Attn Wonderland and Raynham Park

I'm just wondering if you've finally decided to allow your workers to receive state help in retraining -- or if you're going to continue to toy with their lives in your attempt to control the public debate by using their very plight to attempt to further your last-gasp attempts at profiteering?

Thanks,

Ryan

Track Defeat: Controlling the Dialogue

Ever since the dogs tracks lost on Question 3, it's been a race to control the dialogue in the media, with the tracks trying to gain any foothold on the upcoming legislative season. Today's Cape Cod Times has two key stories. First, instead of hearing about all the happy grassroots volunteers who spent countless hours trying to protect animals in this state, we get to hear all about the poor track workers, complete with already-discredited numbers on the impact. The second story is on the slots and how the race tracks are pushing them, in great part through Representative Flynn and Senator Pacheco, Raynham's representation.

Readers will note that Racinos are about the worst possible thing that could happen to this state, creating no new revenue, bringing in little overall, opening the doorways to full-scale resort casinos that will put the racinos out of business, anyway (but not before Carney and Sarkis make tens of millions, stiffing the state with casinos that we can never tax after the racinos are gone). Does any of this sound like a good idea to anyone?

Finally, everyone should realize that 56% of this state voted for banning professional greyhound racing. No matter how hard the media hugs the industry, they can't change the fact that in almost every city and town, in all but a few small pockets of this state, greyhound racing is universally detested. The people have spoken, loud and clear. It's time the industry gets used to it and moves to something completely different, or sells the land to someone who will.

Why Does Every Greyhound Story...

Come from the perspective of the tracks, track owners or track employees in the Boston Globe? Do they ever bother to talk to anyone but George Carney, Charles Sarkis or their Rolodexes? If ever there's a picture of a dog track related story, it's of happy dogs racing and having fun or the employees huddling in a corner crying. It's not of the dogs trapped in their cages, the violent collisions resulting in serious injuries to over 800 dogs since 2002, or even of dog-track protesters canvassing with their adopted greyhounds.

Why not write a story focusing on the happy grassroot volunteers who fought years on end to pass a racing ban? Isn't that the real story here? Too Paper of Record-y?

More questions...

Why does the Globe continually use its news space to editorialize the need for slot machines?

Resigned to the end of dog racing, track owners and the lawmakers who support them said they will launch a renewed effort to legalize slot machines in dog and horse tracks in the hope of restoring the estimated 1,000 jobs and millions of dollars in gambling revenue that will be lost when live racing ends.

And why can't Globe reporters be factual when it comes to dog track jobs? There aren't even 1,000 race track jobs in Massachusetts - including the horse and amateur car tracks - never mind 1,000 at Wonderland and Raynham. The best estimate is around 300-400 jobs, many of them part timers.

And, in case anyone thought slot machines were the answer, as the Globe seems to suggest, they aren't:

Billionaire Backer Of Right-Wing Causes Is Down On His Luck
By Zachary Roth - November 6, 2008, 3:42PM

The casino company Las Vegas Sands, which is owned by right-wing billionaire Sheldon Adelson, has said it may default on debt and face bankruptcy, reports Bloomberg. In trading today, stocks in the company plunged.

And things aren't doing so well at the Racino in Rhode Island, either.

My last question: Why can't the Globe deal in realities? An article focusing on the jobs at Raynham and Wonderland is a bit premature given the fact that Question 3 specifically gives the tracks two years to phase out races and allow employees to find new jobs. Question 3's passage should not result in a single layoff tomorrow, the next day or even five months from now. People should have plenty of time to find new jobs, especially given the fact that Governor Patrick is promising state help to retrain workers, allowing the tracks to end positions as people leave.

No, Yes, Yes!!

The people have spoken and the dogs will be saved. As well as cities and towns. 3 cheers!

Also, is Massachusetts changing? Maybe we're really becoming the liberal-dom the rest of the country accused us of being - and I've always wished we were. 3 cheers for that, as well!

RaceTracks: Just in Time!

Wonderland decided to finally pay its taxes.

REVERE - Owners of Wonderland Greyhound Park wired a lump sum payment yesterday of $752,301 to the City of Revere to cover two years' worth of back taxes and utility bills

No, they weren't worried about the Question 3. They were worried about their license.

The payment makes the track current on its debts to the city through Dec. 30, takes it out of foreclosure, and comes just in time for a reapplication hearing for its operating license this afternoon with the State Racing Commission.

