Vocal Two-Circuit Supporters in Cali Come Out Firing in First of Many Expected North/South Skirmishes

The precarious, up-in-the-air future of California racing and whether or not the state can continue to support two geographic year-round circuits was made no clearer after Thursday's California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) meeting. The 3 1/2-hour session was dominated by discussion of competing North-versus-South plans that both tried to carve a sustainable path forward while underscoring the dire circumstances that face the industry with the June 9 closure of Golden Gate Fields looming like an unavoidable asteroid.

Although the CHRB concluded the meeting–which featured testimony that was at times emotional, hopeful, angry, and even ominous–without taking any voting action on the situation, proponents behind ideas that would turn one of the NorCal fairs locations into a venue capable of hosting nearly year-round Thoroughbred racing had a decided edge in turnout and vocal support.

In part, that's because those NorCal-based supporters enjoyed a home-track advantage, because the Jan. 18 CHRB meeting was held at Cal Expo in Sacramento, the preferred location for a year-round venue as outlined in a presentation by the California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF).

But the locale wasn't the only factor, as much of the back-and-forth debate also came across as a referendum about larger racing entities allegedly trying to trump smaller ones, whether or not 1/ST Racing and Gaming–which owns both Golden Gate and Santa Anita Park–will be good for the state in the long run, and whether or not the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) organization speaks for all the stakeholders in the state or just the higher-end stables based in SoCal.

Yet it was telling that no fewer than 26 industry stakeholders spoke before the board on this wide-ranging, controversial North/South topic during the public commentary period, and not a single one voiced support for an alternate plan proposed by TOC in conjunction with executives from Santa Anita Park and Del Mar Thoroughbred Club.

That TOC-backed concept would consolidate all commercial-track racing in the state at SoCal. The goal would be to maintain level purses there under a simulcast revenue “redirect” plan that would also try to accommodate displaced Golden Gate outfits by creating more opportunities for lower-level horses to race at Los Alamitos Race Course, dropping the “claiming floors” at both Santa Anita and Del Mar, and establishing “relocation allowances” for stables that had to pack up and move.

The TOC's takeaway message was that even though it is in support of any “feasible and viable” plan to keep year-round racing afloat in NorCal, a danger exists in the form of increasing economic pressures in the South that, in turn, could contribute to millions of dollars in purse overpayments at Santa Anita and Del Mar that would likely erode the overall California product.

“With the closing of Golden Gate, can we continue to support two full-time circuits? This is a fair question,” said Bill Nader, the TOC's president and chief executive officer.

“We are running out of time,” Nader continued. “If there is agreement on one point, I think it would be that the latest possible decision on the allocation of 2024-25 race dates would be at the CHRB meeting in March. This would help re-establish stability and certainty for the many who are looking for answers.”

Nader's tone was largely somber and straightforward as he discussed the TOC's rationale with executives from 1/ST Racing and Del Mar presenting alongside. But at times his comments were met with derision and catcalls from opponents, who greatly outnumbered the supporters of the TOC's plan.

Many of those same folks also cheered and applauded any mentions of trying to save year-round NorCal racing.

At one point, CHRB chairman Gregory Ferraro, DVM, asked audience members to respect decorum so that the outbursts wouldn't bog down the meeting. But his request to “stop the clapping and the booing” went largely unheeded.

Larry Swartzlander, the executive director for CARF, detailed his organization's work-in-progress plan to install a seven-furlong track inside the current main mile oval at Cal Expo, which for years has largely hosted Standardbred racing outside of the short season that the Thoroughbred fair races in Sacramento.

Swartzlander said Cal Expo would likely race 103 Thoroughbred dates in the future (on the outer oval), with cards scheduled roughly twice weekly when the other NorCal fairs weren't in season.

“We are looking at funding from horsemen, CARF, and potential grants,” Swartzlander said, admitting that his plan is just in its initial stages because horsemen in California have only known since July about 1/ST Racing's plan to close Golden Gate.

As a result, Swartzlander was light on specifics such as firm costs and a timeline.

Swartzlander said next up is a Jan. 26 meeting with the Cal Expo board of directors seeking conceptual approval.

“If the board does decline to approve racing at Cal Expo, we will move to Pleasanton,” as a potential year-round NorCal racing home, Swartzlander said. “The Pleasanton board is very strongly in support of racing, and if I have to make one commitment to you, Pleasanton will race.”

