Response to John Berry’s “Stirring the Pot”

John Berry (see column from Oct. 16) may need a bigger spoon to stir the cauldron.

First, let me commend John for his continuing efforts to get people talking about the future of harness racing. His recent Mane Attraction columns have raised important questions about wagering, timing, technology, marketing and the need to attract new fans. He’s not simply pointing out problems; he’s offering ideas and challenging the industry to think differently.

That’s precisely what this industry needs. So, John, keep stirring. Some of us have a few more ingredients to throw into the pot.

As seemingly every sport continues modernizing, revising and changing, harness racing remains remarkably similar to the model I knew as a boy in the 1970s. I enjoyed the sport then and I’ve watched it for decades since. The horses have become faster, the technology has advanced, and the world around us has changed dramatically. Yet much of the industry’s approach to competition, wagering and attracting fans seems resistant to meaningful change.

There’s an important difference between then and now. Back in the 1970s, going to the track was an established legal way for many people to enjoy a wager. Today, harness racing competes in an entirely different marketplace. Casinos, legalized sports betting and a growing array of other gambling opportunities are competing for the same entertainment dollar.

We can’t expect to win that competition simply by offering the same product we’ve offered for decades.

We need to make harness racing more competitive, more entertaining and easier to enjoy.

John has addressed many of the wagering concerns. I’d like to add a few thoughts about how we structure the racing itself, how we introduce people to wagering, and how we present the sport to the public.

Let’s talk about artificial intelligence.

We hear the acronym AI practically every day. Businesses are putting it to work, and the gaming and entertainment industries are exploring its possibilities.

I’ll be the first to admit that I don’t understand AI any better than most of the people standing around the paddock. But perhaps that’s precisely the point. We don’t all have to understand the technology to recognize its potential.

Maybe we ought to get somebody on duty who does understand it — someone who can explain what AI and modern data analysis might accomplish for harness racing and, more importantly, put those possibilities to the test.

For example, why couldn’t we examine a different approach to post-position draws?

After the entries are selected, what if we explored arranging starting positions according to the horses’ winning percentages, placing the lower-percentage horses toward the rail and the higher-percentage horses farther outside? This wouldn’t guarantee a more competitive race, and post-position advantages vary by track, distance and racing conditions. But why not study the results and find out whether a different approach could give more entrants a reasonable opportunity to compete?

Imagine being a bettor and seeing a field in which more horses have a reasonable chance of being competitive. Wouldn’t that give us more interesting handicapping decisions and more reasons to consider horses we might otherwise overlook?

The objective isn’t to manufacture winners. It’s to explore whether the racing can be structured to create more interesting competition.

Modern technology could help us evaluate these ideas. We could analyze post positions, driver statistics, track configurations, race conditions and historical outcomes. Then we could test proposed changes at selected tracks and compare the results with the existing system.

Maybe the research would show that some ideas won’t work. Fine. At least we’d know. But dismissing them because they’re not the way we’ve always done things isn’t an answer.

The same willingness to rethink the product could apply to claiming races.

Could a rolling claiming model give smaller owners a better opportunity to acquire horses and build competitive stables? Could a more thoughtful system create opportunities for owners who don’t have the financial resources of the biggest operations? Aren’t we past pill bottles, decks of cards and numbered envelopes?

I don’t pretend to have all the answers. But the industry should be asking these questions, particularly when attracting and retaining owners is so important to its future.

John has also discussed the need for more standardized rules across jurisdictions. I’d extend that thinking to information and presentation. A more consistent national system for racing records, performance information and handicapping data could make the sport easier to follow and understand. Better information would serve bettors, horsemen, owners and newcomers alike.

Then there’s the wagering itself.

Many of our so-called exotic wagers are nearly too complicated for the occasional horse-race gambler. Exactas, trifectas, superfectas and multi-race wagers can offer plenty of excitement for experienced players, but a newcomer can quickly feel overwhelmed by all the combinations, rules and calculations.

The average customer shouldn’t need a handicapping degree to enjoy a little action.

We need to make it easy for people to understand what they’re betting on, what they need to pick and what they might win. Explain the choices in plain English, provide straightforward ways to get started, and make the more complicated wagers accessible without requiring everyone to master them.

John’s proposed Great-8 wager, with its substantial potential prize, is one example of an idea designed to attract attention and give fans something to follow. That kind of thinking deserves consideration. But we also need simple, approachable wagering options for the person who comes to the races a few times a year and wants to participate without studying a rulebook.

After all, we’re trying to attract customers, not administer an entrance examination.

And we must make the entertainment experience better, both at the track and on the screen.

Live streaming gives harness racing an opportunity to reach people who may never visit a racetrack. But putting a camera on a race and broadcasting it isn’t the same as creating an engaging entertainment experience.

Viewers need reasons to stay, learn, become involved and come back. They need to connect with the horses, drivers, competition and stories behind the races.

Imagine more engaging race previews, useful handicapping insights, driver interviews, behind-the-scenes access to the paddock, and explanations that help newcomers understand what they’re watching. At some tracks the cameras are in service; but, we can do so much more with that feed. Imagine a broadcast that welcomes the first-time viewer without boring the experienced horseplayer.

Technology could help deliver that experience, whether the customer is watching from home or sitting in the grandstand. AI might help personalize information, improve handicapping tools and make broadcasts more interactive. I don’t pretend to know exactly how those tools should be applied. That’s why we need people who do know, working toward a clear objective.

The same principle applies at the track. We need to give patrons more than a series of races and a betting window or automated kiosk. We need atmosphere, involvement and entertainment that make an evening at the races worth choosing over the alternatives. Hard to imagine our casino partners aren’t leveraging our product?

Other sports and entertainment businesses understand that people aren’t simply buying a ticket or placing a wager. They’re buying an experience. Harness racing has the horses, the speed, the strategy, the personalities and the thrill of a close finish. We should be making the most of those assets.

On any given night, harness racing sends millions of dollars’ worth of equine athletes onto the track. Owners, breeders, trainers and drivers invest enormous amounts of time, money and effort in producing that competition. Yet too often, the industry fails to invest the same imagination in making its product more appealing to the public.

We shouldn’t expect people to come to the track simply because the races are scheduled. We need to give them a reason to care, a reason to participate and a reason to return.

John Berry is helping start that conversation. His columns recognize that the industry has problems that won’t be solved by looking backward or defending familiar practices. His willingness to stir the pot deserves our support.

Now the industry needs to turn the conversation into action. Bring together people who understand racing, wagering, technology, marketing and entertainment. Test new ideas. Measure the results. Keep what works and move on from what doesn’t.

Maybe AI will help us find some answers. Maybe other technologies or simpler changes will prove more valuable. I don’t know enough about the technology to say. But I know enough about business to understand that when a product loses customers, the answer isn’t to keep offering the same thing and wonder why people aren’t buying.

After all, “that’s the way we’ve always done it” is not a business strategy.

John, keep stirring the pot. And perhaps it’s time the rest of the industry found a few more people willing to pick up a spoon.

Because harness racing doesn’t lack horses, history, competition or stories worth telling. What it needs is the imagination and determination to turn those assets into a product that today’s public wants to watch, wager on and experience.

The future of harness racing depends not just on the horses we put on the track, but on the experience we build around them.