Once upon a time, rumor has it, there were consequences for not paying property taxes: property seizure. Apparently, those rules only apply to people, not special interests. With enough lobbyists and allies in government, two years of tax evasion is no biggie. The Mayor of Revere didn't mind much, but then again he wasn't one of the dozens in Revere to be laid off over the past few years, dozens who wouldn't have lost their jobs if Wonderland paid its share in taxes.

Of course, people can hold Wonderland accountable on Tuesday, even if state officials won't. Vote Yes on 3.

A Race Track Shocker!

Surely, the race track industry would never misrepresent the facts.

An Ohio-based researcher is accusing greyhound racing supporters in Massachusetts of misrepresenting her human sports-injuries study to counter the argument that dog racing is dangerous to the animals.

Supporters of the state’s two dog tracks have used the federally-funded study to claim high school sports are more dangerous than greyhound racing.

But the study’s author says they inflated athletes’ injury rates in number and context.

Everyone should always trust those swell guys at Wonderland and Raynham. They're just angels taking care of all of those dogs... /sarcasm off

Vote Yes on 3.

Yes on 3's Ad

Dogs and Broken Legs: No Big Deal

That's what the Massachusetts race track industry has to say.

Here's a video I put together and posted on YouTube, using quotes from a 10/11/08 debate on WBZ radio between Christine Dorchak, of the Committee to Protect Dogs, and John O'Donnell, of the Committee that thinks they should be tortured, abused and sent out to pasture.



Luckily, I think John O'Donnell's opinion will be in the minority on election day. Remember, come November 4th, vote Yes on 3.

Update: Polling continues to be good for Question 3. The main danger is the race industry's deceptive campaign, which could leave voters confused on election day. As long as everyone knows what they're voting on, the good guys win. But that's no easy task. Talk to your friends, neighbors and coworkers and make sure they know to vote Yes on 3.

----

Also, a quick notice: if you like original videos on Ryan's Take, please consider contributing a few dollars below, going toward a Flip YouTube camera for new interviews, forums and online workshops posted to Ryan's Take and LeftAhead. Even $5 or $10 would go a long way. Thanks!

8 More Seriously Injured Greyhounds

From the Committee to Protect Dogs:

Raynham, MA – According to records released yesterday by the Massachusetts State Racing Commission, eight greyhounds suffered broken legs at Massachusetts dog tracks in August. Three dogs suffered broken legs in one day on August 24, continuing a trend that saw nine dogs suffer broken legs in June and seven in July.

In total, 842 greyhounds have been injured while racing at local dog tracks since 2002. Nearly 80% of these injuries involved broken legs, and other reported injuries include paralysis, head trauma and death from cardiac arrest. A few weeks ago, the Committee to Protect Dogs announced that it has documented nearly 400 violent, and sometimes fatal, dog race collisions that took place at Massachusetts racetracks in 2007 and 2008. Video footage has been posted online at www.ProtectDogs.org.

I'm starting to see Yes 0n 3 signs begin to pop up all over Lynn and Swampscott, two communities just outside of Revere - where the Wonderland Race Track is located. It's about a month from the election. The race tracks will likely spend millions to confuse the voters, but anyone who thinks greyhound racing is cruel should feel good about where we're at. Momentum is definitely on our side.

The Dog Track "100%" Adoption Claim

Yesterday, there was an ad in the paper version of the Globe on Question 3, from the the anti-dog group confusingly and absurdly named Massachessetts Animal Coalition (and yes, they spelled the name wrong!). In the ad, there was the biggest whopper of a claim yet.

In the eight years from 2000 to 2007 465,176 greyhounds raced at Massachusetts tracks.

Of course, that number is completely misleading. Saying that 464,176 different dogs raced at Greyhound and Wonderland Race Track - the two dog tracks in this state - would be like saying 100,000 different people have been to my site. Nope! My site may have had 100,000 hits, but most of my traffic comes from frequent readers - who click on my site over and over again. It's the same with the dogs: Greyhounds may have raced 465,176 times from 2000 to 2007, but the number of Greyhounds who did that racing is only a tiny fraction of that number. In any given year, there's 2-3k Greyhounds racing in Massachusetts. A typical Greyhound will only last racing for a few years, maybe 3 tops. Raynham and Wonderland aren't anywhere near big enough to handle 465 thousand dogs in 7 years. I'm not so sure that many dogs have raced across the entire country in that time.

But as my first link indicated, the track campaign - so far - has made it its goal to confuse the voters. I guess with so many newspapers coming around to the fact that the industry's made up its job numbers as it went along, they can't rely on convincing voters to vote for the tracks on jobs alone. Their only hope is to completely confuse the grassroots supporters who have rallied around phasing out greyhound racing in this state.