When CHRB executive director Scott Chaney pressed Swartzlander for cost details, Swartzlander gave an estimate for state-owned Cal Expo's overhaul in the $1- to 1.5-million range.

Chaney expressed surprise at such a low figure.

“I'm not going to lie. I think you're very low,” Chaney said.

“One of the things that concerns all of us is uncertainty right now,” Chaney said. “We're, I'm sure, bleeding horses every day because there's no clear plan. We don't know what we're doing in the future [and] I am concerned about timeline and cost at Cal Expo. I just think it's unrealistic. I know it's unrealistic, to be honest.”

Commissioner Wendy Mitchell said she appreciated CARF's efforts at coming up with a plan, but also expressed doubts.

“I don't see how any of this lines up,” Mitchell said. “And I guess my concern from a regulatory or from the industry perspective is I don't want to create false expectations for people that are really unattainable…. I don't mean to be negative or a doubter, but I'm trying to be realistic and pragmatic about what the industry is facing.”

Commissioner Damascus Castellanos said that the time crunch and uncertainty was caused by 1/ST Racing, not CARF.

“The industry was kind of slow to get going on this whole thing,” Castellanos said. “We would be so further along if [1/ST Racing] came to us with proper notice [and] the groups in this room today probably could have gotten together and been done with this plan.”

Ian McLean, an owner and breeder, said during the public commentary session that the CHRB itself is partly to blame.

“If I'm not mistaken, this board works for us. We don't work for you,” McLean said. “The one thing that I've asked this board for years and years is to give us more attention in NorCal. Give us more time. Make us more important. Listen to what we have to say, and make us feel like we matter. And I don't think that's been done.”

McLean said the CHRB's response to CARF's proposal is too focused on negativity and “looking for the holes” in the plan.

“And I agree that you should look for the holes,” McLean continued. “But you should also look for 'How could we patch those holes?'”

Jamey Thomas, a third-generation NorCal trainer, advocated for the CHRB taking a slower approach.

“CARF needs time to get all this situated and done,” Thomas said. “It's kind of been a rush job. They're rushing us, forcing us, to get this stuff done faster than it can be done. Again, if they had let us know a year ago, by now everything could have been in place, we would have had a place to run. And we will have a place to run. The thing is, we just need the time.”

Tom Bachman, who said he's been breeding and selling Thoroughbreds in California for 40 years, underscored that the state's bloodstock industry works on a different timeline.

“My concern as a breeder is that the decisions I make today, the results are three or four years away when I've got to sell,” said Bachman. “So it's very difficult to have faith that three or four years from now there's sustainable racing in California. So my breeding now has moved to Kentucky.”

Johnny Taboada, who was a TOC director until last Sunday, when he was one of three directors to resign in protest over the TOC's proposed statewide consolidation, told the CHRB that the NorCal fairs are in jeopardy without a year-round track in the region.

“If you rush into the decision without giving the chance for the NorCal [entities to come up with an plan for a] circuit, you're going to not only put people out of work, you're going to be closing the fairs as well,” Taboada said. “If we don't have the dates assigned to the North and therefore the money goes to the South, that will be the end of not only NorCal racing, but also the fairs.”

CHRB chairman Ferraro wrapped up the session by saying that this is only the first major discussion on an enormously important topic.

“We needed your information. We need your input,” Ferraro said. “I'm telling you, it's not easy sitting in this chair looking at this situation. It is almost a no-win situation for this board. We're going to do the best we can to do right by everybody. But obviously, we have no decision-making [Thursday], so we will have to end this meeting without a decision, and we'll see what happens over the next couple of months.”

The post Vocal Two-Circuit Supporters in Cali Come Out Firing in First of Many Expected North/South Skirmishes appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Moger, LaRoche, and Taboada Resign from TOC

Three directors of the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) have resigned from their positions in protest of the board's co-signature on a proposal to the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) that would concretize racing operations in South California at the expense, they say, of a potential viable racing circuit in the North.

The former directors also claim the proposal was submitted without their prior knowledge.

“On January 5th a letter from the TOC and the Southern California racetrack operators was sent to the CHRB requesting the allocation of race dates for late 2024 and 2025. Of course, these race date allocations would pre-empt the opportunity for a racing circuit in the North. The key point here is that this letter was written without our knowledge and despite the fact that the entire board met two days prior,” write Lindsay LaRoche, Johnny Taboada and Ed Moger in a letter to the TOC dated Jan. 12.

