California Horse Racing Board | Horse Racing Free Tips

Berkeley City Council Ordinance Could Close Golden Gate Early

Berkeley City Council could vote on an ordinance that, if passed, would essentially lead to the premature closure of Golden Gate Fields and throw into question the near-term future of the Northern California horse colony, workforce and training colony, the latter already buffeted by 25% cuts to the track's purses.

The Bay Area racetrack is scheduled to race from Dec. 26 through June 9, 2024, after which the facility is set to close permanently.

The proposed ordinance–which makes the claim that confining a horse to its stall for the majority of the day is akin to animal abuse–would make it illegal to keep a horse stabled for more than 10 hours a day and requires every horse access to a minimum of one-half acre of pasture turnout.

There are currently around 1200 horses stabled at Golden Gate, with nearly 290 grooms, hotwalkers and other stable employees living there, according to Dave Duggan, Golden Gate vice president and general manager.

Though tweaked in places, the revised language closely resembles the original ordinance introduced earlier this year by Berkeley City councilmember Kate Harrison, who is currently running to be Berkeley Mayor.

On Nov. 12, the city council's Health, Life Enrichment, Equity, and Community Committee unanimously voted to send the item to the nine-member Berkeley City Council for a formal vote.

According to Harrison, the ordinance will be heard by the City Council in January and would need a majority vote to pass. The first Berkeley City Council meeting after winter recess is on Jan. 16.

It's currently unclear if the ordinance, if passed, would go into effect immediately or after a period of time.

California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT) president Eoin Harty wrote in a statement that as proposed, the ordinance would seriously impinge upon the ability of the horsemen and women of Golden Gate to properly care for their horses.

“If enacted, this measure would not protect the welfare of horses but, in fact, be detrimental to them as horses in enclosures outside of stables may suffer greater risks to their health and safety,” wrote Harty.

“Stables have been honed over thousands of years to allow horses to remain social while protecting them from injury caused from other horses as well as self-inflicted harm. This ordinance would also negatively impact the large numbers of people whose own livelihoods depend on racing,” Harty added.

“It's not something to be taken lightly,” said California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) executive director Scott Chaney.

According to Chaney, the proposed ordinance has some “serious legal problems” in terms of Berkeley's legal jurisdiction to impose such a mandate.

The nine-page proposed ordinance states that the legislation is designed to govern “only those areas not already directly covered by State and Federal laws. It specifically focuses on a limited set of conditions to supplement the existing regulatory framework.”

It also claims that, as a charter city, Berkeley has the authority to “establish regulations and the jurisdiction to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare by establishing safeguards for horses as long as they do not conflict with or duplicate state and federal law.”

But horse racing in California is regulated by the CHRB and by the federal government through the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA), explained Chaney.

“That area's been pre-empted by state and federal government, and so, I don't believe, at least preliminarily, that it would survive a legal challenge,” said Chaney.

The proposed ordinance–which is specifically focused on horses “Held, Owned, Used, Exhibited, or Otherwise Kept for Racing or Other Sport, Entertainment or Profit”–makes several glaring misrepresentations of the Thoroughbred racing industry.

The ordinance appears to make the erroneous suggestion that Thoroughbred racehorses, on average, live to only three to five years of age.

“Many fatalities in horseracing are euthanizations after horses suffer catastrophic injuries, cutting their lives unnaturally short,” the ordinance states. “When CBS Bay Area reported on the most recent horse death at GGF in May of this year it cited the fact that 'live into their 30s, but the average age of is [only] three to five years old.'”

The ordinance also states that “horse deaths continue to rise at the horse racing tracks within City limits.”

According to the Jockey Club Equine Injury Database, race-day equine fatalities are declining nationwide. Last year saw the lowest statistical equine fatality rate since 2009, when record keeping began–1.29 fatalities per 1000 starts.

When it comes to Golden Gate Fields, the track's equine fatality rate has been consistently below the national average since 2017. Last year, the rate was 0.56 fatalities per 1000 starts–a number less than half the national average.

The proposed ordinance marks just the latest turbulence faced by the horsemen and women of Golden Gate Fields–which opened in 1941–as it lurches towards its official end.

The Stronach Group (TSG) announced in July that it was closing Golden Gate Fields at the end of December with the goal of increasing field size and adding another day of racing a week at Santa Anita.

After pushback from industry stakeholders who argued that such an abrupt closure would pose an existential threat to the future of racing in Northern California, TSG officials left the door open to delaying the track's closure another six months. But they appeared to make such a deal incumbent upon a reshaping of the way simulcasting proceeds are allocated in the state.