They also make this same claim in their newest internet ad:



I can only hope the media will do its job. Ballot question are confusing enough - campaigns should not be able to get away running on sleaze and disinformation. Just like their 100% adoption rate was made up, so too is their latest claim. When will all of this stop? It's past time that people who use these dirty tactics be held accountable - and, luckily, the voters can do that by voting Yes on 3.

________________________
Sponsor a post for $10 and help make this site better. Proceeds will be going here, to get a small camcorder for interviews and events (so I can post them online). By sponsoring a post, you get your name attached to my newest blog, as well as a sentence on the bottom in which I can put a link to your website, blog or store.

Of All the Dirty, Underhanded Tactics...

This from today's State House News Service (sorry, can't link to SHNS):

DOG RACING GROUP TAKE NAME OF GROUP SUPPORTING RACING BAN

A ballot question committee has formed to oppose Question 3, which bans dog racing, but the committee appears to have taken the name of an existing statewide non-profit dedicated to fostering collaboration of animal care professions and supportive of the ballot initiative. There’s another problem on Monday’s filing of the “Massachusetts Animal Coalition” – the group spelled its name the Massachessetts Animal Coalition. The group lists its chairman and treasurer as Jill Mead of Wellesley and Lynne Morin of Raynham as its “other officer.”

Of course, dirty, underhanded tactics is all they've got. The tracks can't win among the voters unless they confuse them.

Race Tracks, Lies and Broken Regulations

Come November 4th, it's no big secret that one of the most important questions facing voters will be Question 3 - the ballot question that could phase out Greyhound Racing by 2010. The efforts of the Committee to Protect Dogs is already well under way. What's been puzzling, though, is the fact that the Greyhound Tracks have remained relatively quiet. Oh, sure, they've spun some interesting tales to reporters, but it's not really working. So what, exactly, do they have under their sleeves?

The Committee to Protect Dogs and Jobs. You've heard it here first. A Washington, D.C. lobbyist named Read Martin ordered the domain name ProtectDogsandJobs.org, a site that's currently under construction. Most voters wouldn't be aware of this, but Read Martin is a business associate of Glenn Totten, of Totten Communications, hired by Raynham Park as a politician consultant to defeat the 2000 attempt to ban Greyhound Racing, which was the closest ballot question fight in Massachusetts state history.

So what's the big deal here? Two things - first, it's clear that because the Race Tracks in Massachusetts know they can't win the battle of ideas, they're going to try to confuse the voters. Already posted to Youtube are videos of cute little dogs and their adoptive parents - with one add titled Adopt a Massachusetts Greyhound, Vote No on 3. They're trying to send the message that if you really want to help Greyhounds, you should vote no on 3. Of course, they're skipping the maiming and the sufferring parts.

Even more important than trying to create a campaign solely meant on confusing voters is the fact that it appears as if state law is being violated. Why? The Committee to Protect Dogs and Jobs has not been filed with the State OCPF, the organization that oversees campaign finance law for state elections. As a ballot question campaign, they are required to file with the state before they start raising any money - and certainly before they spend any of it.

From the OCPF website itself:

Political Committees and Other Organizations

A political committee is a committee that raises money for a specific political purpose, such as:

The election of a single candidate (candidate's committee);
The election or defeat of one or more candidates (political action or people's committee);
The promotion of a particular party (state and local party committees); or
The passage or defeat of a ballot question (ballot question committee).

Before it can raise funds for its specified purpose, a committee must be properly organized with OCPF or, if applicable, a local election official.

Emphasis mine.

Of course, as with anything this cynical and irregular, the bludgeon they keep hitting themselves with doesn't stop. Among those sweet, kind-hearted videos on the Youtube site are a few claims that are flat out wrong. In fact, the very title of the ad - "Adopt a Greyhound, Vote No on 3" - is misleading, at best. Adopting Greyhounds and voting no on 3 have nothing to do with each other.

But it only gets worse from there. The first text to pop up on the featured ad is, in fact, false. The ad claims that the Greyhound adoption rate in Massachusetts is 100% - all Massachusetts Greyhounds are placed in a loving, caring home. Not exactly. According to the Massachusetts State Racing Commission, only 14% of track dogs end up being adopted in Massachusetts. For the math-challenged among us, that means the lobbyists are off by a whopping 86% - 65% of the dogs in Massachusetts are just sent to a new track, out of state and out of mind, where we can't keep track of them. Perhaps those are states that don't have such strict regulations as Massachusetts in terms of reporting what actually happens to Greyhounds at Wonderland and Raynham.