“By no means are these the only times the interests of Northern California members have been ignored or subjugated by TOC leadership,” the letter adds. “It is clear to us that the current leadership is not being transparent and not working to represent the entire state of California.”

The resignations come at a fraught time for the California racing industry as it attempts to piece together a revised racing framework in the wake of Golden Gate's impending closure in June and amid declining economic benchmarks.

With the clock ticking, complicating matters is how the California Association of Racing Fairs (CARF) has yet to publicly submit a proposal as to a potential Northern racing circuit beyond its annual fair dates. This year's fair schedule is currently set to close out with a fall fair meet at Fresno from Oct. 2 through the 13.

According to TOC president and CEO, Bill Nader, the board members were indeed informed during its meeting earlier this month that the organization would be submitting a letter to the CHRB ahead of its Thursday board meeting, outlining plans for consolidated racing operations in the South as a contingency “in the event the North does not put forward a viable plan that gains CHRB approval.”

“As far as the details in the packet, I wanted that included for transparency so that everyone had a chance to look at it before the meeting commenced–it's a lot to take in on the spot,” said Nader.

In a joint submission to the CHRB, the TOC, Los Alamitos chairman and CEO Ed Allred, I/ST Racing and Gaming CEO Aidan Butler, and Del Mar president and COO Josh Rubinstein ask the regulator to allocate race dates for the last 14 weeks of 2024 and for 2025 with operations concentrated in the South–beyond the Northern fair meets–citing the tough economics of currently maintaining twin North-South racing circuits.

The submission outlines a set of proposals, including a possible legislative change to permit Los Alamitos to card night Thoroughbred races beyond 4 1/2 furlongs for $5,000 claimers and below, and $8,000 maiden claimers.

Los Alamitos vice president Jack Liebau recently told the TDN that a legislative fix to go into immediate effect–as opposed to the start of January 2025, like most bills passed this year–needs an “urgency clause” requiring a two-thirds vote by the legislature.

Nader said that no decision will be made during this Thursday's CHRB meeting about race-date allocations.

“I personally do not see this discussion on the 18th being contentious,” said Nader, about the upcoming CHRB meeting. “I think it's just stating the facts and opening eyes to where we've been in the last 20 years, where we are now, and where we're going. No decisions will be made–it's only background.”

Nader also said that at the behest of the TOC, track management at Del Mar, Santa Anita and Los Alamitos had pushed back the deadline for the allocation of race-dates–from what would have required an “emergency” CHRB meeting in February to the regular CHRB meeting in March.

“At our board meeting [earlier in January], all three tracks had the opportunity to be present and speak at the beginning of the meeting. We did speak to them and we did get them to relax their position, to say that they were willing to wait until the 21st of March, at the March CHRB meeting,” said Nader, who added that CARF executive director, Larry Swartzlander, declined an offer to attend the TOC meeting.

“So, we were being responsive and respectful to the North,” Nader said. “It's been six months, we still haven't seen a plan [from CARF]. There are people all through the state getting very anxious.”

In their resignation letter, the three former TOC directors also claim TOC leadership “does not represent the interests of Northern California owners,” highlighting the recently announced 25% cut in purses at Golden Gate Fields–a result of a $3-million deficit in the track's purse account.

“Recently, the Northern California Racing Committee unanimously voted to oppose the purse agreement proposal from 1/ST Racing for the final Golden Gate Fields race meets,” the letter states.

“The result of this vote was not deemed important enough by TOC leadership to effect the TOC's approval of the cuts or even to be presented to the TOC Board as a whole for a vote,” the letter adds.

“There are emails and board minutes that would suggest otherwise,” said Nader, when asked about these claims. He added in a follow-up text that the TOC “did discuss the GGF purse cuts” at the January Board Meeting.

“It's a struggle, North and South. It's just a difficult time,” Nader added. “I'm not being critical of anyone. It's just the environment we're in right now. Everybody's just a little teed up–it's unfortunate.”

Efforts to consolidate racing operations in the South were given a major fillip in September of last year, when California lawmakers passed legislation that means if Golden Gate Fields is not licensed to operate beyond July 1 this year, proceeds from simulcast wagering in the north are funnelled south when there is no live racing in the northern half of the state after that date.

Moger did not respond to a request for comment prior to publication.

The post Moger, LaRoche, and Taboada Resign from TOC appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

What Does Next Year Hold For California Racing?

