Some things on my mind now that the semester is over
Class are over! Grades are due next week. It has been a long semester. Overloads and new preps are no fun.
A couple things on my mind
The Arkansas Derby finally (re)earned Grade I status. Hooray! Now it is time to demote the Bluegrass Stakes.
The Jockey Club's Equine Industry Database will be analyzed by (paid?) researchers before its release to the general public (read here). Why? Release the data and let Economists, Statisticians, Epidemiologists, and Animal Scientists use the data for research. I'd look at it for free if there was possibility for using the data to get a publication in an academic journal. Epidemiologist Tim Parkin gets privileged access to the data and I imagine his results will be what is reported in the press releases when the data comes out. The industry gets to spin the results as opposed to independent researchers. This seems to be the wrong and more expensive approach, but not surprising from an industry overly concerned with public perception. However by holding the data and putting their own spin on it, the industry opens itself up to conspiracy theories not unlike those surrounding "climategate". Release the raw data and let independent researchers do the work.
Let me reiterate that I will look at the data for free. I have extensive experience analyzing large datasets and making "sure there are no problems such as duplicate reporting".
Jockeys and horsemen are once again debating the jockey payout model (read here). Jockey's typically get 10% of the purse if they finish first, 5% if they finish second or third, and a flat mount fee if they are off the board. Mount fees vary across tracks. At Churchill Downs it is $45, Penn National $75, and Philadelphia Park $100. Jockey's want higher mount fees (more like Philly Park) and are working with regulators to achieve them. The horsemen want to bargain with jockeys without involving regulators. What would I like to see? I would like mount fees to be negotiated between trainers/owners and jockeys on a race by race basis. I'd be willing to pay more for a better jockey. A new jockey trying to break into the local circuit might be willing to take less to attract mounts, thus getting an opportunity to show off his skills and potentially charge more down the road. On a heavy favorite, a jockey might be willing to accept a lower mount fee or even nothing for a chance at getting his 10%. All jockeys are the same so why should the price be the same?
Does use of new "safer" whips in horse races results in more whipping? (read here) It makes sense. If the horse can't feel the whip than you whip it more to implore greater effort. If there is more whipping isn't that PR loss for the image conscious industry?
People who don't like the fact that horses are whipped during a race probably don't like horse racing to begin with and most certainly aren't betting it. Forget about them.
A couple things on my mind
The Arkansas Derby finally (re)earned Grade I status. Hooray! Now it is time to demote the Bluegrass Stakes.
The Jockey Club's Equine Industry Database will be analyzed by (paid?) researchers before its release to the general public (read here). Why? Release the data and let Economists, Statisticians, Epidemiologists, and Animal Scientists use the data for research. I'd look at it for free if there was possibility for using the data to get a publication in an academic journal. Epidemiologist Tim Parkin gets privileged access to the data and I imagine his results will be what is reported in the press releases when the data comes out. The industry gets to spin the results as opposed to independent researchers. This seems to be the wrong and more expensive approach, but not surprising from an industry overly concerned with public perception. However by holding the data and putting their own spin on it, the industry opens itself up to conspiracy theories not unlike those surrounding "climategate". Release the raw data and let independent researchers do the work.
Let me reiterate that I will look at the data for free. I have extensive experience analyzing large datasets and making "sure there are no problems such as duplicate reporting".
Jockeys and horsemen are once again debating the jockey payout model (read here). Jockey's typically get 10% of the purse if they finish first, 5% if they finish second or third, and a flat mount fee if they are off the board. Mount fees vary across tracks. At Churchill Downs it is $45, Penn National $75, and Philadelphia Park $100. Jockey's want higher mount fees (more like Philly Park) and are working with regulators to achieve them. The horsemen want to bargain with jockeys without involving regulators. What would I like to see? I would like mount fees to be negotiated between trainers/owners and jockeys on a race by race basis. I'd be willing to pay more for a better jockey. A new jockey trying to break into the local circuit might be willing to take less to attract mounts, thus getting an opportunity to show off his skills and potentially charge more down the road. On a heavy favorite, a jockey might be willing to accept a lower mount fee or even nothing for a chance at getting his 10%. All jockeys are the same so why should the price be the same?
Does use of new "safer" whips in horse races results in more whipping? (read here) It makes sense. If the horse can't feel the whip than you whip it more to implore greater effort. If there is more whipping isn't that PR loss for the image conscious industry?
People who don't like the fact that horses are whipped during a race probably don't like horse racing to begin with and most certainly aren't betting it. Forget about them.
Comments