The second number that pops up in the same ad is a claim that can only be described as misleading. The ad claims that the state's race tracks have "contributed" $1.34 million to Greyhound Adoption agencies from 2000-2007. In fact, that's false. In 2001, a law drafted by Grey2K was carried by State Representative Pat Jehlin, establishing the Retired Greyhound Care and Adoption Council. Under this law, a portion of the taxes that the state was already collecting from gamblers spending money at Raynham and Wonderland was redirected to this council: that was the funding mechanism. So, in essence, it's the people who gamble at these tracks who have "contributed" these funds, not the tracks themselves.

Moreover, if the money weren't redirected to this Council, it would have been sent directly to the state's coffers. So let's not confuse this money with a generous donation that's being handed down from the industry to the adoption agencies in anyway, whatsoever. While it's good that the state has directed some funding to adoptive services, it's a small band aid on a gaping wound. The very reason for the fund's very existence would evaporate if we began to phase out Greyhound Racing in Massachusetts.

So let's try to get this all straight: the dog tracks are currently in the process of setting up their campaign to defeat Question 3. Their chief tactic appears to be confusing the voters, making them think that voting no on 3 will help Greyhounds. Furthermore, their campaign is currently violating OCPF campaign finance regulations in Massachusetts. I guess this all this shadowy mess is par for the course with the dog track industry - it's not as if they haven't tried to mislead and lie to the voters before.

Crossposted at BlueMassGroup.

Standard Times: End Greyhound Racing

The Standard Times wrote one of the most powerful editorials I've ever read on this November's Question Three that would end Greyhound Dog Racing. It's one of the few newspaper articles I've ever read that's been brutally honest on the job numbers - as honest as I've been on this blog, even, using the facts and figures provided to us by the Massachusetts Department of Labor and US Census. A few readers will remember my blog on the race track dog numbers.

But the article recognizes that there's more at stake. Sure, it's important to rebuke the false claims of Raynham and Wonderland, but what's more important is the fact that there's serious racing collisions happening at both facilities leaving dogs badly injured or worse. This is not NASCAR - the dogs don't benefit from the protection of thousands of pounds of steel - but they do crash into other dogs, the ground and walls going in excess of 40 miles an hour or more. That type of collision, with just about anything, is violent. The Standard Times gets it.

This was a well written, powerful editorial that really took the racing industry to task. People should not only read it, but also forward it to friends. This battle is important. It speaks to us, as a society, how we treat those who can't defend themselves. These dogs are battered and bruised every day, only to go home and spend 20 hours in a kennel they can barely move around in. The one common thing they all know in life is not human companionship, but the cold, hard steel of their cages. We can do better.

The Brutality of Greyhound Racing

I sent an email out to friends earlier today, expressing concern over Question Three, providing them with video evidence of just how horrible Greyhound Racing is for the dogs. I'm going to blockquote the email below, but first I'm going to post the video. People need to see this, because time is running out to save these dogs.



Here's my email:

I read a story today about Question Three, the question that could end greyhound dog racing, in which the Committee to Protect Dogs announced they've taped a year's worth of greyhound races in Massachusetts - and have subsequently taped hundreds of serious injuries. A video of some of them is here.

I have to admit, the video is not for the feint of heart. However, hopefully everyone will watch at least the first few minutes - where there's news about the actual findings. If anyone is considering voting no on question 3, I implore you to watch the whole thing. You should know what you'd be condemning these dogs to by voting no: picture NASCAR crashes without thousands of pounds of protection, airbags and seat belts. It's terrible - and that's not even counting the 20 hours a day Greyhounds are locked up in cages they can barely stand up and turn around in.

The tracks will say thousands of jobs are at stake, but as I've discussed on a blog earlier this summer, they make up their numbers as they go along. George Carney, the owner of the Raynham track, seems to make up a new number every time he talks to the papers - but, in that last link, I discussed the exact figures through Census and Massachusetts Dept. of Labor figures. It's not much and could easily be made up with by anything that would be built on the acres and acres of property filling these tracks.

But it shouldn't even be about that: what these dogs have to endure is horrifying and something we should strive to be better than in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. It's nothing less than animal cruelty to the extreme.

Send your emails out, too. Everyone who votes in Massachusetts needs to see this video, because it's so important that we cease this barbaric practice once and for all.