Nearly seventy years ago, Sports Illustrated turf writer, Jim Murray, penned a love-letter to Santa Anita, and its opening day sonata of sun and sport unmatched by any East Coast oval stunned into icy retreat by the “fierce howlings of blue northers spun across finish lines.”

Santa Anita, Murray wrote, was an “extravagance of beauty.” It was also a well-oiled money-spinner. Huge purses lured the best horses to Los Angeles, and the best horses lured the biggest crowds, their pockets brimming with the spoils of a post-war industrial boom transforming this callow cow-town into a maven of modernity.

“One day (Handicap Day in 1947), so many people showed up (85,500) that a crisis was created (the plumbing caved in under the strain) and the card almost had to be canceled,” Murray wrote.

This year's opening day at Santa Anita tells a different tale. A crowd of over 37,000 contributed to the “best handle ever among a total of 17 opening dates conducted on a Tuesday,” as the track's publicity department put it.

Putting inflation adjustments aside for the moment, that still constitutes a 30% drop from last year's total–the sort of back-foot number stakeholders desperately wanted to avoid as the track embarks upon another grueling six-month marathon into one of the most consequential years yet for the state's racing industry.

Amid an economic landscape of consolidation and contraction–which gives the distinct impression of a giant puzzle set where the pieces don't quite fit together–decisions will be made that will set this ship's course for the foreseeable future. Icebergs abound.

The compass guiding many of these decisions is this spinning dial: Can a sustainable long-term racing circuit in Northern California be pieced together in the void left by Golden Gate Fields?

TDN tried unsuccessfully in recent weeks to reach California Association of Racing Fairs (CARF) executive director, Larry Swartzlander. The LA Times, however, this week quoted Swartzlander as saying that he was “60%” certain a deal could be reached whereby the fair circuit would take over Golden Gate's dates, though would likely reduce them from 132 days a year to 103.

Tom “Bomber” Doutrich, CARF racing secretary, told the TDN he's “hopeful” an announcement about any such plan will arrive early in 2024. “There are two things you can say about CARF,” he added. “We need to get the purses right. And we've got to get a facility that we can turn into a top-class facility. We're working on that right now.”

 

NORCAL

To say that time is of the essence when it comes to these negotiations does a gross disservice to ticking clocks everywhere, as well as to the heads of racing operations juggling families, employees and their own tentative futures.

Golden Gate Fields is scheduled to race through June 9, 2024, after which the facility is set to close permanently. Next year's fair schedule is currently set to close out with a fall fair meet at Fresno from Oct. 2 through the 13th.

In the aftermath of the announced closure of Golden Gate, Swartzlander made several proposals for a restructured Northern California circuit, including a permanent base split between Santa Rosa and Cal Expo, or only at the latter track.

But such plans would require reaching an agreement with California's harness racing industry, which only last year extended its lease of operations of the Cal Expo Harness racetrack until May 2030.

Jack Liebau (right) with Tim Yakteen | Benoit

In the event no concrete proposal for Northern California materializes, a legislative fix may be sought to expand the menu of Thoroughbred races offered at Los Alamitos, said Bill Nader, president of the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC).

“We're on the clock and we're moving into 2024, so we have come up with alignment between the three tracks in the south for horses in the north to have suitable opportunities to compete in the south at Los Alamitos, Del Mar or Santa Anita,” said Nader.

This “alignment,” explained Nader, would include a statutory change to permit Los Alamitos–outside of their scheduled Thoroughbred meets–to stage Thoroughbred races beyond the current limit: 4 1/2 furlong races capped at a $5,000 claiming price.

“Provided there's no operator or plan that comes forth in the north, it would allow for those horses to remain in California and have a suitable opportunity to compete within their own state seamlessly. At least we have that,” said Nader, about such a proposal.

According to Jack Liebau, vice president of Los Alamitos, a legislative fix to go into immediate effect–as opposed to the start of January 2025, like most bills passed next year–needs an “urgency clause” requiring a two-thirds vote by the legislature.

“I think we can get the legislative change if it's fully supported by the industry as a whole. I don't know why anybody would oppose that,” said Liebau. “The devil, of course, will be in the details.”

According to Liebau, Los Alamitos can accommodate around 300 additional horses. In Golden Gate right now, there are around 1,150 horses.

But how motivated are trainers currently stabled at Golden Gate to funnel their horses south, in the event plans to furnish an alternative Northern calendar fall apart?

