A horse race is a contest of speed between horses that are either ridden by jockeys or pulled by sulkies and driven by drivers. The horse race has grown from a primitive contest of stamina to a spectacle with enormous fields of runners, sophisticated electronic monitoring equipment, and immense sums of money, but its essential feature has not changed: The horse that finishes first is the winner.
As a horse race journalist, I am captivated by how the sport’s leaders and fans are working to keep it alive. They are experimenting with new ways to attract and keep spectators, to promote the races, and to make their product more palatable to a skeptic public that is concerned about animal cruelty, overbreeding, and slaughter. And they are making progress, as evidenced by the growing number of horse races that are run over distances that test both speed and endurance.
In recent years, the industry has shifted away from traditional ownership models. Increasingly, it has relied on syndicates—partnerships that allow hundreds of people to own a share of a racehorse for a few hundred dollars a year. These groups were unheard of a few decades ago, but they now seem to be everywhere—and they are strengthening the bottom line. They also have democratized the sport by increasing its participation among the general public.
Despite these advances, the industry is struggling to keep up with falling betting interest and declining attendance. In the past few years, it has been forced to reduce prize purses and races, restructure its television contracts, cut payrolls, and even close some tracks. It has been losing money and fans to rival sports such as golf and football, and it continues to suffer from a perception of corruption.
A few years ago, when I interviewed Big Money Mike, a former champion jockey, he told me that he had seen a lot of changes in the racing business in his time. The biggest change, he said, was the nature of racehorse owners. “Used to be one big guy you were riding for,” he said. “Now it’s syndicates.”
It is not hard to find stories about the dark side of horse racing. There are reports of abusive training practices, drug use, and animal cruelty. Some companies have used the classic succession “horse race”—a process in which a select group of senior executives compete to become the next chief executive officer, with the top candidate earning the role—with disastrous results.
In recent years, the industry has responded to growing scrutiny with improved safety and welfare measures. It has also shifted the focus of its attention to educating the public about the risks. But it will need to do more if it wants to survive. A good lesson from horse racing is that underdogs do win—and it’s important to look for them. That could be a useful lesson for journalists covering politics, where too many of us have focused on two candidates vying for the top spot, to the detriment of primary contenders and third-party candidates.