Since tracks have been forced to report injuries, over 800 dogs have been injured. A year's worth of them were recorded by The Committee to Protect Dogs. Hundreds of dogs were seriously injured. Many of them died. It's brutal and we, as a society, can do better. I hope everyone will vote Yes on Question 3, so we can finally bring justice for these dogs.

"Long and Trusted Relationship." Ha!

From the State House News Report: Governor Patrick thankfully refused to support a bailout of the Wonderland Race Track - and their refusal to pay property taxes. Don't worry, though, Wonderland and Revere's Mayor have worked it all out...

In a statement, Wonderland executive Dick Dalton said, "We take full responsibility and have taken immediate action to arrange a payment plan to settle the arrears. We have spoken with Mayor [Joseph] Ambrosino and expressed our deep regrets for any inconvenience we have caused the City of Revere. The City of Revere has been a long and trusted partner and we value our continued relationship with the community.

There's a long and trusted relationship? What part of 'long and trusted' and 'relationship' is withholding more than $800,000 dollars? In long and trusted relationships, does one party take all the money and run? Or do they go years in which one party doesn't pay the legally required taxes to the other? How many layoffs did that $800,000 lead to in the city of Revere - how's that for long and trusted?

It's a relationship, all right, and certainly long - but trusted? Revere is the long and abused wife, who's just starting to work up the courage to leave. Certainly, this $800,000 fiasco will do wonders for the community - in convincing them that they don't need Wonderland Race Track and the hundred favors every year it'll need just to stay open. It's not good for the community one bit, not only are hundreds of dogs being injured there every year, but they can't even manage to pay their own taxes. It's time we put this dog industry out of its misery - and I thank the fine folks at Wonderland for making my case for me.

This is the Industry We're Protecting

The Dog Track industry is so profitable and important to the Massachusetts economy that Wonderland Race Track is about to be foreclosed on. And, no, this doesn't even have to do with the mortgage lending crisis... they owe the city of Revere more than $800,000 in back taxes!

REVERE - Revere city officials have begun foreclosure proceedings on Wonderland Greyhound Park for failure to pay $789,293 in taxes over the last two years.

Wonderland Park, the city's eighth biggest taxpayer and now the city's largest tax delinquent, also owes $16,673.70 in water and sewer bills, said George M. Anzuoni, Revere's director of finance. The figures were calculated through Aug. 1 and include interest and fees.

Don't worry, though. When you're a government-protected industry, you don't have to worry about silly things like not paying taxes.

The track has been delinquent since 2006, city officials said. But city councilors were surprised to learn last week that the track was able to obtain annual liquor and restaurant licenses, as well as a special permit for parking at a track-owned parking lot while delinquent on taxes. That is a violation of a local ordinance.

This is why we need to make sure the ballot question to end dog track racing passes. The lobby is too strong - and nervous about profits - to trust just to die off on its own, as one would think would be inevitable. They'll keep trying for other revenue streams to add to their tracks, like the even more nefarious slots, which in the end will only serve to keep these dogs down and promote their sufferring. Enough is enough.

HT David.

7 Greyhounds Break Legs in 6 Days

From a press release I received today:

Raynham, MA – According to state records obtained by the Committee to Protect Dogs, seven greyhounds suffered broken legs at Massachusetts racetracks during a six-day span in June. The records indicate that three of the dogs will require a full year to recover from their devastating injuries while another greyhound will need six months to heal.

“Every month, we receive new reports of dogs suffering broken legs and other serious injuries while racing at tracks in our state,” said MSPCA-Angell President Carter Luke. “In some cases the dogs limp away facing a year of recovery and rehabilitation while other greyhounds leave their lives on the track. It is time for Massachusetts’ citizens to end this cruelty and vote yes on Question 3.”

Greyhound racing... a little harmless fun, right? Wrong. There were actually 8 Greyhounds that were seriously injured in June. That's in addition to the 9 last month. There's an epidemic here - one that voters can cure by voting Yes on Question Three in November.

Update:

Oops - I was wrong. Eight dogs weren't seriously injured in June - there were 11. It was even worse than I thought. In fact, 8 dogs were injured in June at Wonderland alone!

Sherlock Holmes and the Case...

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of
the Mysteriously Changing Race Track Job Figures!

By Ryan

It was the Wednesday when I last read my email - on July 16th, 2008 to be precise - where I first noticed something was amiss. I imagined that what I was reading was as if I had been reading it one hundred years before, electronically digitalized text transposed to paper and ink, the kind that would rub off your fingers if you read it too long. There were many stories, in many papers, that day, but none of them quite made sense. I knew this was a job for my friend, the great Sherlock Holmes.