Answers are buffeted by other gusty headwinds. Purses at Golden Gate's final meet have been slashed by 25%, a result of the purse account being overdrawn by $3.1 million. (Nader told the TDN that Santa Anita's purse account is also in the red to the tune of $3.7 million)

In January, Berkeley City Council might vote on an ordinance that could essentially close Golden Gate before its anticipated June curtain call.

Ed Moger, a leading trainer at Golden Gate, recently said that while a 25% purse cut would likely spur some barns to cross state lines and relocate to Turf Paradise, he might shift a significant portion of his horses to Santa Anita instead.

“It's tougher to win a race at Santa Anita,” said Moger, at the time. “I'll have to play it by ear.”

But not everyone appears as ready to pack up box and truck for a trip south–not trainer Tim McCanna, who said that such a wholesale move would come only after every other alternative had been exhausted.

Blaine Wright | Benoit

“Seventy-five percent of the horses in the north won't fit the south,” McCanna explained, estimating that about 15 of his 40-horse Golden Gate string might suit the Southern circuit. “Most of the trainers can't go there either,” he added, alluding to the increased costs of Southern California living.

McCanna said he's “quite hopeful” an alternative Northern California circuit can be pieced together. But he also feels as though the Northern California trainer colony has been largely ignored by industry leadership during the travails of the past year.

“We were ambushed by this,” said McCanna, adding that an ownership group had recently moved five of his horses to Turfway Park, because of the purse cuts.

“The mood around the track is that it feels like we've been shot in the back,” said trainer Blaine Wright, who currently has around 50 horses at Golden Gate. “My clientele is not very happy with this purse reduction.”

Like McCanna, Wright is playing it by ear, hoping that in the New Year, news of a new viable Northern California circuit will trickle through.

If it doesn't, Wright said that he's already warned two of his staunchest patrons that the tough economics of maintaining a SoCal barn might behoove them to shut up shop.

“I said to them, 'if you don't want to race on the West Coast and you'd like to go to the Midwest or East where things are happening good, that would be fine,'” said Wright. “But I warned them, 'if you want to stay on the West Coast, my advice would be to get out of the business because the horses we have aren't going to do at Santa Anita.'”

Wright added: “How do you tell the people who have basically made your living for 16 years to get out of the business? I'm just trying to be truthful when I'm telling them I think the writing's on the wall here and the end's coming soon.”

 

BREEDERS

Back in August, long-time owner and breeder, Nick Alexander, warned the consolidation of racing in the south would be a body blow for the state's breeding industry. Has his thinking evolved since?

“No, is the short answer,” said Alexander, who added that he still expects to maintain his 35-strong broodmare band through next year.

Adrian Gonzalez | Fasig-Tipton

From a squad of five racehorses previously at Golden Gate, Alexander has shifted three south, and plans to do the same with one of the other two horses remaining. More broadly, he said he's “not optimistic” an alternative Northern racing circuit can be formed.

“It's a damn shame for the breeders up there,” said Alexander. “I'm 81 years old. If I was fifty and had kids in college and was trying to be a trainer in Northern California, what the hell would I do?”

Adrian Gonzalez of Checkmate Farm-a 66-acre ranch in Parkfield, California-is one of those trying to build a business for his young family.

Of Gonzalez's 30-strong broodmare band, about half are headed to Kentucky stallions, he said, and he's in two minds whether to bring them back to California to foal.

“If there's no commercial market left in California, we need to make sure our stock is something that can be sought after in other markets,” Gonzalez said. “Most of our clients are doing something similar,” he added.

Given this trend, Gonzalez said he's concerned about a sharp dip in Cal-breds in three years–what would be especially troubling if the state racing industry can be fortified against further erosion in the meantime, he added.

“The long-term impacts are definitely something we need to be focused on,” said California Thoroughbred Breeding Association (CTBA) president, Doug Burge.

As positives, Burge singled out how active California buyers were at Keeneland's November breeding stock sale. While Golden Gate's purses have been cut, he added, lucrative Cal-bred bonuses remain in place.

“I think in the future we'll see a major focus on quality,” Burge said, pointing to the recent run high-profile successes for horses bred in the state, including a 1-2 finish in the recent G1 La Brea S. for Cal-breds. “But we obviously need the numbers as well.”

