Confessions of a Racing Secretary

By Sal Sinatra
   A racing secretary's job isn't easy these days, although it's never been exactly a stroll through the tulips. The biggest challenge now is dealing with a declining population of racehorses as the size of the foal crop has fallen. 
Several of us have the continuing problem of too much competition for too few horses. For decades, this has been a way of life on the East Coast, where I toil at Parx Racing. You have racetracks from Massachusetts down through Virginia trying to stock their races, often with horses of similar capabilities. 
And, there are the challenges that always are a part of the job and forever will be. Racing secretaries serve three masters. First, the good folks who own the racetrack and sign our paychecks. We owe them a racing program that allows them to operate the business profitably. 
    That means putting on a good show by presenting races that generate a healthy level of wagering. Ideally, that means full fields. Today, that often means a moderately large field that is well-matched. 
Through the racetrack ownership, racing secretaries owe an obligation to the horseplayer. Ultimately, they are the ones who keep the lights on, even in this age of casino gaming, which supports the racing program at Parx and several other tracks. 
    Our obligation to the horseplayer is very similar to the duty we owe the ownership. We owe the bettors good, competitive racing that allows them to make reasoned decisions when putting their money down. An incomprehensible race where it's all but impossible to pick a winner, much less an exacta or trifecta, ultimately is a failure for both track management and the racing secretary. 
    Of course, racing secretaries also owe a duty to the racehorse owners through their trainers. We've assigned stalls to the trainers, and we have a good idea of the class of horses that fill those stalls. Our job is to design a program that allows these horses to race and earn purse money while maintaining our obligation to management and the horseplayer. 
No one ever said this was an easy job, and the pressures can be tremendous. Some of us–and I'm one of them–have succumbed to the temptation of playing with the race conditions to get that extra horse or two into the race. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it's a mess. 
    Let's take one example, the optional allowance claimer. It was the creation of our late, great colleague Bobby Umphrey, who concocted this race that combined allowance conditions with a buy-in. If you had used up those conditions, such as winning two races lifetime, then you could run with a claiming price on your back. 
The optional claimer has been useful, to be sure, but levels of complexity have been added to these races, starter allowances (I've abused those conditions, too, I must confess.), and other types of races. The conditions have become so convoluted that even members of the racing office staff struggle to figure out who's eligible and who isn't. 
These complex conditions serve no one. They confuse the trainers and confound the horseplayers. And when the trainers are confused and horseplayers are confounded, bad things happen. Sometimes these conditions allow a lead-pipe cinch  to drop into a race. 
   That's nice for the owner and trainer with the 2-5 shot. They pick up an easy purse. But what about the other owners? Is that fair to the owners and trainers who have entered the race without any shot of walking away with the winner's share? Not hardly. 
    It's no less unfair to the horseplayers. Even if they wade through the conditions, usually expressed in mind-boggling series of abbreviations in the program, they're not going to waste their money on a race with little opportunity for a significant profit. We racing secretaries should remember that the horseplayers have more betting opportunities than just our races. If they don't like a race at Parx, they can bet a race at any number of other tracks. 
So, I have a solution, an opportunity to make honest men and women of all racing secretaries. I'll call it KISS. You know: Keep it simple, stupid. 
    As we've added all these levels of complexity, we've all but forsaken our obligations to management, horsemen, and horseplayers. Let's write good, honest races that horsemen can understand and support, good, honest races that bettors can play with confidence. If they understand the race and find it competitive, they will bet it. 
If we have the racing stock in the stable area to justify it, let's write the straight allowance races that allow horses to progress toward higher levels of competition. That was the purpose of these races from the very beginning. They serve the owner and trainer, and they give the horseplayers a field of horses that match up well. 
    And, let's write the higher-priced open claiming races that allow horses of that level to compete against each other for money that matches their quality. Our colleagues at Keeneland write these races, and we should, too. 
Will there always be a place for optional claimers in our racing programs? Of course, they are here to stay. But we shouldn't allow them to be a crutch, an easier race to fill that sometimes has unintended bad consequences. 
    By keeping it simple we can best fulfill our duties to management, horsemen, and horseplayers. In the end, those obligations are in no way inconsistent, and we can do our part to keep horse racing engaging, exciting, and viable. Let's take the pledge to KISS. 
Sal Sinatra is the Racing Secretary at Parx Racing.