When asked whether or not HANA should organize a boycott the results were:
When asked whether or not HANA should use the Playersboycott.org site, the results were:
As a horseplayer I've decided to join the boycott because I believe higher takeout is harmful to the long term health of thoroughbred racing.
As a horseplayer I believe sitting on the sidelines is not an option for me because everybody in the industry is waiting to see how players react to this.
I believe that if a clear message isn't sent: Not just Keeneland -- but other tracks -- will have takeout increases too.
When we boycotted Churchill in 2014 because of their takeout increase: They were down a solid 25% outside of the Derby.
How much of that was the market speaking and how much came from us drawing attention to the takeout increase is hard to say. But we sent a pretty clear message.
I expect Keeneland Fall 2017 numbers to mirror Churchill 2014 numbers - and be down a similar 25% to 30%.
But that may not be a strong enough message.
I believe that by getting the message out to as many horseplayers as possible -- we can knock Keeneland numbers down significantly.
I am asking you to join us by not betting one track -- Keeneland -- for one month -- October 2017. That's it.
If enough players do that:
I believe that together we can convince Keeneland to reverse their decision.
--Jeff Platt, HANA President
Higher Takeout in the name of Bigger Purses isn't the answer.
Higher Takeout in the name of Bigger Purses only serves to compound the many already existing problems racing faces and needs to address.
Higher Takeout in the name of Bigger Purses has been tried before -- and it has FAILED each and every time.
Consider:
In 2010, during the six months immediately following the takeout increase at Los Al: On track handle was down 27%. They've since cut dates and purses. And their handle today looks nothing like it did before their takeout increase.
In 2011, nine months after the SB1072 takeout increase went into effect for California's thoroughbred tracks: There were not only purse cuts but Santa Anita announced they were 'reorganizing' and laying off one third of their staff.
The so called racing press didn't cover it.
But the local paper in Arcadia, CA where Santa Anita is located did.
http://arcadiasbest.com/2011/10/santa-anita-cuts-third-of-staff/
In 2014, Churchill raised takeout for their Spring meet. Handle outside of the Derby was down a solid 25%.
As direct result: Churchill announced a 20% purse cut for their 2014 Fall meet.
The so called racing press didn't cover it.
But Maggi Moss reported it:
here on her Twitter account.
In my opinion Keeneland is doubling down on the same bad idea.
Why would anyone in their right mind think the results will different this time?
Higher Takeout in the name of Bigger Purses isn't the answer. It only serves to compound the many already existing problems racing faces and needs to address.
Join us. Together we can convince Keeneland to reverse their decision.
--Jeff Platt, HANA President