As a well-bred winner of the Belmont Stakes, Mo Donegal will likely command a solid fee when he debuts at stud. Thoroughbred Daily News reports that jockey Irad Ortiz Jr., who piloted the colt to victory in the Belmont, will benefit from that early buzz with a future stallion season to Mo Donegal, awarded to him by Jerry Crawford of co-owner Donegal Racing.
The awarded season is part of a new initiative by Donegal Racing, in which the rider of a Grade 1 winner for the ownership group will receive a similar bonus. Crawford told the TDN that Donegal Racing has had a similar policy in place for Grade 1-winning trainers for years.
The decision to extend the bonus to jockeys, he said, came from a proposed rule from the California Horse Racing Board which would award a future stallion season to the winning riders of graded stakes races within the state.
Just how much of a windfall the season could end up being for Ortiz remains to be seen, and it could fluctuate depending on Mo Donegal's performance over the remainder of his career.
During an interview with the Des Moines Register, Crawford said he expected that the breeding rights to Mo Donegal, a son of the fashionable commercial sire Uncle Mo, would be worth between $15 million to $30 million. Where that price ultimately lands will dictate Mo Donegal's initial stud fee, and in turn, how much Ortiz stands to make for the stallion season.
Read more at Thoroughbred Daily News and the Des Moines Register.
The post Donegal Racing To Give Season To Belmont Stakes Winner Mo Donegal To Ortiz appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.
Dual Breeders' Cup winner Golden Pal appeared to miss the break in Tuesday's Group 1 King's Stand Stakes at Royal Ascot, then rushed up prematurely only to fade badly in the stretch. According to racingpost.com, the colt's pilot Irad Ortiz, Jr. told trainer Wesley Ward he was watching another horse acting up behind the gates prior to the start.
That horse, Mondammej, was withdrawn from the race after the rest of the field had already been loaded for several minutes. The starting gates then opened before Ortiz was prepared.
Ward told racingpost.com: “Irad was looking back at the horse that wouldn't load. He didn't realize they scratch horses over here. He said he almost fell off.”
Golden Pal was unable to utilize the gate speed that has made him such a formidable weapon on U.S. soil, leading to another disappointing overseas trip for the colt Ward has often called the best he ever trained.
A 4-year-old son of Uncle Mo, Golden Pal has made two other starts overseas. His best finish came when second in the Group 2 Norfolk Stakes at Royal Ascot in 2020; the colt finished seventh in the G1 Nunthorpe in 2021.
Stateside, Golden Pal owns six victories from seven starts, including the Breeders' Cup Juvenile Turf Sprint and the Breeders' Cup Turf Sprint in 2020 and 2021, respectively.
Read more at racingpost.com, and watch the race replay below (Golden Pal leaves from stall 13).
Wow! What a performance from NATURE STRIP!
The Australian raider takes the King's Stand Stakes. pic.twitter.com/rZsJs0qdJQ
— Ascot Racecourse (@Ascot) June 14, 2022
The post Golden Pal Drama: ‘Irad Was Looking Back’ When Gates Opened In King’s Stand appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.
The simmering stand-off between the Texas Racing Commission and the powers behind the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) bubbled higher Monday, when the commission's executive director issued a letter warning Texas will prohibit the import and export of pari-mutuel simulcast signals at its racetracks if the Act goes into effect on July 1 with jurisdictional authority over the state's Thoroughbred racing operations.
In the letter, Amy Cook, the Texas Racing Commission's executive director, invokes various statutes in the Interstate Horseracing Act, the Texas Racing Act and the Texas Rules of Racing to substantiate this approach.
“Since the Texas Racing Commission regulates all aspects of Texas horse racing, including, in particular, pari-mutuel and simulcast wagering in Texas, the application of federal law pursuant to HISA in any aspect of horse racing regulation for a particular race or meet will necessarily preclude the Texas Racing Commission from full compliance with the Texas Racing Act and will, therefore, necessitate that no such affected race shall be allowed to conduct on-site pari-mutuel wagering or provide simulcast export signal,” Cook writes.
“Any such request will, of necessity, be denied by the Texas Racing Commission,” Cook adds.
In an article for horseracing.net, Cook is quoted as explaining how Texan tracks will, pending race-date approval by the commission, be permitted to run after July 1, but that imported and exported wagering signals will not cross the state line. In other words, “Texans supporting Texans,” Cook is quoted as saying.
To discuss some of the legal implications of Texas' approach, TDN spoke with Frank Becker, a noted equine lawyer and former adjunct professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law.
