Northern CA Advisory Committee Formally Recognized By CARF

The California Authority of Racing Fairs has formally recognized a group of owners, breeders and trainers in Northern California to serve as an advisory committee for the upcoming Pleasanton race meet. According to a press release, the committee has been informally in place since the announcement of the closure of Golden Gate Fields. The group will work with representatives in the industry to “address challenges and opportunities in real time and ensure that future CARF decisions have the collective support of the industry stakeholders.”

“Our Advisory Committee has the experience and willingness to galvanize horse racing fans and make our sport economically viable,” said Executive Director of CARF Larry Swartzlander. “This is the beginning of an exciting era for Northern California horse racing.”

The committee consists of the following seven members: Justin Oldfield, George Schmitt, Johnny Taboada, Rob Smolich, Blaine Wright, Jamey Thomas and Gloria Haley.

The post Northern CA Advisory Committee Formally Recognized By CARF appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Following CHRB Race Dates Decision, What’s Next For California?

The way California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) chair Greg Ferraro describes it, the now infamous letter in which 1/ST Racing and Gaming appeared to threaten the sale of Santa Anita should the board grant the North its desired 2024 race dates was “a very big mistake” on their part–one that helped sway the board's unanimous decision to side with interests in the Northern half of the state.

“It really put a bad taste in the mouths of board members,” Ferraro said.

Beforehand, Ferraro had anticipated punting a decision on the North's race dates to the following meeting, he said, adding how Belinda Stronach, chairwoman, CEO and president of 1/ST, had called him the day before to “lobby” her position.

Ultimately, however, “the two things that came out to me [from the meeting] was just how much animosity there is towards The Stronach Group in California,” Ferraro said. “And that the letter was the thing that really killed them.”

The granting to the North a 10-week meet–to run at Pleasanton from Oct. 10 to Dec. 15 at the conclusion of this summer's fair meets–heralds quite the dramatic reordering of the operational and political furniture in California racing.

“It might be the most momentous decision the board has made in its history,” said Ferraro. But now the dust has settled somewhat on last week's board's decision, what's next?

“What we have to do now is get the racetrack operators in one room, sit down with them and say, 'okay look, this is the direction we need to go. You can either go voluntarily or the board will force you.' Remember, we control the dates,” said Ferraro.

“Let's sit down and see what we can work out with the calendar for the next year or two, three, to transition to a one circuit,” Ferraro added (more on that single circuit in a bit).

When asked to discuss the situation with a 1/ST representative, company spokesperson Tiffani Steer wrote in an email, “Craig Fravel's comments at the CHRB meeting stand.”

Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) president and CEO Bill Nader said for him, the key takeaway from the meeting was the concretizing of important details.

“We all have something now we can measure–I think that's good for the North and it's good for the South,” said Nader. “Trying to define viability or sustainability is difficult when some of it's based on speculation.”

With the vote in, “now [the CARF] have got to go back and address the outstanding points that were raised in the meeting,” said Nader. “We're moving forward, but there's still pieces of the puzzle that need to come together.”

Golden Gate | Vassar Photography

PLANS FOR PLEASANTON

The ambitious plan outlined by the California Association of Racing Fairs (CARF) for its 26-day, 208-race season at Pleasanton presents stakeholders in the North with a set of logistical and bureaucratic hurdles to overcome between now and then, pending CHRB approval of the track's license application at its Aug. 15 meeting.

Upon such approval, the meet is scheduled to run under the auspices of Golden State Racing, a moniker given to differentiate it from CARF's stable of summer fair meets. All told, there will be eight stakes worth a combined $550,000, with some $3.6 million designated for overnight purses. CARF executive director Larry Swartzlander said that these are “not firm numbers yet.”

Among some of the undertakings at Pleasanton these next few months is the installation of some 284 additional auxiliary stalls at a projected maximum cost of $1.5 million, said Swartzlander, with the aim of facilitating around 840 horses.

There are ongoing negotiations with the operators of the golf course situated within Pleasanton's infield to determine how the two entities will coexist. CARF's plan is for no golfing during racing, to limit public use during training hours, and to allow the First Tee community program–a youth golf program–limited access to the infield.

State regulators will likely require a “Notice of Intent” for coverage under an industrial stormwater permit, to be filed before June 2, along with other environmental compliance issues to contend with.