The rule of thumb is that proceeds from wagers made in the “northern zone” stay in Northern California to pay for purses and operational expenses, while the proceeds from wagers made in the “southern zone” stay in Southern California for the same purposes.

Initially, various stakeholders in Northern California–including representatives of the California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF)–voiced resistance to TSG's idea of moving these proceeds south.

In September, however, California lawmakers sought enough buy-in to pass legislation that meant if Golden Gate Fields is not licensed to operate beyond July 1 next year, proceeds from simulcast wagering in the north are funneled south when there is no live racing in the northern half of the state after that date.

In recent years, Golden Gate Fields has found itself the target of animal rights activists.

In March of 2021, protestors disrupted racing by running onto the track before lying in a circle with interlocking pipes.

The protestors belonged to animal rights organization, Direct Action Everywhere, which had sought to shut Golden Gate Fields down for good.

Alan Balch, CTT Executive Director, wrote in a statement that CTT is concerned about the negative impact the Berkeley ordinance will have on horse welfare, mirroring Harty's comments.

“We are working with all segments of equestrian sports to educate legislators about horse safety, and we look forward to meeting with Berkeley's elected leaders to discuss this ordinance,” wrote Balch.

Balch added: “Relying on the good faith of the Berkeley City Council and leadership, CTT believes this is a matter requiring the facts about good horsemanship and horse care–not just for horse racing but all horses–to be brought to their attention.”

The post Berkeley City Council Ordinance Could Close Golden Gate Early appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

California’s Purse-Cut Woes Driving Horses To Turf Paradise

Turf Paradise, which only weeks ago seemed either destined to remain dormant and in disrepair or perhaps even ready to face the wrecking ball, appears to be in the midst of orchestrating a remarkable comeback.

Track management, horsemen, and regulators all expressed confidence and a renewed sense of optimism during Thursday's Arizona Racing Commission (AZRC) meeting that the Phoenix track was on target to hit a Jan. 29 start date for the first commercial-track meet in the state since May.

Several stakeholders underscored during the Dec. 14 meeting that a better-than-expected demand for stall space at Turf Paradise is being driven by recently reported purse cuts in neighboring California, where both the soon-to-close Golden Gate Fields (-25%) and Santa Anita Park (-5%) are projected to offer less money this winter.

“We are getting, at this time, more horses wanting to come in to Turf than we had previously anticipated,” Turf Paradise's general manager, Vincent Francia, told commissioners.

“I think we are benefitting–and I don't like to benefit from someone else's misfortune–but what's going on in California is producing an influx of horses to come over for the race meet,” Francia continued.

“I'm sure everybody has seen that Santa Anita is going to have to reduce their purses. No track wants to do that. But business is what guides that decision, and the primary reason is they're running six- and seven-horse fields, and our sport cannot survive on six-and seven-horse fields,” Francia said.

“The reason why I'm saying that [is] the anticipation of horses has exceeded our expectation for the upcoming meet. That is healthy for the Arizona racing industry to get back on its feet,” Francia said.

The projected slashing of purses in California and the resulting out-of-state migration was also discussed later on Thursday at the California Horse Racing Board's monthly meeting, where that commission's vice-chair, Oscar Gonzales, castigated Santa Anita and Golden Gate for contributing to the horse outflux.

“We have Arizona that's getting ready to reopen with higher purses,” Gonzales said. “Meanwhile, [California tracks are] 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.”

J. Lloyd Yother | Coady Photography

J. Lloyd Yother, the president of the Arizona Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association, said during the AZRC meeting that Turf Paradise has gone from a situation of concern over possibly not being able to fill entries to potentially not having enough stabling to house all the horses that reportedly are on their way to Phoenix.

“The fear in the beginning was that we wouldn't have enough horses,” Yother said. “But according to the racing secretary [Robbie Junk], we're getting more than we anticipated, which is a good thing. So we may have ample number of horses. The only thing I'm concerned with is that we have enough barn area in the event that we do have those horses.”

Neither Francia nor Yother mentioned a specific number of horses that are expected to be on the grounds.

But Francia did confirm that only barns A through D and barn K would be used for stabling.

Yother said barns H through L “possibly need to be condemned.”

Trainers and their crews will be allowed on the backside starting Friday to set up stalls. Horses can begin arriving Monday, Dec. 18.

Francia said the previously problematic main track and rail, which had come under scrutiny from the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA) Authority earlier this year, has now been brought up to spec.

“It took two weeks [of] 12-hour days, and the track is unlike anything that I have ever seen,” Francia said.