Indeed, while California's foal crop has steadily declined–by nearly 25% between 2012 and 2021–Cal-breds have been playing an ever more important role in propping up the California racing calendar.

During Santa Anita's 2022-2023 six-month meet, Cal-breds made up about 37% of all individual starts, and Cal-bred races constituted more than 20% of the overall races carded.

Is there a number of foals bred annually below which the state's breeding industry becomes an unsustainable model?

Tom Clark | Jill Williams

“That depends on how much racing we'll have here in the next few years,” Burge said. “When you announce the closure of a major racetrack, it's obviously going to have a major impact.”

Tom Clark, the owner and manager of Rancho San Miguel–a mainstay of the state's breeding industry–estimates double digit declines in the number of mares bred in the state next year. Last year, 1,874 mares were bred to California stallions. Twenty years prior, the number was about three-times that.

“The response so far from clients generally has been to cut back or exit the breeding industry in the state,” said Clark. “The only exceptions are some of the larger farms–Barton [Thoroughbreds] and John Harris and Loveacres [Ranch]–who have continued to invest in broodmares for their own account.”

While the popularity of Clark's stallions means Rancho San Miguel has so far been fairly insulated from the worst of the declines, he said, unintended consequences are percolating through.

“I've got about 20 mares people want me to find homes for,” said Clark. “I just gave three away to new homes as of this morning. It's happening.”

Which begs the question: How will recent events impact California's flagship off-track Thoroughbred rehoming program?

“When they first announced that Golden Gate Fields would close, I had three different owners call me, and I took in three different horses,” said Lucinda Lovitt, executive director of the California Retirement Management Account (CARMA). “They didn't know what the future was, and they just wanted to make sure their horse had a good place.”

As the sport rolls into the New Year, however, Lovitt said she doesn't anticipate a situation where California's aftercare facilities are swamped with urgent requests.

That said, “I would expect we will continue to see what we've seen this past year, which is less space available in aftercare charities, and higher demand for these fewer slots,” said Lovitt.

 

STATISTICS

It was the author Fletcher Knebel who made the observation, “smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics.”

If only horse racing could so readily dismiss its numerical DNA.

This recent New York Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association (NYTHA) backed study by a cohort of Yale undergrads highlighted how a common feature of a contracting market is consolidation, and how this trend is impacting everything from the training population to racetrack management.

Indeed, nationally over the last 20 years, the industry has lost nearly 55% of its trainers, they found. Most have been “micro-trainers” and “midsize” trainers with a maximum 40 discreet horses respectively.

At the opposite end of the scale are “super trainers” who operate stables with 80 or more horses.

Bill Nader | Horsephotos

The number of super trainers has stayed relatively constant in the midst of declining trainer numbers. In 2003 there were 123 super trainers, and in 2022 there were 114.

The same trends play out in California, with the bottom end getting clobbered while the top end stays remarkably strong.

According to numbers crunched for the TDN using DRF chart data, the number of trainers making at least one individual start in California decreased by nearly 50% between 2007 and 2022.

The trainers with 20 or less individual annual starters decreased a similar 50% during that period.

The number of trainers with at least 100 individual annual starters in California, however, has remained around the 8-10 mark since 2009.

Last year, nine trainers with at least 100 individual annual starters in California–just 3% of the total trainer colony–accrued 35% of the total prize money and made 21% of the total starts.

In another worrying trend, training in California is becoming less and less of a young person's game.

According to data put together by the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB), the median age of a licensed trainer in California was 52 in 2003. As of this year, that statistic has matured to 61.

The guiding light behind these numbers is field size, which in turn drives handle, which in turn fuels purses. Field size has been especially problematic during Santa Anita's six-month winter-spring meet these past five years, though it has rebounded very slightly.

For the six-month meet in 2021-2022, the combined dirt and turf field size was 7.12. For the 2022-2023 meet, the combined field size was 7.2.

With that in mind, Nader said he doesn't expect the recently announced purse cuts to make a dent into the $3.7 million Santa Anita purse overpayment.

“I don't think it'll reduce at all, based on the current trends in business. If anything, the overpayment might even go up a little bit,” said Nader. “That's why the wish list for 2024 is to secure a secondary source of income to preserve and protect the purse structure and the industry going forward.”

But what could that be?

Twin sports wagering measures were torpedoed on last year's state ballot, casting dark clouds over future efforts. And though horse racing's standing in Sacramento has improved since the nadir of the 2019 Santa Anita welfare crisis, how likely is legislative support, even for an industry estimated to directly contribute over $4.5 billion to the state's economy, and over 77,700 jobs?

