Casinos at Race Tracks?

Does anyone else feel that there is something very fishy and rotten about the way they keep trying to push this through?

I'm not opposed to Casinos at all, but I just can't get over the fact they're ONLY going to allow them at certain race tracks and not just in general....which I interpret that to mean so their friends, buddies and cronies can profit, but nobody else.

The issue obviously doesn't have the support, yet it refuses to die and Beshear keeps harping on it.

Also those commercials that say the horse industry is losing money to neighboring states who do allow casino gambling at their tracks and it's UNFAIR.

First, I HATE the word unfair. Anytime someone brings that up I know I'm going to disagree with them.

Secondly, which of our neighboring states' horse industries are better than ours? Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia?

I say if we're going to have casinos, just open it up to any private enterprise who wants to start one, not just a select few people trying to get richer.

[QUOTE=know1;370896]
Secondly, which of our neighboring states' horse industries are better than ours? Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia?
QUOTE]

I have a buddy that is a horse racing nut who says that many people who raced primarily in Kentucky are running the horses in WV, he tells me slots have especially helped Mountaineer. I am not versed enough to know, but I trust what he tells me when it comes to horse racing.

[QUOTE=know1;370896]Does anyone else feel that there is something very fishy and rotten about the way they keep trying to push this through?

I'm not opposed to Casinos at all, but I just can't get over the fact they're ONLY going to allow them at certain race tracks and not just in general....which I interpret that to mean so their friends, buddies and cronies can profit, but nobody else.

The issue obviously doesn't have the support, yet it refuses to die and Beshear keeps harping on it.

Also those commercials that say the horse industry is losing money to neighboring states who do allow casino gambling at their tracks and it's UNFAIR.

First, I HATE the word unfair. Anytime someone brings that up I know I'm going to disagree with them.

Secondly, which of our neighboring states' horse industries are better than ours? Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia?

I say if we're going to have casinos, just open it up to any private enterprise who wants to start one, not just a select few people trying to get richer.[/QUOTE]
The reason they're only trying to get it at racetracks is because they think that's their only chance of getting it passed at all. A lot of politicians are opposed, like Senate President David Williams, Greg Stumbo, and others. But the reality is that without it, Kentucky's racing industry is going to suffer. The pari-mutuel wagering, gate, concessions, etc. just don't pull in enough money for them to compete with places like West Virginia, Delaware, and the others that have slots. A percentage of that slots revenue goes straight into purse money, meaning that in effect it goes straight into the horsemen's pockets. Churchill doesn't have the extra revenue, so they have smaller purses, meaning fewer horsemen bring their horses, so the fields are smaller, which leads to decreased attendance and handle, which leads to even smaller purses... It's a vicious cycle, and I hope our illustrious State Senate will wake up and smell the coffee before Kentucky racing goes the way of Maryland.

i agree with Roadtoad. Until about five years ago I used to bet on almost nothing except KY race tracks, either at the track or by Off-track simulcasts. I mostly bet Exotics (trifectas, Superfectas, Pick 3s, Pick 4s, etc) and I like to use longshots in my bets. For the way I bet, I don't usuallly bet on any race that has LESS THAN 10 horses.

Over the last several years, the field sizes in all the KY tracks has gone down to the point that most cards will only have two or three races with 10 or more horses and many will have as few a four. By way of example, today's card at Churchill only has four races with 10 or more horses, the other eight races only have 6 or 7 each. And this is a Saturday, when field sizes are the biggest. I have seen Thursday and Fridays with only one or two races with 10 horses and several with only four or five.

The owners and trainers of the better horses are moving thier barns to tracks with bigger purses. And, that means a poorer quality of races that remain at KY tracks. I am going to Churchhill today but I will be in the Simulcast area because there are only two Churchill races I want to bet on. The rest just are worht betting on. AND I AM NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT FEELS THIS WAY!!

Without slots at the tracks, racing in KY is going to go down hill until nohting remains here.

Grumpy

It is true the tracks are really hurting. So much money drives across the bridge into Indiana it is not even funny. We could keep that money here. What a shame.

I'm definitely not opposed to having Casinos at tracks....just opposed to having them ONLY at tracks. It should be open to anyone who wants to operate one.

[QUOTE=know1;370970]I'm definitely not opposed to having Casinos at tracks....just opposed to having them ONLY at tracks. It should be open to anyone who wants to operate one.[/QUOTE]

I believe that part of the issue is that to have them at other places would require a constitutional amendment. This is not the case if the slots are just at the tracks. Thats why the push for slots at race tracks.

Andrew

Very well put Grumpy. That is the kind of statement that changes minds.

[QUOTE=apb;370994]I believe that part of the issue is that to have them at other places would require a constitutional amendment. This is not the case if the slots are just at the tracks. Thats why the push for slots at race tracks.

Andrew[/QUOTE]
Actually, the proposed amendment would have authorized 12 casinos in Kentucky, 7 in "communities that already house racetracks," and 5 more in border counties that currently have no gambling other than the lottery. But it failed, in large part because a lot of those communities' civic and religious leaders didn't want casinos in their back yards. So now, Beshear is trying to get slots just at racetracks, where there is already gambling, [I]and[/I] he's trying to call them "video lottery terminals," and say that it's covered under the current constitutional amendment authorizing the lottery. I don't think that's going to fly. The amendment clearly states that no other forms of gambling shall be incorporated into it. Much as I want to see slots at tracks, I think that no matter where they're located, it's going to take an amendment.

[QUOTE=the_donger;371222]Very well put Grumpy. That is the kind of statement that changes minds.[/QUOTE]

I to agree with the Grumpster.

But why do they have to designate where they go in the first place? Just make it legal and let the local communities decide if they want them in their area.

It's too restrictive and looks to be aimed at making a few of Beshear's cronies and relatives money at the exclusion of others.