There are many questions man has never answered. Among them are:

Why is there air?
Why was mankind put on the earth?
How does a company make money on the Internet?
Why do harness tracks pay five purse cheques?

We'll leave the first three for discussion by others, but let's examine why harness tracks pay five purse cheques. Does anyone know the answer?

I didn't think so.

The answer is simple: tradition.

At least no one has ever told me a better answer.

Why don't we pay four places? Why don't we pay six? Why don't we vary the number of purse cheques depending on the size of the field?

Last week someone advocated paying more to the horses finishing second-third-fourth and less to the winner. That way, the person reasoned, more owners could keep a horse in training.

So it might be 40 per cent to the winner, 30 per cent to second, 15 per cent to third, 10 per cent to fourth, and five per cent to fifth.

I have always wondered why we don't pay owners the way we pay bettors: win, place, and show. Why don't we pay 60-30-10?

One person said, "Those owners need those fourth and fifth place cheques to survive."

I said, "Maybe they should classify their horses to be competitive in the top three."

Of course, I knew one man who was a firm and devout advocate of paying all starters. He said that every owner incurs expense each time a horse races and should get some compensation. "Who works without getting paid?" he asked.

Good question. Of course, racing is a game of winners and losers. We don't pay the bettor whose horse finishes dead last, do we? Should we tell him, "Well, you bet 20 dollars and your horse finished last, but here's a dollar for your efforts so that you don't go home with empty pockets."

I don't profess to know the answer, but I'm not that keen on paying every horse that starts in a race. To me that's an incentive to keep non-competitive horses in training. And racing doesn't need that.

I often wondered about races with five or six horses---often invitationals or open class races---where the track pays a horse for finishing last or next-to-last. Is that right? If a field consists of less than eight horses, should tracks pay only three places? If tracks go to larger fields to help the mutuel pool and payoffs, should they pay six or seven places?

Hmmmmm.....good topics for discussion and debate. Tell me what you think.