Harness: The facts do not support the fable of negativity

Is the glass half-full or half-empty? Or, as my wife would say, is it half-full with poison?

Time after time, I read or hear about the abundance of negativity in the sport and it really makes me shake my head. Without a doubt, complaining is a form of negativity, so just mentioning it is a bit of piling on.

There is much more positive press than negative in Harness Racing. That’s a fact! And I can prove it!

Look through the archives of DRF Harness Digest Newsletter. On average, there are five-to-six fresh articles each week. The overwhelming majority are positive or neutral when it comes to slant. Getting even more specific, March was a particularly bad month for Standardbred racing. There were several indictments to horsemen and COVID-19 shut down the sport. Even with all of that bad news, of the 20 articles that appeared, only five were of the “negative” variety, and this was during one of the worst months the sport has seen in years.

Just to prove the point further, I chose another random month – October 2019. I found 36 articles during the month and two that could possibly be construed as negative. They were far from "attack" stories, but they did cover a negative subject.

There is no doubt that people and companies do not enjoy reading articles that say they are doing a bad job. No one likes to be criticized. By the same token, how are we as a society supposed to learn if no one ever points out flaws in the way things are done?

I'll admit, there are many ways to expose a sensitive issue and different writers have different styles. I always try to bring a solution when I present a problem, because we need solutions, not more problems.

If my words above leave you with any lasting thoughts, hopefully, it is to remember all of the good stories rather than lamenting the bad ones. I guarantee that if you examine the scorecard of hundreds of articles at the end of the year, fewer than 10 percent will have any sort of a negative message.

Hmmm, I wonder if this column will be considered negative?

To qualify or not to qualify?

I read a number of comments last weekend about whether qualifying races would be necessary when live racing ultimately returns to North America. As a person who regularly supports the industry through wagering, I have some thoughts to add.

Let me state first that I am firmly in favor of qualifying races. They are a necessary tool for handicappers to evaluate form, and in the case of younger horses' ability. Unlike others, I don't believe that we can rely on a trainer's report of how the horse is doing as a replacement for qualifiers. A trainer's report is hearsay, while qualifiers are facts. You can't walk into Judge Judy's courtroom with a trainer's report and win a case. You need the charted line!

Also acceptable would be an impartial clocker being on hand to supply data, though I would prefer to have two people so there is no chance of the information being incorrect or compromised. If a trainer wanted to livestream the workouts, that would be another reasonable substitute.

The above said, I am 100 percent in favor of allowing horses to return from the COVID-19 absence without qualifying lines. I know it seems like a contradictory opinion, but these are special circumstances . . . an act of God if you will. Horsemen, owners, caretakers, racetracks, and others are hurting. There is no need to delay pari-mutuel racing or force owners and trainers to accrue further costs after some rough months just so I can have a qualifying line to evaluate. It just wouldn't be fair to them and it isn’t in the best interest of the industry.

To those that feel they simply can't wager without seeing qualifying lines in the program, I say what's one more week of waiting. You can jump into the pools the following week. Trust me, the majority will be betting with both hands if they have money in their pockets or ADW accounts.

While on the wagering subject . . .

By the time you read this, it will have been more than three weeks since my last wager and north of five weeks from the last time I sat down to handicap an entire card of races. While it is certainly not my longest absence from wagering in the last two decades, it is definitely in the top five.

[UPDATE: I succumbed to temptation and bet one race from Sweden after writing this on May 9.]

I would be lying if I said the free time at night wasn't enjoyable. It is nice to walk away from the computer at 6PM or so and power down the brain for a little while. But, there is no doubt that I'm looking forward to the return of Harness Racing somewhere in North America, preferably at a track I follow regularly or feel comfortable enough to support through the windows.

Familiarity is going to be the key to wagering when racing fires back up. I’m thrilled that Red Shores in Charlottetown in planning to return June 4 and I hope many people will watch and wager on the product, but I simply do not know enough about the horses, trainers and drivers competing on that circuit to dig in.

The smart thing to do when tracks began to trickle back into action is to stick with what you know. There will be many unknown variables – more than usual – to consider and the last thing you want to do is step outside your comfort zone. Sure, if you want to play around with 10 or 20 percent of your typical bankroll just to get some action on an unfamiliar track, go for it! But don’t let the itch to play override logic and your ability to make money.