So I left my home and wandered down the dirty streets of London. There were the shops, the barbers, the butchers, the bakery - all the sorts of things you'd expect to see walking through a densely packed London street. The people were walking to and fro as if nothing was wrong at all. And then I saw it - Holmes's flat, nearly like any other. Years ago there may have been a sign above his door, but he had no need for such advertisement these days. His powers of deduction, now famous, were quite beyond compare, of course. That's why I knew if anyone could figure out how many jobs were at Race Tracks in that little state across the pond, Sherlock Holmes could.

So I walked up his first few steps and knocked on his door, as I had hundreds of times before, to see his servant girl open the door quite kindly. She led me to the parlor, where Holmes was sitting smoking his pipe as usual, reading the daily papers.

"Why, Watson, my boy, how good to see you!" Holmes said.
"Indeed, Mr. Holmes, I quite agree."
"And I can tell you're worried about these stories of all different job figures."

Stunned, I looked Sherlock Holmes over yet again, no matter how well I knew him, he always could manage to surprise me.

"Howsoever did you know?"

"Why, Watson, it's elementary - my dear boy - elementary. I know that, this early in the morning, you would never come to see me on a Thursday, of course, unless you had some sort of burning question in your mind. Furthermore, like me, I know you're prone to read the papers in the morning. So when I began to read, after I got up from bed, I noticed very peculiar stories, each contradicting the other, each with quotes coming from the same person on the same day."

"But how did you know."

"Oh, quiet Watson, I was getting at that. Of course, most people would find these contradicting stories quite perplexing, so when I noticed you came here at this hour, I simply deduced the fact that you wanted to get to the bottom of these ever-changing figures."

"Indeed."

"Well, fear not, Watson, I've already figured it out."

I shouldn't have found myself surprised one bit, but of course I did. "How?"

"Well, to be honest, it's quite easy. Let's take a look at the stories."

Holmes picked up several papers from a pile, each a different newspaper and each with a story about a mysterious man named George Carney. He was a man both powerful and influential both behind the scenes and out in the open - wealthy and quite willing to use his wealth to help hatch his mastermind plots. Of course, he also had a charming, quaint nature about him, and was savvy, getting most reporters to apparently believe or at least not question whatever he said.

"Here's the first story, Watson. Here, in the Taunton Gazette, he reports that 800-1000 jobs would be lost at two different tracks, if the Greyhound ban were to be enacted by popular vote. That would be about 400-500 jobs per track, but one would think he'd know whether his track were employing 400 or 500 people - because 100 people would represent upwards of a million dollars in costs every year. So, my dear Watson, it's quite clear - in just reading this article alone - that Carney is lying."

Stunned, I watched Holmes place the Gazette back on the table, replacing it with two other papers, now in his hand.

"And in these papers, the Brockton Enterprise and Patriot Ledger, we hear a completely different story. His track alone, he claims now, employs a full 650 people. While that further illustrates his dishonesty when it comes to these numbers, let's ignore that for now. Knowing that the two tracks could employ as little as 800 people, according to him, that would mean the other track would employ only 150 people. Is it likely that one track would employ 650 and the other 150, when they do the same job and require similar amounts of Greyhounds? I think not, Watson, I think not. It's only more clear that he's being rather liberal with his truth."

"Furthermore," Holmes began, "some of the stories began to get at other numbers that Carney didn't present, the ones that are actual facts and figures, according to the Government - the reporters, apparently, never bothered to look at them, failing to properly do their jobs, simply questioning Carney, but never his motives. It's quite sad, really. So I did a little searching to find the source of these Government figures."

"And you had time to do that this morning?" I asked.

"Of course, my dear boy, of course. You see, there's this wonderful thing that guys like George Carney just don't know about; I believe people like him call it 'The Google.' You just type in a few practical words here and there, and you could find information on almost anything! To people like Carney, it must seem like a difficult magic that must take a lifetime to learn, so they just ignore it as if it didn't exist. But people like me - we use it to find facts, figures and important theories nearly instantaneously."

He went on, "Knowing that it is your behavior to come here to clear such peculiar circumstances up, I decided to search these Googles before you arrived, to find out the real answer to your question - because, quite frankly, I'm tired of searching halfway across the country for them! So, if you'll allow me to continue?"

I didn't say anything else, but couldn't help but notice Sherlock Holmes's genius. He was able to get at the truth with nothing but a few words and a computer! Wow!