Yother offered this assessment: “The track was in horrible condition. It was unsafe. The rail wasn't right. But the management did step up [and] did a marvelous, marvelous job….

“The rail is excellent,” Yother continued. “The [dirt] track is good. The turf [seems] great. I'm just worried maybe [there's] overseeding with the rye grass and how much [use it will be able] to handle and [whether] the root system will be able to hold up. That's to be seen.”

Yother did articulate concerns about the half-mile training track at Turf Paradise.

“The training track is in bad, bad condition, and it needs to be [made safe],” Yother said. “I encourage management to do something to get the training track in as good shape as the main track.”

Back on Dec. 5, the AZRC gave unanimous but conditional approval for Turf Paradise's current owner, Jerry Simms, to conduct a Jan. 29-May 4 race meet.

Simms and Arizona horsemen have had an acrimonious business relationship for the better part of two decades, and permission for the upcoming meet was granted after one proposed sale of the track property fell through in September and another quickly-put-together sale is currently stalled but reportedly ongoing.

The conditions attached to the licensure have to do with Turf Paradise either complying with or getting the HISA Authority to waive its requirement that stipulates a 90-day advance notice from any track before the start of racing. In addition, the Authority still has to accredit Turf Paradise in terms of overall safety standards.

Rudy Casillas, the deputy director of the AZRC's racing division, told commissioners on Thursday that “From a regulatory standpoint, the [AZRC] and HISA are doing everything reasonably possible to expedite the process while maintaining integrity and safety.”

The post California’s Purse-Cut Woes Driving Horses To Turf Paradise appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The Week in Review: Takeaways from Justify-Scopolamine Verdict, and Other Thoughts

The long-running battle to decide whether or not Justify (Scat Daddy) should have been disqualified from his win in the 2018 GI Santa Anita Derby seems to have come to a conclusion last week when the team representing Mick Ruis, the owner and trainer of runner-up Bolt d'Oro (Medaglia d'Oro), obtained an order from Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff, directing the California Horse Racing Board Stewards to set aside their Dec. 9, 2020 decision and issue a new ruling disqualifying Justify from the 2018 Santa Anita Derby. With the ruling, Bolt d'Oro has been declared the winner.

At issue was a report in the New York Times that revealed that Justify had tested positive for the substance scopolamine in the Santa Anita Derby. At the time, scopolamine was on a list of substances that, when found in a horses's system, required that the horse be disqualified. According to reports and Ruis's lawyer, the CHRB acted on recommendations from then-executive director Rick Baedeker and equine medical director Dr. Rick Arthur. It was their call that Justify should not be disqualified because the positive test was the result of contamination linked to jimson weed.

Had the New York Times not broken the story some 17 months after the Santa Anita Derby, probably, no one would have ever known that the horse had tested positive. Once the story was brought to light, Ruis went to work and hired attorney Darrell Vienna. Ruis stood to make $400,000, the difference between first and second-place money in the $1-million Santa Anita Derby.

There are, however, a few remaining questions:

1) Is this the final word or may there be still more appeals and fights in the courts?

“There is the potential for appeal,” Vienna said. “My understanding of the judge's order is that the stewards must now issue an order to disqualify Justify. There's the potential that the stewards' ruling can't be appealed. That's kind of confusing because they're under the order of the court. Now, is there going to be an appeal to the judgment of the Superior Court judge. They could appeal to the stewards, the court, one or the other or both. Hopefully, there will be no more appeals and we can just move on.”

2) All of the qualifying points for the Kentucky Derby that Justify picked up came from the Santa Anita Derby. Had the California stewards disqualified him from that race and did so in a timely manner, he would not have been eligible to run in the Kentucky Derby and obviously wouldn't have won the Triple Crown. Do the owners of the horses who finished behind Justify in the Triple Crown races have a case and could, say, Good Magic (Curlin) eventually be declared the winner of the 2018 Derby?

“I don't think so,” Vienna said. “I am aware of a case in California in which there was the appeal of a winner of a race who had subsequently been disqualified from a qualifying race that got him into the race he won. In that case, the California courts held that the horse's eligibility was determined at time of nomination and participation. Under those circumstances, I don't believe there will be any change in the order of the Kentucky Derby or the other Triple Crown races.”

A spokesperson for Churchill Downs told Horseracing Nation that the track has no plans to alter the result of the 2018 Derby.

3) How did this ever become the mess that it did? And why didn't the CHRB follow its own rules?

