The unforgiving minute

There is something better in all of us.

A hidden voice looking for the resonance, the coincident harmonic in the universe pervading us. The better angels watching over us, crying their tears of loss for the banal atrocities we commit upon ourselves in the course of completing pedestrian tasks.

Within this maelstrom lies the calm eye of compassion and perception. The karmic compulsion for decency and acceptance. A communal tide carrying us to a far, pure, ever distant country but one with an unwavering polar star.

Within this game the pendulum swings with maddening frequency; a cadence comparable to a tachycardic sprinter on coke. That pandemonic whitecap roils us in the crucible of definition and spits us out on the beachhead, expended and prostrate; naked to the world.

With so much wrong, with so much broken, why do we not see the smallest betterments in this game from those in a position to actually carry them out? While adrift, why do we continue to look to those poor souls, asleep at the helm, for guidance?

It took the smallest-in the literal and figurative sense-within this game, to finally stand up and say with one voice, 'Enough is enough.' The jockeys at Penn National refused to patronize Gill any longer and suddenly the game became aware of this man and his brand of sportsmanship. A man upon whom this dysfunctional and grotty confederacy of dunces we call a league, bestowed the highest award this game has to offer.

We can all cry out for the untold atrocities those noble animals within this game endure on a daily basis. We can wail and bemoan the takeout, the lack of marketing, the headless tacking into the funnel cloud of public oblivion. We can wax poetic about the better days and the sporting nature of better men. But without the resolve to reach out to each other and look for the good that lies buried within all of us, the substance of things hoped for in the evidence of things unseen, the honest effort of will and basic decency, we might as well just spit into the wind.

We have to hope we can learn from our mistakes and accept the change that needs to come.

How far will we get in our sixty seconds' worth of distance run?

On storytelling and the Voltron Principle

I haven't posted anything in a while and this is just to quiet the voices in my head. As Pascal wrote, 'I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time'.

Way back, before technology and the invention of on demand anything. Back when Walkmans were de rigueur and Eddie Murphy was actually funny, Voltron had a transitory moment in the sun.

To those uninitiated, the premise centered on a group of five pilots, commanding five robot lions, charged with protecting the planet Arus. King Zarkon, the rapscallion he was, albeit with a seemingly sempiternal fiscal basin and zonked board of directors, would send his most recent budgetary boondoggle to begin a brouhaha on the planet and the band of five would pilot their feline contrivance to save the day in the final four minutes of the episode.

The drama evolved from their preternatural disremembering of previous errors in judgement. This little joy luck club would jump into their phallic pellets and individually charge off to do battle, invariably getting their ass handed to them. With no time left in the episode and less for the doomed planet, one of these mental midgets would conceptualize the notion of mating the five lions into Voltron, the Defender of the Universe (a feature that comes standard with the unit). Once assembled, they would draw their mighty sword and cut the bad robot up in time for commercial.

Now why the hell wouldn't they just join up from the beginning and make it back to the hangar in time for happy hour?

Racing has a similar dysfunction but it lacks the Voltron option.

No story arc exists. No structure informs the neophyte, who runs in what division and what a win in any race means in the grand scheme. I'm a fan and I don't get the progression of the season, because there is none. How am I supposed to explain it to my friends who think the Kentucky Derby is the championship?

This sop to breeders and stud fees has to stop. Graded races have to mean something again and until their numbers significantly decrease, no credible argument can be made by industry types that they have the best interests of the sport and the breed at heart.

The story leading to the Kentucky Derby has the fundamentals in place (I think the KD should be the first 3yo GI of the season but that is a fight for another day.) Why does everyone just forget the template after the Belmont?

If there are two seasons to the year, the Triple Crown and then the BC, why not develop a narrative? A three act play in six parts? Why is there no gauntlet for older horses? Why is the Claiming Crown treated like the red headed step-child? The Breeders' Cup defines nothing; the BCS is a fustercluck of Leviathan proportions, I'll grant you, but at least they crown a champion at the end of the day.

F1 has a structure similar to racing in that the tracks are not owned by the league and races are held at one track at a time. The Bahrain GP is not run the same day as Monaco...that would be stupid. It would dilute the talent pool and fans would end up changing the channel-if they could find it. At the end of the season-and there is an end-the team (among other categories) with the most points wins.