When it comes to discretionary spending number crunching, CARF has stated it has $900,000 in cash reserves, access to a line of credit of up to $4 million from Alameda County Fairgrounds, and that it will arrange for further “lending, grants and donations” as the cost of capital requirements become clearer.

Swartzlander said that an engineer is scheduled to visit Pleasanton in July to assess the facility for a proposed turf course and to provide a cost estimate. At the board meeting, Swartzlander pinned a rough $7 million price tag to that venture.

Currently, once Golden Gate Fields closes its doors on June 9, Santa Rosa will be the only Northern California track with a turf course.

According to Ferraro, several key questions surrounding the issues of everyday operations–“who's running the show”–the agreement with the golf course operators, and that of financial viability remain unanswered, despite the additional details offered up by CARF last Thursday.

“The horse racing board is preparing them a list of questions that we want answered when they come back in August,” said Ferraro. “Staff is working on them right now.”

According to Jerome Hoban, CEO at Alameda County Fairgrounds, the next steps for Pleasanton and CARF concern installing the auxiliary stabling, negotiating a “purse schedule” with the TOC, and developing a licensing agreement “so that it's satisfactory with the CHRB.”

“We're also developing a marketing plan for this meet and beyond,” said Hoban, calling their approach “more robust” than that in place at Golden Gate Fields. “This is not a one-meet endeavour. The confidence that has to be given to the horsemen is that we have found them a home for good.”

A key obstacle that CARF must negotiate is Pleasanton's lesser name recognition compared to Golden Gate. As an example, the DRF recently reported how the New York Racing Association anticipates a 20% decline in betting revenues due to the temporary closure of Belmont Park and the comparative weakness of the Aqueduct “brand.”

It will take time for the simulcasting handle to “pick up on who Golden State Racing is,” admitted Hoban. “I do think we could have a dip in handle because of brand recognition,” he added. “But if there's any team that could turn that around, it's going to be us.”

One of the areas that the board zeroed in on for scrutiny were the possible financial costs and logistical hurdles of complying with state environmental regulations.

“We're always concerned about environmental compliance, but we're a 265-acre property that is used to dealing with these things. This is not new business to us,” said Hoban.

“I think that some of the things that Del Mar, Santa Anita and Golden Gate Fields have had to deal with, they are in a different situation with their manure management programs, with their proximity to the ocean and the bay. I think our facility is already well ahead of those facilities in regards these topics,” said Hoban.

According to owner-breeder Justin Oldfield, part of a working group that drafted CARF's plan, the most pressing thing for all California stakeholders, North and South, is to nail down an outside source of income for purses, which would take a Herculean lift in California's tough political environment.

“There are things we haven't explored thoroughly before, like historical horse racing machines,” said Oldfield. But if realizing outside purse revenues “truly is our number one challenge,” that would require a unified industry front, he added.

“I don't know of a single person on our horsemen's working group or anywhere else that would disagree with that,” Oldfield said.

As for horsemen and women in the North, the mood at Golden Gate Fields since the vote has equated to one big “sigh of relief,” said trainer Blaine Wright.

“I think people are really going to do their darndest to make this a go, keep the horses supplied and make this a reality for us,” said Wright. “I've already had some phone calls from [former owners] who haven't been supporting Golden Gate saying that, 'hey, we're planning on claiming a horse or two for you up there, help make a go of it.' And that's awesome.”

Del Mar | Horsephotos

PURSE CUTS

What the CHRB's decision last Thursday doesn't do is remove the tough economics, especially in the South.

Multi-million purse deficits are fed by shrinking handle totals–wagering on California racing was down by around 5% in the first two months of 2024. At the heart of these equations are field sizes.

During the first 35 days of racing during Santa Anita's current meet (317 races), field sizes averaged out to 7.02 runners. At a comparable stage last year (after 31 days of racing and 282 individual races), the average field size was 7.54 runners. That said, the average field size at a comparable stage in 2022 (after 37 days racing and 328 races) was 6.90.

Interestingly, the 25% purse cuts at Golden Gate appear to have helped claw back a substantial amount of the track's $3.1 million purse deficit. According to data reviewed by the TDN, Golden Gate had recouped over $1.2 million of its purse account over-payment by the middle of March.

Nader said the next step is to come to a decision about purses for Santa Anita's remaining Spring meet by the beginning of April, in time for the next condition book.

A decision about Del Mar's purses will come out “shortly thereafter,” said Nader. “They're anxious to put out their schedule for the summer,” he added.