Vienna maintains that if the California Horse Racing Board followed it own rules the case would have been cut and dried and dealt with promptly. He maintains that the rules were simple and not open to interpretation. He says that any horse that tested positive for a prohibited substance had to be disqualified.

“It's all very simple,” he said. “All they had to do was follow their own rules. There was never any real determination of what happened after the closed session. The closed session lacked finality and lacked all the indices of true decision making. There was no notice to the involved parties. There were no witnesses. All you had was Dr. Rick Arthur making the argument that scopolamine was the result of contamination. The problem is the rules in California at the time called for the disqualification of a horse who was positive for a prohibited substance that was in classes 2 through 3, which scopolamine was. They could have correctly absolved Mr. Baffert or any one else of any responsibility and still under law be required to disqualify the horse. That was the gist of our case. That's all we ever asked for. Our case was based solely on the fact that there was prohibited medication in that horse's system and, as a result of that, the rules called for the horse to be disqualified. I don't think it was very confusing at all.”

4) The process dragged on for some 4 1/2 years and if not for the New York Times report, it may never have been known that Justify tested plosive for the substance. Was the CHRB trying to sweep this under the rug?

“I think that is the case,” Vienna said. “In one executive session, they were provided with one side of the story and they wanted it to go away. There is a process in California law that provides for dismissal of a complaint, but if you look at the history of the statute in California it really applies to charges against a trainer and not the dismissal of a disqualification. That would conflict with another statute in California that says that no horse can benefit if they are carrying a degree of a substance in his system.

“Mick, like all of us is worn out, but he is pleased. This happened in 2018 and no one knew anything about it until 2019. That's a tremendously long journey for something. It could have been settled right away if horse racing board simply decided to follow their owns rules.”

Can Full-Brothers Win the Derby Back to Back?

With his win in the GII Remsen S., Dornoch (Good Magic) is on his way to the GI Kentucky Derby, where will try to pull off something that has never been done. He is a full-bother to GI 2023 Kentucky Derby winner Mage and siblings, either full-brothers or half-brothers, have never teamed up to win the Derby.

To show just how difficult that feat is, take Secretariat. His dam, Somethingroyal, produced four foals who made it to the races after Secretariat. They combined to win three races with total earnings of $38,241.

There have been a couple of dams who produced more than one win in a Triple Crown races. Thanks to research done by Randy Moss of NBC Sports, we know that the dam Leisure produced two Preakness winners in Royal Tourist (1908) and Holiday (1914). Better Than Honour was the dam of 2006 GI Belmont S. winner Jazil (Seeking the Gold) and 2007 winner Rags to Riches (A.P. Indy).

As for Dornoch, a lot will have to go right for him to win the 2024 Derby, but at this point in the game, he's far ahead of where Mage was at the same point. The Remsen was Dornoch's fourth career start and with the Remsen, he has added a graded stakes win to his record. Mage didn't start until Jan. 28 of this 3-year-old year and had not won a stakes race coming into the Kentucky Derby.

Noble Indy Makes It Home

Remember the story of Noble Indy (Take Charge Indy), the winner of the 2018 GII Louisiana Derby? He never ran back to that race and wound up being sent to Puerto Rico, where racing can often lead to the worst possible outcomes. Well, Fred Hart, who owned the dam of Noble Indy, Noble Maz (Storm Boot) was determined to bring him back home. Working together with Caribbean Thoroughbred Aftercare Inc., he has made that happen and Noble Indy landed at Old Friends last week. It's worth noting that Mike Repole and WinStar Farms, who were two of his owners during his prime racing days, foot the costs required to transport the horse back to the U.S. It's good to see owners accept the responsibilities that come with providing a good life for their horses after their careers are over.

The post The Week in Review: Takeaways from Justify-Scopolamine Verdict, and Other Thoughts appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Court Orders Disqualification of Justify’s Santa Anita Derby Win

A decision may have finally been reached in the long-standing legal skirmish over the results of the 2018 GI Santa Anita Derby, won by Justify (Scat Daddy), according to a release issued Friday afternoon by the connections of Ruis Racing, who campaigned runner-up Bolt d'Oro (Medaglia d'Oro). Ruis Racing has sought a disqualification of Justify by the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB), as the winner tested positive for scopolamine following the race.

After it was revealed in a report that Justify had tested positive for scopolamine, Ruis began that quest to have the result of the race overturned with Bolt d'Oro declared the winner. Ruis alleged that the CHRB failed to follow its own rules when it decided not to pursue penalties after Justify's positive test. The CHRB acted on recommendations from then-executive director Rick Baedeker and equine medical director Dr. Rick Arthur. It was their call that Justify should not be disqualified because the positive test was the result of contamination linked to jimson weed.

