Harness: If it is good enough for the NFL, why not us?

A year ago at this time there was so much promise a major change at Yonkers Raceway would cause the half-mile track to reshape it’s racing product and deliver more racing fans and bettors a reason to pay attention. Sadly, other than gimmicks such as moving post times out of conflict or gaining the attention of “new” wagering hubs, the experiment appears to have done very little to convince a larger audience that the races are much different.

It would be easy to define the reasons, but it is perhaps better to look at efforts in other sports to indicate that subtle and more pronounced change is necessary to garner and maintain attention. There are no better marketers of sport than the NFL and in the recently concluded regular season the league redefined the quarterback position in significant manner. First, it essentially made it illegal to hit the quarterback under most any circumstance. High hits, low hits, forceful hits and almost anything that remotely looked like a football play in 2010, are now cause for yellow flags.

Second, the move to restrict hard hits on the quarterback allowed the league to give those on-field generals the freedom to move around with less threat and opened the game up to more exciting plays. The days of the pocket passer have changed back to the days of Fran Tarkenton, where the quarterback can now run and add an exciting dimension to the game. While purists may argue that defenses have now become somewhat defenseless, the league appears to be more interested in a creative product that is not an instant threat to mothers and fathers allowing their young kids to play football.

Essentially the league appears to be covering all areas of concern in modifying its product and engaging its audience.

Harness racing is relying on gimmicks that will have no long-term ability to change the marketplace and in the process fooling itself if future success and survival is an issue.

How can it not be?

We can argue that years of purse money supplemented by alternative gambling has done little to help change the sport in a way that attracts a new audience. A simple solution offered by some is to add marketing money and see what it can do. A more complex issue is less expensive but much more difficult to swallow in that it suggests a deeper look at ourselves, or for a better word, self-interest.

Harness racing as a whole has been sold out by self-interest in so many ways. Horsemen are no different than most and what’s best for each individual often conflicts with what’s best for the whole. Looking at Yonkers, the largest benefactor of alternative gaming revenue for purses, we have seen a steady supply of racing dates since the money poured in more than a decade ago. In theory, keeping the number of dates constant allowed all horsemen to share in the purse money more fairly. In reality, the guarantee of money and opportunity has sucked away the need to compete for the prize. It’s as if the NFL guaranteed playoff status to all teams whether they won or lost games.

When the passing lane was shut down at the dawn of 2018 at Yonkers, the hope was that it would significantly change the way races were run. While the drivers did their part at the outset, a condition sheet did not change. In other words, the rules of winning and losing races remained the same. Eventually when drivers recognized what moves were required to win races, they adapted to the new stretch and races slowly moved back to the older standards.

To me the combination of guaranteed purses and a wide number of racing opportunities has cratered the competitiveness this sport is surely capable of. The

loss of mares bred while not reducing racing dates in kind is also damaging to the product because it forces classes to be combined to fill races and that hurts competitiveness.

The grim reality of our past decisions explains why we can’t have our cake and eat it too. Eventually the product must stand on its own and be supported by either those attending racetracks or those wagering on it from afar.

Of immediate concern is falling prey once again to the false front of purse supplements. By themselves they offer money that can be shared by a wider group and keep people gainfully employed. Yet that’s where we’ve already seen little impact with negative growth.

What’s that definition for insanity again?

It’s time for horsemen to recognize what must change as a group.

That may mean sacrificing racing days in some locations. That may mean offering added horses in some races with fewer earning checks. That may mean rewarding success at a higher level and offering fewer consolation prizes to those who don’t.

What this sport has become over years is perhaps what may be considered a poor social experiment in capitalism. As more and more un-earned money was thrust upon us people got more and more comfortable. This led to maintaining the status quo.

As we begin the next year in the history of harness racing, we should all take a look at a successful entity as the NFL and recognize that even those at the top need to evolve in order to go forward. The horsemen in this industry are more than capable of producing a better product both visually and to wager upon. Leadership at racetracks and among horsemen’s groups must finally align with just one concern, and that is how to create a product more appealing and sustaining. It won’t happen accidently. It won’t happen if the rules of engagement remain the same.
The legalization of sports wagering could create a much wider and younger base of future gamblers. If we expect or even care to change the demographics of those taking interest in harness racing, it’s time to meet potential new player demands.