One notable impact from Golden Gate's closure is the schism that has opened up between interests in the North and South. Earlier this year, three Northern TOC members resigned in protest to what they saw as the organization's Southern-centric approach to the problem. These feelings clearly persist.

“What's the future of the TOC? I think they've lost some credibility,” said Tom Clark, the owner and manager of Rancho San Miguel, a mainstay of the state's breeding industry. “I think we need to strongly examine how the organization's currently structured, and what their mandate is.”

“We're doing all we can to give them comfort that we're here, that we're a resource, and that we accept and hear their views,” said Nader, when asked about the organization's approach to mending bridges.

“That doesn't mean we always agree,” said Nader. “But in the end, we have to land on what's best for California going forward. And we can't isolate this to a specific region, whether it's North or South. It's got to be a big-picture outlook of longer-term vision.

“And that's why getting actual data to accurately assess the benchmarks CARF put forward in its draft license application could be a good thing in the end,” Nader added. “Northern California is asking for a chance and the TOC is saying any business plan needs to be viable and sustainable. This is where we can find alignment.”

However, “if the numbers come out [at Pleasanton's meet] and it's far below expectations or below expectations, you'd need to find a way to pivot to meet the backup model,” Nader said.

What would that back-up model look like? “The backup would be to use the different assets in Southern California, meaning Los Alamitos, Santa Anita and Del Mar,” said Nader.

While stakeholders have raised questions over the years about 1/ST's financial commitment to its Californian assets–in particular, deferred maintenance at Santa Anita and Golden Gate's backsides–the company has still made and promised several costly investments in recent years.

This includes a new Tapeta training track, new turf chute at Santa Anita, and in state-of-the-art diagnostic imaging technologies. Earlier this year, 1/ST announced the California Crown at Santa Anita, revamping the card on G1 Awesome Again S. day, in homage to the Pegasus World Cup.

With that in mind, how seriously does Nader take Fravel's threat to sell Santa Anita?

“The key thing I think was when Fravel said Belinda is still very keen to continue racing there, and she's turned down many offers before,” said Nader.

“The one thing you'd say, the transparency of putting the industry on notice, in some regard, that's a good thing,” Nader added. “I'd rather have them say it than not say it and sell it in the middle of the night.”

THE BREEDERS

Conspicuous in their absence at the last CHRB meeting was a representative from Los Alamitos.

When asked if 1/ST's letter had any bearing on his nonattendance, Los Alamitos vice president Jack Liebau said, “at the board, I think there was a perception that a threat was being made, and I don't think it was well received. Los Alamitos and 'Doc' [Ed] Allred [Los Alamitos owner] perceived of that threat and decided it would not be a party to it.”

In recent months as discussions circulated on a consolidated circuit in the South, Liebau has discussed a possible legislative fix to expand the menu of Thoroughbred races offered at Los Alamitos. Currently outside of their scheduled Thoroughbred meets, Los Alamitos is limited to staging Thoroughbred races capped at 4 1/2 furlongs and at a $5,000 claiming price.

This proposal had followed the passing of key legislation last September, which means that when Golden Gate Fields no longer operates after June this year, proceeds from simulcast wagering in the Northern half of the state will be funneled south when the North doesn't conduct any live racing.

The idea of a legislative fix to expand the menu of Thoroughbred races on offer at Los Alamitos has been put on the “back-burner,” said Liebau. But he also stressed how Los Alamitos was never an active advocate but rather a “passive observer” of efforts like the proposed legislation.

“Doctor Allred has always said that Los Al would do whatever it can do to improve racing and to accommodate all the different interests. But when you get down to it, Los Al is really something of a bystander. It's happy to help, but certainly doesn't view itself as pushing that legislation,” said Liebau.

In discussions with various California stakeholders, the firm stance the CHRB took on Northern dates prompted several breeders holding off on breeding plans until the last moment to press the trigger.

“It was very important that we had something positive to announce to basically keep giving people a reason to breed,” said California Thoroughbred Breeders Association president, Doug Burge, who added that total reports of mares bred won't arrive until the fall.

Clark said he was unaware of such a trend. “It's not like people called me up, saying 'oh boy, with the vote last week, I guess I'm going ahead to breed,'” he said.

However, “one breeder I know, his mare had just foaled and he had to make a decision. He said, 'Yeah, now I feel a lot better about going ahead and breeding again,'” Clark added.