The lack of disqualification at the time was especially significant as the qualifying 'Road to the Kentucky Derby' points Justify earned from his win in the Santa Anita Derby–his first career stakes start–made him eligible for the GI Kentucky Derby a month later. He not only won the Kentucky Derby, but went on to win the Triple Crown as well. Justify, a 'TDN Rising Star' conditioned by Hall of Famer Bob Baffert, was raced at that time for the partnership of China Horse Club, Head of Plains Partners LLC, Starlight Racing, and WinStar Farm, while Bolt d'Oro was trained for Ruis Racing LLC by Mick Ruis.

The statement, in its entirety, follows:

“Ruis Racing LLC announced today a significant legal victory against the California Horse Racing Board. Represented by attorneys Carlo Fisco and Darrell Vienna, Ruis Racing LLC obtained an order from Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff directing the California Horse Racing Board Stewards to set aside their December 9, 2020 decision and issue a new ruling disqualifying Justify from the 2018 Santa Anita Derby.

“The Steward had originally ruled that they lacked jurisdiction to conduct a Disqualification Hearing in this matter. The Court disagreed and stated in its decision that there is “no reason for remand” as there is “no doubt” the Stewards would have disqualified Justify if they understood that they had the authority to do so.

“Today's decision supports the longstanding California Horse Racing Board rule that any horse racing with a prohibited substance in its system must be disqualified and the purse redistributed.”

TDN was able to option a copy of the ruling, which appears here. The following is found in the ruling's conclusion:

“As the Stewards have already determined what the result would be if they could reach the issue of disqualification on the evidence before them, the court will issue a writ directing the Stewards to set aside their December 9, 2020 decision and Remand Decision and to make a new order disqualifying Justify. Based on the twice-stated clear position of the Stewards, the court finds there is “no reason for remand” of the matter as there is “no real doubt” the Stewards would have disqualified Justify if they understood that Respondent provided them with such authority when Respondent filed the complaint against the Justify Parties.”

According to CHRB spokesperson Mike Marten, the agency has not yet decided whether to appeal the ruling, and there was no further comment on a “pending legal matter.”

Attorney Darrell Vienna, representing Ruis, said that Justify's connections theoretically could also appeal the ruling, “even though this suit was simply between Mick Ruis, under Ruis Racing LLC, versus the California Horse Racing Board.”

Ruis also has a separate civil case pending against the CHRB seeking monetary damages. That case is also filed in the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

“They don't run in parallel. I think if we had lost this case it would have been very problematic for the civil case,” said Vienna.

“We don't have a direct claim against Justify's people,” added Vienna. “The awards and what we want has to come from the CHRB. If they want to chase down Justify's owners for the funds, they can do that. We're not going to do that.”

A footnote in the judge's ruling criticizes the CHRB for entering into a settlement agreement with Ruis, for a stewards purse DQ hearing on the Santa Anita Derby. The stewards subsequently claimed they had no jurisdiction on the matter as it had already been decided–a decision the board then concurred with.

“It strains credulity that a state agency would enter into a settlement agreement providing the other party with illusory relief. That is, why would Respondent settle litigation with Petitioner knowing its complaint could not (as a legal matter) be adjudicated. To the extent the agency did mislead Petitioner, equitable estoppel would likely preclude the agency from depriving the other party with the benefit of its bargain,” the ruling states.

According to Vienna, “we were enticed to enter into an agreement that was not going to be honored.”

Because of the qualifying points system in place for the Kentucky Derby, Justify's berth in that year's contest was incumbent upon his running first or second in the Santa Anita Derby.

When asked if the ruling puts into question Justify's Kentucky Derby win, therefore, Vienna pointed to a similar case he had previously litigated “in which a horse's eligibility was valid until it was disproven.”

“At the time of the running of the Derby, Justify was eligible based on the then-pending decision,” said Vienna. “Subsequently today, that decision was overturned. But at the time he participated in the Derby he had, for all intents and purposes, achieved the right to run in the Derby.”

Vienna added, “if the board had done what they should have done in the first place, he would have been disqualified, and that issue of whether he had enough points for the Derby would have been decided back then.”

Said Vienna, “There's no question that Justify's a very good horse and a great sire, and that Bolt d'Oro's a good horse and a great sire.”

He added, “I'd like to see everybody get back to racing and not fighting.”

The post Court Orders Disqualification of Justify’s Santa Anita Derby Win appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post