Letter to the Editor: The Thoroughbred Industry is in Grave Danger

I read with interest the article of The Thoroughbred Report titled “Dogs Gone: New Zealand bans greyhound racing from 2026,” dated Dec. 12. The article starts with the sentence, “There are only five nations globally where greyhound racing still operates being New Zealand, USA, Ireland, Australia, and Britain, but this is set to change with an announcement by New Zealand MP Winston Peters that greyhound racing will be banned in NZ from 2026.”

I was not aware that racing greyhounds is still legal in the United States. According to Wikipedia, “as of 2024, only two tracks currently conduct actual live racing onsite, both in West Virginia.” I would imagine this is a reference to Wheeling Island and the other Mardi Gras Casino resort. (Grey2K confirms that West Virginia is the only state where dog racing is legal.)

I have made this point in the past, but the Thoroughbred industry is in grave danger. I know one business analyst that specializes in corporate consulting and he can imagine the Thoroughbred industry being gone in 20 years. To be frank, based on numerous comments on social media dedicated to those who are in the Thoroughbred industry or are fans, whenever this possibility of demise is brought up, someone angrily bashes the observation.

I repeat a history lesson: New York once effectively banned horse racing in an act called the “Hart-Agnew Law.” According to Wikipedia, “Numerous Saratoga businesses went bankrupt, hotels suffered a sharp decline in guests, and real estate values collapsed.” What I am saying is doom and gloom is a real possibility. This is a time to engage with those that have expertise in public relations and image management.

Unfortunately, there are plenty in the industry that want rah-rah-rah articles that are “upbeat and positive” about horse racing. It is a silly angle: critics of horse racing are not going to be assuaged by relentless rah-rah-rah published by the Thoroughbred industry publications. Rather, this is a time to look outside of the industry for attitudes that may affect the industry.

At some time, almost all major businesses have some sort of image problem. Some are minor, some are serious, and some are existential. This is an existential problem. And it isn't just facing bans like greyhound racing bans. It's potential fans gravitating to other forms of gambling or entertainment that they do not perceive as harmful to animals. It's the possibility of states pulling the rug out of subsidies. According to NewJersey.com, in an article published September 17, 2024, “NJ will give $20M in taxpayer money each year to subsidize horse racing purses.” The article continues, “Critics such as Peter Chen, a policy analyst with the progressive think tank New Jersey Policy Perspective, took a different stance. He said the subsidies were ill-fitted at a time when New Jersey residents have been struggling with inflation and the cost of living.” Now when one throws in perceptions of animal cruelty into the mix, subsidies could easily go. Heck, there is even a website dedicated to ending horse racing subsidies.

They write: “Three billion dollars in casino revenue has already been used to prop up the horse racing industry, and these increased subsidies are now expected to cost taxpayers at least $1 billion every four years. Residents of New York should be the recipients of these casino profits, not the 11 Thoroughbred and harness tracks. Millions of private businesses in the state have operated entirely without casino subsidies. Why does horse racing receive this corporate welfare?”

Of course, apart from an outright subsidy, there is the issue of getting a state casino license in the first place because one has horse racing, wherein the applicant might not have been successful had they not been a race track.

There are benefits to the Thoroughbred industry, including promotion of green spaces for farms, which economists call an “externalized benefit.” An “externalized benefit” is a benefit created and externalized to others, which is not reflected in profits or otherwise enjoyed by the party that created the benefit. For instance, race tracks help build the surrounding area's tourism, such as at Saratoga. That is the argument for subsidies.

But this is not a piece about the wisdom or lack thereof of government subsidies or licensing favoritism for casinos. Rather, it is about the stark reality that this favoritism for race tracks can be greatly abated by the public thinking that the horse racing industry is cruel to the horses.

But love blinds, and I have seen countless comments on social media on how horse racing is too hard on its dopers or others that give the business a black eye. It is time to bring in outside consultants that are not so mired in love for the horse racing industry that they do not have a clear head about what needs to be done to preserve the industry. Again, failures do not necessarily mean outright bans: it could be diminished subsidies, withdrawn (or not issued) “racino” licenses so that race tracks can have accompanying casinos, or the simple act of a potential horse race bettor not betting on horses.

Perceptions of animal cruelty have real world effects, and New Zealand's new ban on greyhound racing is the latest example.

–Rinaldo Del Gallo, III

The author is a horse racing fan.