And what of Ferraro's idea for a single circuit in the state? That would look like year-round racing with meets North and South, but no over-lap with one-other, he said.

“Long-term, I think it's the only way California racing can survive,” said Ferraro. “We simply don't have enough horses or enough fan support to continue with this two-circuit racing.”

When asked about this proposition, Liebau voiced his reservations. “It's very difficult to react to a comment made by the chairman of the board, but I think the time passed on that long ago,” said Liebau.

The finances involved with keeping facilities operational in today's economic climate are massive, said Liebau. Indeed, Santa Anita has apparently incurred operating losses of more than $31 million over the last five years. Interestingly, during the latest CHRB meeting, Fravel offered up the company's books for the state regulator to examine.

“Frank Stronach always thought you needed to run year-round and every day because it's very difficult to keep a track like Santa Anita going if it's shut down half the year,” said Liebau.

As for Pleasanton, Liebau pointed to a couple potential positives.

One is that large purses don't necessarily correlate to larger fields. That, “and I suspect the horses in the North have more starts than horses in the South,” Liebau said, adding however that he hasn't crunched those numbers.

“The people in the North deserve to be given the chance to succeed or fail,” said Liebau. “But they have a long difficult road ahead of them.”

The post Following CHRB Race Dates Decision, What’s Next For California? appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Letter to the Editor: Alan French

First, the CHRB was put in a no-win situation. To paraphrase Board Chairman Dr. Gregory Ferraro, half of the state was going to be mad at the CHRB regardless of how they voted. And frankly, it is very sad that it even came to that, as I will explain in more detail momentarily.

While it is clear that the recent letter sent by Craig Fravel did not sit well with them, it seems that the Board understood the ramifications of not having racing in the North. Meaning that it would halt the California breeding program along with completely altering the lives of those who work up there.

Second, it is clear that the North and the South need each other. The North is the major center for California breeding, while the South will have the major racetracks. To lose racing in the North, as California Thoroughbred Trainers spokesman Alan Balch discussed at the meeting, will mean the loss of incentive for breeding to continue in California. And the breeding program is needed.

Third, California racing must have unity. As Dr. Ferraro stated during the meeting, the North and the South need to work together. That is why this is sad that last week's meeting featured a no-win situation for the CHRB. Unity was needed years ago. It is long overdue.

Unity is essential for California racing to survive. The Golden State is filled with intelligent people who love the sport of Thoroughbred racing. Surely we can come up with solutions to make it thrive. As we all know, racing has been handed down from generation to generation, as evidenced by the families who have been involved in riding, training and breeding. And it is especially true as many of us learned of the sport through family members, especially parents. We do not want to be the last generation of California racing.

The sport has a rich history out here, going back to the days of Emperor of Norfolk and Lucky Baldwin. It has to continue as we move through the 21st century.

We must be innovative. We must find ways to reach a younger audience. We must promote this sport. We must work together. We can also work together to generate a stronger campaign for legislation relating to sports betting in California. That is definitely worth revisiting.

There is nothing like going to the racetrack to see live racing, or just being at a racetrack early in the morning. In both scenarios, there is a magic that exists nowhere else. And so many more should experience that brilliant magic.

And we also need to think of the backstretch workers, those unsung heroes of the racetrack, and their families. The tracks are literally their home. What happens to them if California racing goes the way of history? Where do they go? What will they do? This sport is their life. We need to remember them, the track employees, and of course, the horses. What will happen to the horses? We must certainly not forget them.

As someone whose life changed for the better after first attending the races in 2007, I can say the current state of California racing is very distressing. I do not wish for it to go away, so I am calling on all groups involved with California racing to work together and find solutions. It can be done. It must be done. Otherwise, we face an unspeakable alternative.

Let's work together.

 

Alan French

The post Letter to the Editor: Alan French appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

CHRB Unanimously Approves Plan to Make Pleasanton New Center of NorCal Circuit

The California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) voted 6-0 on Thursday to approve a dates package for the back half of 2024 that will establish the current fairs-meet-only track at Pleasanton as the new crux of a Northern California circuit.

The entire state has been trying to come to grips with the looming June 9 closure of Golden Gate Fields, the lone commercial track in the region, and the Mar. 21 vote by the CHRB was viewed as a NorCal racing lifeline by the estimated 250 supporters in attendance.

Those very vocal and at times emotional NorCal racing advocates greatly outnumbered proponents of a plan that would have instead consolidated all commercial-track racing in the state in Southern California.