Points are objective. No ambiguity exists when comparing numbers and if the funding of this sport relies so heavily on figures and payouts, where does the disconnect lie when the horses run?

Return to the system a sense of exclusivity, among the races. If maidens can run in GI races and horses eligible for N2l can win them, what the hell are we expecting for the future of this game? Grade I races, in theory, exhibit the best that horse racing has to offer. How asinine does that argument sound when Da'Tara is counted among the Belmont winners?

There should be qualifying criteria and damn few ways of meeting them. Off the top of my head:

• GIII eligible horses must have won N3X or listed stakes.
• GII won or placed in GIII
• GI won or placed in GII
• Reduce meet lengths-No track needs to run for over 45 days
• Cut back racing days to Fri-Sun (when your customers are actually off)
• Have the NTRA Alliance actually serve a purpose by developing a tiered track system based on average daily purse. (This separates the lower level claiming tracks from the so called boutique race meets)

I could go on and this is not even fleshed out. Nobody is willing to cooperate because it would involve a certain amount of sacrifice and we can't have that.

So instead of agreeing that a little bit of something is better than all of nothing, developing a story; a progression for the season-a destination, the disparate tracks try to one up each other and insist on a salmagundi of mediocrity, a pastiche of pedestrianism, a...something else rococo that adds up to of mix of badness.

Why not put Voltron together from the beginning and spare everyone their individual serving of whoop-ass?

Prisoners' dilemma

In Catch 22, Yossarian, as WWII is drawing to a close, explains to Major Danby how he does not want to be among the last to die, since it won't matter in the overall course of the war. Major Danby asks what would happen if everyone felt the same way, to which Yossarian replies, "Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way, wouldn't I?"

When the rewards of defecting, or reneging, appear to favor the individual over the group, there is little incentive to stay with the pack. However, if everyone has this same thought, which they invariably do, the mass defection leaves the group, as well as the individuals, far worse off than if everyone had cooperated from the start.

In an experiment at Texas A&M, Professor Raymond Battalio had a class of 27 students play a game (taken from The Art of Strategy, Dixit and Nalebuff). Each student owned a hypothetical business and had to write on a paper, simultaneously and independently, whether to produce (1) item or (2). The (1) kept supply low but prices high, so higher profits could be achieved all around; (2) meant each individual could break away and produce more than the others and profit at their expense. The payoffs to students electing to produce (1) were maxed out at $1.08 if all 27 students wrote (1) and decreased $0.04 for each defection.

The reward to the first student who wrote (2) started at $1.54 and decreased $0.04 for each additional defector. If all students defect and write (2), then they each get $0.50. If they had cooperated, the individual payout would have been $1.08.

The exegeses, after several mock runs and explanatory sessions, shows the number of cooperating students who wrote (1), was 4. The total payout was $15.82, $13.34 less than would have been paid with unanimous cooperation.

I just read the TDN Prescription for Racing, released last summer (I understand I am a little behind the power curve here but I make up for it with my cunning and guile.) A more tragic comedy of errors I am hard pressed to recall.

There seems to be a consensus there as to what ails this game. The panel appears to be skirting the same issue. If the parties that be are in agreement, what the hell is the problem?

• Detection-Cheating the system would be easy to determine but difficult to punish.
• Nature-No negative incentive exists for transgressors. Unless the punishment for breaking away is severe and enforceable, it has no credibility.
• Certainty-Members must believe that transgressors will receive punishment.
• Clarity-I know of (and this is not saying much) no guideline as to what the structure would be. If nobody is presented with a blueprint and cannot see the destination, it becomes much easier to object.
• Proportion-Punishment must be proportional to the degree of offense.
• Periodicity-Is the nature of the relationship repeatable? Is there an expectancy of commitment? What are the expectations for growth over time? If everyone believes the ship is sinking, then everyone is only going to look out for their own best interest. If the train is going somewhere then parties will be less inclined to jump off (Three guesses as to what the parties think is happening to the game).
• Stability-What are the barriers to entry? If membership is fluid and casual then there are fewer incentives to adhere to the agreements. New members with no stake in the game are less likely to abide by its covenants. When the participating parties have more flesh in the game, the incentives to cooperate, all else being equal, increase.