"Perhaps the most perplexing article of the bunch," he said, as he pointed to one of the final papers on the table, "comes from the Boston Globe."

He put down the Ledger and Enterprise, picking up the Paper of Record.

"Here we find another article that contradicts Carney's numbers, the article saying that both tracks employ 650 people combined. That's rather closer to reality, though still hundreds too inflated. Now, what's odd is the way the paper describes those 650 jobs. Here, I'll read the quote.

Carney added that the ban, if approved, will result in a loss of jobs; the two tracks employ about 650 part-time and full-time workers.

Now, does that mean Carney is saying the tracks employ 650 people? Likely, that's the case, and the reporter simply forgot to add a qualifying statement at the end of his sentence, such as 'according to Carney,' because the Boston Globe repeats a different number - much closer to reality - just two more sentences in. Here, have a look, Watson."

Holmes handed the paper to me, pointing to this particular sentence:

Supporters of the ban said Carney's employment figures are greatly inflated. "That number is closer to 250, according to the census," Adams said recently.

"Wow, this is quite perplexing, Mr. Holmes. What do you make of it?

"Well, as I said, the paper doesn't make this completely clear, though the probability is that - so closely tied to Carney's statement - Carney had informed the paper that 650 total jobs were at stake. Otherwise, the Globe would have had to reveal some kind of source before making such a blanket statement. Given that all the real sources, provided by the Government, reveal that there's a total of 707 total employees at all Massachusetts Race Tracks, including horse tracks and amateur car speedways, that's quite unlikely. The other tracks take up far more than 57 jobs, especially since one of the horse tracks is the biggest of all Massachusetts Race Tracks."

"So what's the answer?" I asked, "How many people are really employed at these dog tracks?"

"It's a wonder that only one of these papers even bothered to source the best source, when the Gazette attributed 700 jobs at all race tracks, including horse and car, to the Massachusetts Department of Labor. However, none of the papers referenced the US Census numbers, which describes how many jobs are at each track - which would have saved a guy like me all this trouble! I'm retired, for heaven's sake!"

Sherlock Holmes was clearly annoyed, yet he somehow managed to continue.

"All they had to do was click here on their computers, they would have found the answer. Carney employs between 100 and 249 people at his Race Track according to the Census, which breaks businesses into various size classes. However, looking at the payroll of his company, which is public records through a court case he filed, we can tell that the actual number is close to around 200 as of a few years ago. Though, that's likely down a few employees, because his company has been bleeding profits. We know that the other Race Track in question, Wonderland, claimed the 250-499 bracket on the Census data from a few years ago."

"Well, if Wonderland employed 499 people, wouldn't that mean Carney's numbers were right?"

"Unlikely, my dear Watson, unlikely. Nay, impossible even. Knowing that both tracks require around the same number of dogs and that the Raynham track is and has been the more successful of the two for over a decade, Wonderland's track must have employed something very close to the 250 figure those years ago. However, we now know that Wonderland is taking in less than 2 million a year in wagers, meaning they couldn't afford to employ 250 people and stay in business. It's very likely that the number today is below 200, and likely far below it. And don't forget that we know, from the State Department of labor, that all the tracks employ a maximum of 707 people."

"So, as I said before, how many people do the tracks employ?"

"I'm getting there, Watson, I'm getting there. It's clear that Raynham employs around 200 jobs; it's quite likely that Wonderland employs around the same. That would be a total of about 400-450 jobs, leaving 250-300 between the horse and car tracks. Suffolk Downs, the state's largest track, would likely need around 250 employees to run the facility and serve the patrons, so I think we have our number, pinned within 50 employees."

"Indeed we do, Mr. Holmes, indeed we do."

"Thank goodness, Watson! Now, if you'd please, let me finish reading this morning's paper!"

Watson shook his friend's hand and left for the day, knowing that come another there would be more mysteries to solve - mysteries, he hoped, that would take more than Google to uncover.

Today's Greyhound News is Good News

The Committee to Protect Dogs sent a press release recently about the SJC decision to unanimously throw out George Carney's case to keep the Greyhound initiative off the ballot, so now there's absolutely no question that voters will have the ability to protect track dogs come November.

However, even bigger news is the subtle changes in the way the media is covering the story. After a lot of hard work, messaging and a mini media education campaign, the papers are finally realizing that it's important to stick to the facts on dog track numbers. Heck, I'll even go as far as to say most of the following reporters probably read my Race Track Jobs Mythos.

Without further ado, let's look how the papers are covering the tracks now, from good to bad to worse.

