Well this is my personal point of view, living in the “horse capitol of the world,” but I will take a shot.
I mentioned earlier about how Breeding is what fuels racing. Well taking it one step farther, it really is betting that fuels American racing. Without betting, there wouldn’t be enough of a reason to even run the races. It is gambling dollars that fund the tracks. Money spent at the track on the non gambling things is a very small percent of the total money. Tracks exist to get the gambling dollars. Part of the track’s take goes to fund the purses. The purses fund the owners who are trying to breed the next superstar. It is all connected, but has to start with the bettors.
So from a gambler’s point of view, I don’t see a real advantage to adding non-thoroughbred horses into the mix. The serious bettors rely on information about each horse to make their bets. A big part of that is breeding. When you study breeding, you have more information to help you predict who the winner will be. Right now every registered thoroughbred is tracked through the Jockey Club. A bettor can access each horses past performances, pedigree, etc. If every race was open to just any horse, that would be impossible to track. Well, maybe not impossible, but would really make getting acurate information much harder and probably more expensive.
The “whales” in racing, who make up the majority of the gambling dollars, would lose their percieved advantage if unknown horses, like Gramps speedy mixed bred at the farm, raced against the others. The average race goer looks at horseracing as animated roulette. Pick a number or name, or pretty silks and take a chance. Professional handicappers who really fund the game, look at selecting the winner as a puzzle that can be solved, if you have the right information and analyze it correctly. Rumour had it that one big whale was going to bet a million dollars on Barbaro to show. To handicappers, that looked like a pretty safe bet. The payoff would not be much, but looked pretty certain. Hard to imagine Barbaro being beat by more than two horses in that race. The unexpected happened, and he was beat but that was an unusual event in a big race like that. ( looking at the show pool, I don’t think that a million dollar bet was made, so even though that turned out to be a rumour, there are cases where big bettors do make bets like that.) So if you were to add completely unknown horses, with unknown bloodlines, you wouldn’t see many big bettors willing to make such big bets. They would feel the average person had just as much chance as picking the winner as they did if they couldn’t properly evaluate each horse’s chances.
And in a small way, limiting entries to just the registered thoroughbreds also helps create a fan base. I am a big fan of Dynaformer as a sire. I watch all his kids, and track them. Watching his son win the Derby added to my experience, keeps me a fan. I have a new foal this year who was sired by the sire of Sweetnorthernsaint. I really wanted Sweetnorthernsaint to do well also, thinking that might mean I could have a 2009 Kentucky Derby entrant. So limiting the sires helps to grow the sport’s fan base as well, allowing us to follow a horse, even after he retires. If Barbaro is able to go to stud, his kids are sure to be fan favorites, perhaps even drawing new people to the track to see them in person and cheer them on. Other sports have an advantage in that the “stars” of the game usually stick around for years, bringing and keeping new fans. Racing has a problem in that our stars are often only running for two years. So by following a “star’s” children, we can keep those fans the star brought in.
There are some races where the conditions allow for thoroughbred’s to compete against quarterhorses. This hasn’t proven to be terribly popular. If it was, then more races like that could be added to cards. But right now, racing other breeds against thoroughbreds wouldn’t result in much betting.
These horses are bred to run specific distances. Quarterhorses excel at shorter distances. A few thoroughbred sprinters can compete with the quarterhorses, but the money is in thoroughbred racing, so thoroughbreds only do that when they can’t compete at the traditional thoroughbred distance. More handicappers prefer betting on thorughbreds than standard breds or quarterhorses. So that is where the money is. If that should shift, then the money would follow, but I don’t see that happening.
There isn’t much strategy involved in quarterhorse races. You look at the horses’ times, and predict who will win. Same with harness racing. But thoroughbred racing, because of the longer distances, leaves more possible outcomes. Some horses only win when they are on the lead, some are closers, some jockeys are better on turf than dirt. Many things to study and learn to make informed bets. That is what attracts more bettors to those races than the other types. If anything was done to make handicapping seem less like a thought process and more just plain luck, then you would lose those players. Some people prefer the strategy and involvement in winning at poker over the more just plain luck in Black Jack. And they way thoroughbred racing is set up now, adding unknown horses in the mix would hurt rather than help attract more dollars.
Bottom line, I just don’t see opening races to all horses as being a benefit to racing. It wouldn’t attract more money, probably would result in less money being bet. So until adding non-registered horses would mean more betting dollars, I don’t think there is any reason to change things.
And back to your first question about adding AI as an option. One thing you will find about the horse industry is that it is very resistant to adding new rules and regulations. There really isn’t a governing board that covers all of racing like you have in football and baseball. There isn’t one group that could make that decision and force all the tracks to go along with it. The industry has not yet been able to agree on national drug guidelines, jockey insurance coverage, race day rules, simulcast times and availability, the list goes on and on. If they were to add this major change, I don’t see how they would ever agree on how to track and monitor it. It would be bad for the breed to just use a very limited number of stallions so there would be a need to limit how many mares each horse could have. How that could be decided, I can’t imagine. And the most powerful in racing who have the most chance to influence any changes in racing are the ones who benefit the most from the live cover system, so I really don’t see that changing anytime soon.
