Las Vegas Hotels

Ludwig: Horse racing has dark side

Dink NeSmith's Sunday column on the glories of pari-mutuel betting exactly mirrored my opinions 30 years ago when I was president of the Georgia Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association and lobbying hard for passage of favorable legislation.

I looked on jealously as Alabama passed pari-mutuel and built its grand venue outside Birmingham. Everything was ripe for success: an established horse culture and plenty of land to raise horses, a great highway system, support of wealthy investors and a large pool of potential bettors. But success was short-lived.

I, too, have attended glitzy race days at Saratoga, New Orleans and Keeneland - to name a few - and marveled at the lovely horses and beautiful people with money to spend on them. But let's walk behind the Hollywood set and attend a race meet at a small track like Penn National or Charlestown, W.Va., or let's attend a big track when there isn't a much-hyped "classic" race being run. What you'll see then are near-empty stands, small betting pools, shrinking purse money, races not filled and rundown stables and facilities.

Why? Several reasons come to mind. A big factor is that owning, training and breeding racehorses is so expensive that only Saudi oil princes, Silicon Valley billionaires and industrial magnates can afford it. So the small owner-breeder is practically extinct. Fewer breeders make for fewer horses to fill races, which makes for fewer betting opportunities and smaller purses.

Another important factor in the decline