From the Taunton Gazette:

“People are going to vote their pocketbooks,” Carney said. “Jobs are very important.”
Between Wonderland and Raynham-Taunton Greyhound Park, Carney estimates between 800 and 1,000 full-time and part-time jobs would be lost if greyhound racing is banned. “It will have a serious effect on employment,” he said.

According to the Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development, there are approximately 700 people employed by racetracks in the state, including horse tracks and auto speedways.

Thankfully, the Gazette got the memo. Now that the facts are out there, it's going to be awfully tough for Carney to keep playing with the math. (Also, 800-1,000? That's a new one from him. Maybe even he's getting the memo?)

The Gazette gets an A+ in today's "Good Journalism" grade.

The Boston Globe

The Globe still reduces the numbers to a he-said-she-said thing (old habits die hard), but at least they're allowing Greyhound supporters the ability to rebut Carney's numbers. Oddly enough, Carney also reports vastly different job figures to the Globe as he did the Gazette. Anyway, here's the relevant quote:

Carney added that the ban, if approved, will result in a loss of jobs; the two tracks employ about 650 part-time and full-time workers....

Supporters of the ban said Carney's employment figures are greatly inflated. "That number is closer to 250, according to the census," [Brian] Adams said recently.

We'll give the Globe a B. It's working hard to get better.

The Patriot Ledger

The Patriot Ledger's article seems a bit behind the times, but is still an improvement over what it probably would have published two months ago.

Supporters of the dog-racing ban, who are organized in a group called the Committee to Protect Dogs, have been disputing Carney’s claims that a dog-racing ban would leave at least 650 full- and part-time workers connected with the Raynham track without jobs. The dog-racing critics point to state figures that show only about 700 people are employed in the racetrack industry statewide.

It's not a bad paragraph - even if it reduces the numbers to a he-said-she-said argument, instead of presenting the facts. (Would it pain the media to report the facts? Is it so hard to say: "According to the State Department of Labor, the entire race track industry employs approximately 700 people, including horse and amateur car tracks, which won't be affected by the ballot question?") Yet, none of that's really the problem - at least they're allowing some sort of rebuttal to Carney's numbers, which is an improvement over several years ago.

The serious problem with the paragraph is it's the first statement that rebuts what George Carney has to say - and it comes all the way at the end, the 9th paragraph out of 11. That's not OK, or fair, or good journalism. In fact, the entire article is about Carney's claims - not the state's actual numbers or even the fact that Carney's court case was just tossed out by a unanimous SJC decision. So, despite the decent paragraph, the whole article may as well have been published in a Raynham Race Track company newsletter.

The Ledger's clear Carney bias and only half-way decent paragraph of rebuttal, all the way at the end, merits the paper a C- in good journalism. It would have had an F if not for the quoted paragraph.

The Boston Herald

Of course, no surprise, the Herald's report is the weakest of them all, turning the story into a money battle and dedicating almost every written word about George Carney's willingness to spend more than the 2.5 million his lobby did in 2000, treating his declaration to spend whatever it takes to defeat the grassroots as if it were a good thing. Don't worry, though, they were sure to rebut Carney's 2.5 million with the $250,000 the Committee to Protect Dogs has in the bank. Really, isn't that the story - right after a major SJC decision - you'd want to read about?

I'll give the Herald a D, because despite the fact that it fell for Carney's messaging and didn't allow the Committee to Protect Dogs to rebut Carney's job numbers (or better yet, use the state's facts on the matter), the article was actually about how rich Carney is and how willing he is to spend money to protect his industry. It's a bad article, both in terms of what it chooses to cover as well as even how it chooses to cover it, but at least they're consistent, right?

Wrap Up

So, despite the Herald and the Patriot Ledger's weaker stories, it's clear that today's Race Track news is good news - and that Greyhounds truly won the day. Their question is on the ballot, the suit to keep the question off the ballot was thrown out by a unanimous decision and, finally, key members of the media are finally starting to pay attention to the fact that Carney keeps making up these numbers as he goes along, all the while the state has statistical facts on the matter. People deserve an honest hearing about Greyhound Racing in the media, so hopefully this trend will only continue in the future.

Blog Talk on Dog Talk

Listen live at 2:30, or at LeftAhead any time after 4pm.

The Promo:

Guest Christine Dorchak wants an immediate end to greyhound racing in Massachusetts and the nation. She heads a state and a national organization dedicated to that. She almost got a ban here in 2000. She'll sharpen your reasoning and pluck your heartstrings.