More News

Let's see if I've got this straight. The 134th running of the Preakness Stakes — Maryland's premier sporting event — went off without a hitch, with a female thoroughbred winning for the first time in 85 years. Preakness wagers rose 32 percent while the day's betting increased 18 percent — the fifth best on record. Television ratings jumped 27 percent to the highest point in 19 years.

And yet the media declared this Preakness a failure. The ostensible reason? Hordes of college-age drunkards and good-time Charlies and Charlenes skipped the event after track officials barred fans from bringing their own booze to the infield.

Track attendance dropped 31 percent. It was the smallest crowd since 1983. And it was all blamed on the booze ban.

That's too simplistic.

Have critics forgotten we're in the midst of a horrible recession, the worst in a half-century? That's a more plausible reason why people didn't buy $60 infield tickets and why companies didn't purchase expensive corporate tents.

Besides, it was an overcast day with a threat of rain: Hardly ideal weather.

No one seems to have looked at similar figures at the Kentucky Derby two weeks earlier. Attendance there dropped nearly 3 percent. Derby wagering plunged nearly 9 percent; overall betting for the day was off by 5 percent.

How could the Preakness significantly boost wagering with a much smaller crowd and be declared a failure? How could the Derby be deemed a success when it saw a marked drop in both attendance and wagering?

It's time chronic naysayers and the media's doom merchants stop predicting disaster at the race tracks.

All racing needs, like any sport, is a good drama and story line to boost interest. This is what occurred this year with the filly Rachel Alexandra and the surprise Derby winner, Mine That Bird. It was a large, highly competitive field, which helped spur heavy wagering and television interest.

As for the young drunkards who skipped the Preakness, good riddance. It's clear from the day's handle they contribute little to racing. To them, Preakness is simply a chance to engage in lewd, inebriated behavior that would land them in jail anywhere else.

Discouraging the riffraff from attending the Preakness was a courageous move. Bringing popular bands and sports entertainment to the infield should pay off eventually.

But cynics wail that the Preakness may never be run again in Baltimore. Magna Entertainment, Pimlico's owner, is bankrupt and is selling its tracks. This was the last Preakness, they moan.

How wrong they are. The Preakness isn't likely to move. Here's why.

If Magna does sell its Maryland racing facilities, the bankruptcy judge will insist on top dollar. That can only occur if the Preakness stays at Pimlico. Shifting this fabled race to another track destroys its historic and intrinsic worth.

How about the notion that someone will buy Pimlico, tear it down and ship the Preakness elsewhere? That won't happen because it would be a money-loser. Whoever buys Pimlico will want to maximize the enormous profits Preakness Day generates in Baltimore.

Besides, the next operator of Laurel and Pimlico stands to reap an enormous state subsidy for keeping the Preakness where it is.

Once slot machines are fully operating in Maryland, Pimlico and Laurel get a chunk of the profits. They could gain $67 million a year in higher purses and $27 million a year for eight years in track improvements, according to legislative analysts. During the life of the 15-year slots licenses, that amounts to well over $1 billion to support thoroughbred racing.

Such a whopping subsidy should revolutionize the local horse industry. Purses would zoom to unheard of levels. Many of the nation's best horse owners, jockeys and trainers would gravitate to Maryland.

Compare that to today's bleak situation in which tracks in slotless Maryland are barely hanging on while competing facilities in nearby states are flourishing thanks to slots.

Yesterday, Pimlico's purse awards totaled $136,000, only slightly better than the smaller track at Charles Town, W.Va., but far lower than Penn National's $170,000 purse payments. On that same day, Belmont Park in New York paid out $327,000. Two days earlier, Philadelphia Park, which used to be considered a step below Maryland racing, paid $248,000 in purses. If you're a trainer or owner, where would you run your horse?

But look what happens after slot subsidies start rolling into Pimlico and Laurel: On average, the two thoroughbred tracks will receive $304,545 a day to bolster purses. If that subsidy had been in effect yesterday, it would have meant a total Pimlico purse payout of $440,000. Now, where would you run your horse?

Money talks in the racing industry. It is highly unlikely a new track operator would walk away from such a grand racing situation. Indeed, much of the value prospective owners will place on Pimlico and Laurel relates to the sizable state subsidies and the big Preakness payday.

So, please, no more tears for the departing Preakness. It isn't going anywhere. If local horsemen can hang on until slots start booming in Maryland, the state's race tracks could witness an incredible turnaround — and the Preakness will be secure for many, many decades to come.

Barry Rascovar is a communications consultant and a longtime State House columnist. His address is brascovar@hotmail.com.