“It's incumbent upon all of us here to try to get something where the state legislature provides some type of recognition to the industry, and a level of support–again, maybe not the same advantages the other competing states enjoy–but something that gives us a chance to compete,” said Nader, declining, however, to speculate upon any specifics of what that “recognition” might look like.

Furthermore, should the heightened impact from the state's super trainers on field size during a period of such accelerated contraction be high up on the TOC's agenda for next year?

“In terms of trying to get more competitive field sizes and better business results, it's better if there's more parity. Sure. But how you manufacture that, it's tricky,” said Nader. “It's hard to say to an owner, 'you need to give your horse to this trainer and not that trainer.' It has to be carefully thought through.”

 

SANTA ANITA

The variables weighing in on the future of the sport are–for want of a less utilitarian phrase–multifactorial. Just take the topic of Computer Assisted Wagering (CAW).

CAW players constitute a small group of high-volume and largely anonymous gamblers with an outsized impact on the betting markets—including in California—due to the use of sophisticated wagering tools. Because of their high stakes play, they're offered inducements in the form of rebates and reduced takeout rates largely not available to the average punter.

Last summer, Del Mar introduced measures to help curb CAW play. By the meet's end, Del Mar's total handle was down some 10% compared to the year prior, according to the DRF.

The TDN asked the CHRB for a breakdown of CAW play per-pool for last summer's meet at Del Mar. The agency said it does not yet have those granular figures.

Santa Anita's new Tapeta surface being installed | Santa Anita

But the CHRB provided a total breakdown of handle per betting location, including from the most influential of these computer syndicates, the Elite Turf Club, a Curacao-based company owned by The Stronach Group and NYRA Bets LLC.

According to this data, Elite Turf Club total handle during Del Mar's summer meet dropped 23.7% from 2022 to 2023: $116.9 million last year compared to $89.1 million this year.

How industry leaders in California manage the thorny topic of CAW play next year, therefore, will be a key driver of revenues.

For many stakeholders, another key tangible will be the roll-out of TSG's much vaunted $30 million-plus investment into the Southern California racing furniture, including new stabling at Santa Anita, new tracks at the facility, and industry support funds.

The replacement of Santa Anita's dirt training track with Tapeta is scheduled for a mid-January finish. According to Craig Fravel, chief executive office at 1/ST Racing, there are tentative plans to modify one of the barns at Santa Anita next summer.

The other big-ticket items slated for development in 2024–including a new one-mile turf chute, an equine swimming pool and horse exercisers–have been put on hold, however.

“We've wanted to focus on getting the synthetic surface done. The price tag on that has come in higher than we had expected,” said Fravel. “Right now, we're just very much focused on the racing calendar, trying to enhance the prospects for horses moving down here and improving the product in Southern California.”

The post What Does Next Year Hold For California Racing? appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

CHRB Vice-Chair: 1/ST Racing ‘Doing Things That Are Detrimental to California Racing’

Although the recently reported purse cuts for the upcoming meets at Golden Gate Fields (25%) and Santa Anita Park (5%) were not on Thursday's official agenda for the monthly California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) meeting, the commission's vice-chairman, Oscar Gonzales, made it clear that the owner of both tracks, 1/ST Racing and Gaming, was going to face some tough questioning on the topic when the CHRB next convenes in January.

TDN's Dan Ross had reported Dec. 9 that Golden Gate is overpaid to the horsemen's account by some $3.1 million as the Northern California track is set to start what is expected to be the final race meet there (Dec. 26-June 9). 1/ST Racing disclosed back in July that it would be ceasing racing at the lone remaining non-fairs track in that region of the state.

In that same article last week, Bill Nader, the president and chief executive officer of Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), confirmed that Santa Anita's overnight purses are also scheduled to be lowered for the winter/spring meet that starts Dec. 26, with $2 million sliced from the track's stakes schedule.

Gonzales particularly took umbrage on Dec. 14 with the Golden Gate reduction, noting that he has received “a lot of phone calls” about “this drastic purse cut here in Northern California that I would describe as being very unexpected.”

“And that's really thrown a lot of the Northern California horsemen, [and] us commissioners, off guard,” Gonzales continued. “I had thought that there was a deal that [1/ST Racing had] put on the table, which was to extend racing [instead of closing at the end of 2023]. Then it appears as if this unexpected development, which is not a normal meet, but rather a [condition book that includes a] very drastic cut to the Northern California horsemen.”