The hardest part is starting. The expectation that what is created must be perfect, is as illogical as it is impractical. There is no silver bullet. This is not about threading the needle. When your house is on fire, you don't haggle with your neighbor about the price of his hose and you don't sue his ass when he breaks your arm after tackling you out from under a falling beam.

Somewhere in the paper, Alex Waldrop says something along the lines of politics being the art of the possible. I will do him one better. Max Weber said, 'Politics is a strong and slow boring of hard boards.'

Alex Waldrop limits himself by the scope of his premise. The tragedy lies not in his commitment to the effort but in his abeyant ideology of what that effort is.

On humble snorters and all that

The IPL (Indian Premier League)has partnered with Google to broadcast all 60 regular season games on Youtube. Read the story here or here.

The most significant aspect of the deal is the amount of control it gives the viewers, who will be able to customise their viewing experience by choosing between different camera angles. Additionally they will be able to freeze, fast-forward and rewind the feed, as well as watch replays at any time during the day, a choice that is unavailable to television viewers who are bound by broadcast schedules.

Now I am an educated man but I have no idea what the hell is going on with that game; I know they drink tea. I would, however, think this exposure could do nothing but help grow the sport and get me excited the next time someone takes ten wickets in one inning. If Google is in, it can't be all bad.

Sharing revenues from sponsorship to advertising.

MADNESS!!!!

Disconnect

Perhaps I am looking at this all wrong but I don't understand the resistance to trying new things.

There seems to be some dissatisfaction with the state of racing but I don't see anybody actually doing anything about it. There are good ideas but where is the implementation?

Most agree takeout is too high but when presented with the idea of systematically affecting handle, all I hear are crickets. If a product is unsatisfactory and one keeps using it, what signal does that send to the provider? Does anyone imagine that Original Coke would have made it back if the consumer said, 'This New Coke sucks my ass but what the hell, I'll buy it because it's all there is'?

Open source is an amazing thing and cooperation, on a grand scale, is possible in this day. What is the downside to trying it out?

I'm asking.

Theory is nice and all but it doesn't really get anything done. Any endeavour is, at its core, a series of tasks. Deploying resources in the most effective manner, i.e. where they will do the most good. 'Getting there firstest with the mostest' if you will.

Implementing a wagering blackout might not be the best idea.

But it is actionable.

Wasting away

Paulick Report has a story of NYRA's dumping manure and waste into Jamaica Bay. A more fitting tribute to the state of the industry I cannot imagine.

Racing has at its disposal a plentiful supply of renewable energy. It is a by product of their primary revenue source. With proven technology, readily available in the state, management could turn that resource into a solid revenue stream.

With the proper leadership and implementation, they could generate a...wait for it....profit.

Now I understand if racing officials don't know the meaning of the word; I am happy to wait while they go look it up.

This is just one example. How many other things, easily implemented, could provide similar cash infusions?

It requires effective leadership.

So I guess I'm just pissing into the wind.

Naming names

Bloodstock in the Bluegrass fires a shot across racing's bow in his latest post, unfortunately those on deck are too puerile to know it.

While I don't disagree with his apriorism, I don't think it is the most effective method of resolving the nasty little issue we have in this game. Congress is as ineffective and corrupt an amalgamation of bastards as exists on this watery rock.

I favor choking off funding, i.e. handle, in order to make a case for reform. A concerted effort to reduce betting on big racing days, industry wide, in order to institute reform. When those in control see the determination of the betting public, they might be more inclined to listen and enact meaningful changes. Get their attention and get them to the table.

This is not some socialist cry for revolution complete with brandished pitchforks, burning torches and rampart storming. I am not indifferent to the genuine hardship this will cause to real people but for the game to recover and have a chance to thrive, some creative destruction is needed. There is too much inferior product and too much opportunity to showcase it. Those who thought to make a quick buck "flipping" horses are probably crying foul the loudest. The conscientious breeder, among others, understands the swings of fortune and probably planned for the downtime.

The game needs leadership not an empty shirt and a hairdo. Marketing is not the answer. Neither is price gouging and obfuscation. The barriers to entry for consumers are too high; they should be zero. Steve Zorn has a wish list and it is attainable.

Change does not happen. It is an abstract. Tasks are concrete. They are done by people within specific time parameters. Anything else is just somebody blowing sunshine up your ass and stalling because they are incompetent.

Charles Ogburn, a member of Merrill's Marauders wrote, 'I was to learn later in life that, perhaps because we are so good at organizing, we tend as a nation to meet any new situation by reorganizing; and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization.'

Making things happen requires clarity of vision, commitment and execution.

I don't think betting blackouts are the only way to signal how desperately this game needs to change tack. I welcome options.

I just can't think of anything more effective or immediate.

Quantifiable Measures or...Stop Sucking

When you dig yourself into a hole, stop digging. If you're a jackass, stop being one. In order to reverse course, you need to stop going in the wrong direction.

Once you stop the bleeding, or at least figure out where the hell it's coming from, you can work on treating the injury. Running around, yelling, crying and wringing your hands is not going to accomplish anything except delay the initiation of corrective action.

A hallmark of effective management requires any goal worth a dam to be measurable and time based. Effective organizations use KPI (Key Performance Indicator) to evaluate progress. If there is no quantifiable goal, there can be no measure of progress. You can't tell if you will get to where you want to go if you don't know where the hell you're going and if you can make it there with the gas you have left.

Describe the objective in quantifiable terms deliverable by a specified date (MT states a date must include a number between 0 and 32 with one of the twelve calendar months next to it), e.g., all sources handle of $15Billion by December 31^st.

Organizations measure the stuff they care about. The things that are measured are the things that get done. If there is no target, nobody can tell if you're actually doing anything. If there is no deadline, there is nothing for which to hold you accountable. If there is no accountability then they might as well put a monkey in your office; as Seinfeld would say, 'Anyone can take a reservation.'

Of course, if that is in in fact the goal, then racing and its 'Zoolanderlike' stewards are dead nuts on.

A momentary flash of genius

I checked my daily Monster.com notification e-mail today and had a surge of excitement. A flash that finally, somebody somewhere at the NTRA or wherever gets it. That all is right with the world and I have found my calling.

I read BOOKIES Wanted.

Upon further scrutiny, it actually read Rookies Wanted.

The enemy of the good

Reinventing yourself is not easy.

That's why Wile E. Coyote never does manage to catch Roadrunner. He is locked in to doing things the way he has always done them. Even when he has a brilliant idea; backed by the laws of physics; with sound engineering and design; his ass always ends up under the ACME anvil.

The hardest part is starting out. As Goethe said:

“Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it.
 Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it!”

Innovation and entrepreneurship need not be uncertain endeavours. They are based on economics; market structure; demographics and, as Peter Drucker referred to it, Weltanschauung, perceptions and moods.

According to Drucker, managers need to learn to practice systematic innovation. It consists in the purposeful and organized search for changes, and in the systematic analysis of the opportunities such changes might offer for economic or social innovation.

Racing does not suffer for a dearth of opportunity. It suffers from a lack of effective management. The current circle jerk is either blind or apathetic to the problems that plague racing and unwilling to abrogate the status quo.

Managers are paid to exercise their best judgement as it pertains to the welfare of the organization. They are not expected to be infallible. They are, however, paid to realize and admit when they are wrong. A behavior more common in omission than practice.

The ideas exist. Pick one.

Implement it and see what happens. Run experiments vs control studies. Pick a meet, or several, and play with takeout. See what happens to handle. If handle goes up as takeout goes down, you might have something there. Try to control for confounders.

Gather the major entities and form a federation of sorts with a commissioner, or supreme leader, or high priest or whatever the hell you want to call it. Draft a two or three or five year charter, during which time the game is run as if it were under control of a single organization. Get serious people involved and work out a blanket structure. After the charter period expires, if nothing improved, go back to taking each other out at the knees.

Create a league or two or three. Graded races and then everyone else. Standardize distances. Establish some progression.

Do something. Pick one thing and do it.

I'll do it for you. I have the time.

Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.