The following is a mix of written answers and a recorded conversation, slightly edited for brevity and clarity.
TDN: As I understood, the federal HISA supersedes state law. Am I wrong in thinking that?
Becker: No.
TDN: And so, this includes Texas?
B: HISA goes so far as to state it preempts inconsistent state law. Texas obviously has its haunches up by the federal government's intrusion into what it considers state business.
TDN: Cook is reported as saying that when it comes to pari-mutuel betting, only in-state wagering will be allowed come July 1. She also states that under the Texas Racing Act, no pari-mutuel wagering on live or simulcast races is permitted on races the state commission does not supervise. What are your thoughts about the arguments and the approach? Are they legal?
B: The federal government's authority is limited by the United States Constitution. Typically, the federal government justifies its constitutional authority for pervasive regulation on the 'commerce clause' of the constitution. The 'commerce clause' provides that the federal government has jurisdiction over 'interstate commerce.'
HISA's purported jurisdictional authority is based on the commerce clause. Thus, it relies on 'interstate commerce' as its justification. HISA attempts to codify the authority in the definitions of 'covered horse,' 'covered persons' and 'covered horserace.'
Texas appears to be attempting to be excluded from the definition of 'covered horserace.' That definition is: “The term 'covered horserace' means any horserace involving covered horses that has a substantial relation to interstate commerce, including any Thoroughbred horserace that is the subject of interstate off-track or advance deposit wagers.”
Although Texas attempts to avoid its races being covered horseraces by eliminating 'interstate off-track or advance deposit wagers,' that may not fully solve the problem because a Texas track might be considered to be otherwise having a 'substantial relation to interstate commerce.'
The federal government often takes a very expansive view of what constitutes 'interstate commerce,' and might argue that many other aspects of horseracing involve 'interstate commerce' such as the presence of horses, participants, and even equipment from other states.
It will be up to a federal court to ultimately determine this issue, although some courts have recently taken a dim view of regulatory overreach attempted to be justified by an expansive view of 'interstate commerce.'
TDN: Let's take the hypothetical scenario that Texas takes this approach on July 1. What you're saying is, if trainers, owners and jockeys and such who are registered with HISA, and compete in states under the supervision of HISA, if they also try to compete in Texas, that potentially could yolk Texas to the Interstate Horseracing Act?
B: Even if Texas succeeds in avoiding HISA for horseracing conducted in Texas, are horses and participants nevertheless subject to HISA, even with regard to activities in Texas? We look to HISA's definition of 'covered horse' and 'covered person.'
A 'covered horse' is any Thoroughbred from the time it begins a workout at 'a racetrack that participates in covered horseraces or at a training facility' and ends 'when the horse has been retired.'
The federal government might take the position that any Thoroughbred horse that has ever done a workout at any track outside of Texas, or any training facility anywhere, remains subject to HISA even while in Texas.
And because the definition of 'covered persons' is very expansive and applies to those dealing with 'covered horses,' the federal government might take the position that all racing professionals and owners are subject to HISA, even while racing in Texas, if the horse involved ever worked out outside the state of Texas.
If the federal government takes this approach, it appears that the only way to avoid HISA is for horses and participants to conduct activities exclusively in Texas.
Thus, Texas' effort to avoid HISA may end up excluding horses, trainers, owners, and other participants from being involved in racing in Texas, unless they confine all of their activities to Texas.
TDN: I know you're not a self-professed expert in the economics of the industry, but just on a common sense reading of the threatened scenario, how impactful could this be to the industry there? Is Texas shooting itself in the foot?
B: It could have a dramatic negative impact on Texas horse racing. It's hard to imagine it wouldn't.
I don't think it takes an economics expert to say, 'gosh, eliminating simulcasting is one thing, but if Texas has to keep out participants from other states, that's going to have an extremely deleterious effect.'
TDN: So, what do you think is driving this?
B: Do you want me to answer this?
TDN: Sure.
B: It doesn't appear to be difficulty in complying with the regulations. It appears to be somewhat philosophical. Texas has, traditionally, been averse to federal regulatory overreach into what it considers state business.
TDN: What do you think about the other argument Texas is making, that they're doing this to slow down HISA's implementation so as to better manage some of the problems that have arisen, and are expected to still arise?
B: It seems to me that the slowing down may be their main goal here. It's hard to say. I mean, [if so], it's a pretty drastic action to get them to slow down.
The post Attorney Frank Becker on Texas, HISA Standoff appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.