Beyond the cuts themselves, Gonzales said he had issues with how horsemen found out about them.

“Process is everything,” Gonzales said. “And I just think that blatant disregard in terms of how it was communicated, if it wasn't for what appears to be a couple of news stories that were written, Northern California horsemen were just notified by the condition book. That's not how you do business. And I just feel that we have to remain vigilant when management comes before us, because I believe they are doing things that are detrimental to California racing.

“We have Arizona that's getting ready to reopen with higher purses,” Gonzales said, referring to Turf Paradise, which is slated to start racing Jan. 29 after a nine-month closure, and appears to be luring California stables out of state. “Meanwhile, we're cutting them. I just don't think that there's anybody paying very close attention about how we make sure we're retaining quality horses and quality horsemen.

“So I am concerned to say the least, and I cannot wait until we have representatives of that particular racetrack here before us, because I have a lot of questions for them,” Gonzales said.

Reached via phone after the CHRB meeting, Craig Fravel, the chief executive officer at 1/ST Racing, declined an opportunity to respond to Gonzales's comments.

But Fravel did want to make a statement about the Golden Gate purse cuts.

“I think it's just useful to point out that for the last year and a half, we have been in discussions with the TOC relating to reducing purses so that the actual purse liability is met from purses generated,” Fravel told TDN. “And they have been resistant to those purse cuts, so we have advanced sums well in advance of the actual purse liability to horsemen in Northern California. And I don't think it's unreasonable at all for us to try to recuperate them in accordance with what the actual statutory obligations are.”

At the CHRB meeting, when Gonzales asked the board's executive director, Scott Chaney, what power the board had to intervene, Chaney said the commission has few options beyond its obvious cudgel of compliance, which is control over the track's licensure.

“It's an interesting question. The purse structure is something that is decided on between the TOC owners' group [and] the particular racetrack,” Chaney said, explaining that purse agreements are basically predictions about handle revenue that can sometimes result in under- or over-payments.

When they occur, usually the tracks and horsemen agree to rectify the imbalance one way or another at the next scheduled race meet for that particular venue.

“So an overpayment or underpayment can be corrected over time,” Chaney said. But in this instance, because of the wrinkle with 1/ST Racing slated to shutter Golden Gate, “there's not another meet that Golden Gate's going to have to correct it. So I think in many ways this in uncharted territory,” he added.

“When Hollywood Park closed [10 years ago this month] it was a little bit different,” Chaney explained. Even though Hollywood was also shutting down after having overpaid the purse account, “Los Alamitos Race Course assumed a large part of that overpayment in exchange to take some of their racing dates. We don't have that same situation in Northern California. So needless to say, it's pretty difficult.”

Chaney added that “with respect to the CHRB's role, it's somewhat limited.”

Chaney pointed out that “TOC obviously has to develop their position. I think it's fair to say Northern California TOC members and Southern California TOC members probably view the purse cut differently. And so my understanding, at least, is that the TOC is not opposing the purse cut. So I think there's an internal dispute within the horsemen's group.

“The second piece is [that] part of the race meet agreement allows the tracks unilaterally to cut purses up to 25%. Beyond that, obviously there would have to be negotiation,” Chaney said.

“So I don't see a statutory, regulatory or legal role in settling this dispute,” Chaney said. “I would definitely say can use our 'influence' [with] both race-date allocation and licensure-granting. They are levers that the CHRB always has to kind of exact more fairness, if you will.”

During the meeting's public commentary section, the Pleasanton, California-based horse owner and breeder George Schmitt went into detail about the alleged dissension within TOC that Chaney had alluded to.

“The only group that are in the [TOC] bylaws that can negotiate for Northern California is [the TOC's] Northern California racing commission,” Schmitt said. “That committee voted unanimously not to accept the 25% reduction in purses. They were overruled by the management of the TOC.

“It is likely that there will be lawsuits filed unless they fix the problems that they have,” Schmitt continued. “A number of us in the north, at this point in time, believe that to take care of horse racing in the north, we need to establish a Northern California owners' organization [so as not to be] simply overridden by people in Southern California who could care less about what happens in the north.”

The post CHRB Vice-Chair: 1/ST Racing ‘Doing Things That Are Detrimental to California Racing’ appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights