there are probably a lot of tracks we could do without for the betterment of the game. Turfway and Ellis both have a lot of charm. I have always thought that going to Ellis is like stepping back in time. Neither of them fit in to what I call the “desperation” tracks, where you go and you just seem to see people that are trying to win the rent. Charles Town would certainly be one of them. Suffolk Downs.

The tracks I like the least are the ones where you see races run by horses who haven’t had works in months, but are racing every four or five weeks. Another good indicator of a bad track to me is class level. Tracks that only have a handful (or less) of stakes need to go. I don’t know if either of these things describe Turfway or Ellis, but improving the sport by contraction has to be a position that the powers that be must carefully consider, I think.

I feel the same way about the Chicago tracks. I would miss going to them if they closed, but the racing has gotten so bad in recent times, I rarely find a race worth betting. And the racing quality will only further decline, same as it is nationally. If closing would be a positive for racing as a whole, then I might be fine with it.

One big problem is all these bad tracks whose closure would benefit the game have slot machines (Philly, Indiana, Penn, etc.). Nobody bets any of these tracks, but since they are making money from the slots, they have no need to cease racing. This waters down the product of the racetracks that actually matter.

The numbers don’t lie, we have fewer horses each year (and fewer and fewer good ones). Some changes have to be made immediately.