all stakeholders are considered we must start thinking of what can put more money in the bettors’ pockets. [DRF HARNESS NEWSLETTER: Sign Up for the FREE DRF Harness Newsletter. Fresh content and insights delivered each Thursday.]