The NorCal supporters consisted of horsemen who have called the circuit home for decades, plus a contingent of statewide breeding interests.

Those individuals had the group backing of the California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF), which will operate the expanded Oct. 16-Dec. 25 Pleasanton meet under the auspices of a new management entity called Golden State Racing.

The California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT), whose board of directors had unanimously voted to back the initiative that also calls for three other fairs venues to pick up other dates that will be abandoned by Golden Gate's closure, was also behind the Pleasanton idea.

1/ST Racing and Gaming–which owns both the closing Golden Gate and the financially struggling Santa Anita Park–had teamed with Del Mar Thoroughbred Club and the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) to try an convince the CHRB that its alternate plan would be in the best long-term interests of the state as a whole.

That SoCal concept instead focused on redirecting simulcast revenue from the northern circuit to the southern tracks. It was further based on a premise that would have attempted 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 while only short summer fairs meets were conducted in NorCal.

In the middle were the CHRB commissioners, who repeatedly expressed frustrations during the Mar. 21 meeting that because the NorCal and SoCal factions couldn't cooperate to come up with a joint plan, they had been placed in the unenviable position of having to choose one option over the other while knowing that they'd be making some constituents unhappy no matter how they voted on the measure.

Yet while the CHRB did ask pointed questions about CARF's plans for Pleasanton and how the new operation would be funded, commissioners saved their most barbed criticisms for 1/ST Racing's executive vice-chairman Craig Fravel, who only 48 hours before the meeting had penned an open letter that warned of potential consequences that might occur if the CHRB voted against the SoCal plan.

In his Mar. 19 letter–which backers of the Pleasanton plan clearly took as an ultimatum–Fravel had written that “should the Board allocate dates in the north per the CARF proposal Santa Anita will immediately meet with the TOC to implement purse cuts for the balance of 2024.”

Fravel also wrote that “Further planned investments in capital projects at Santa Anita will be reevaluated [and] further operation of Santa Anita and San Luis Rey [Downs] as training and stabling facilities may be in jeopardy.”

In response, CHRB commissioner Damascus Castellanos openly called out 1/ST Racing during Thursday's meeting for being too coercively demanding and for making an already complicated situation more difficult. Castellanos said over the past two days since Fravel's letter was made public, the CHRB has been inundated with calls from concerned constituents.

“I'm not upset because of the calls,” Castellanos told Fravel. “I'm upset because I don't do well with bullies. That's the problem. I'm upset that you [put this burden on] the CHRB. And that's not right. But, if that's the way you felt [you needed to] play the game, then that's what you're going to do…. You want to be the bully? You want to take your ball and run? Then that's up to you. I'm not advocating that. But what I'm saying is don't put that burden on us…. Everybody in this room has a responsibility to take care of themselves and each other. And I believe that that hasn't been done.”

CHRB commissioner Wendy Mitchell told Fravel that she was bothered by 1/ST Racing announcing Golden Gate's closure, not working constructively with NorCal interests to present a workable alternative, then responding with threats of closure when 1/ST Racing didn't like the concept that CARF came up with.

“That's not fair and that's not right,” Mitchell said. “And that's not a good business strategy…. You can't just throw out all these threats to us and say the industry is going to collapse in California [if you don't get your way].”

Mitchell continued: “We're expected, as regulators, to pick sides. To pick north against south. To pick fairs, versus, you know, the Southern California tracks. I don't like the way this was handled. I don't appreciate it. I think we need to have a different attitude and strategy for how to save horse racing in the state of California versus what we have seen so far.”

Fravel then attempted to explain what he meant in the letter using a more moderate tone while underscoring that 1/ST Racing's chairwoman and chief executive officer, Belinda Stronach, remains fully committed to making sure Santa Anita doesn't suffer the same going-out-of-business fate as Golden Gate.

Racing at Santa Anita | Benoit

“The letter didn't say we're shutting down,” Fravel said. “The letter said we have to sit down and figure out what we're going to be able to invest with the prospect of continuing to lose money. I can say one thing: I was on the phone with Belinda yesterday. She does not want to close Santa Anita. We've had offers over and over again from people wanting to [buy it], but [upper management's response has consistently been] 'not for sale.' So the commitment is to continue racing. To make racing thrive at Santa Anita, and to try and reinvest our efforts in this product.”

According to plans for the Pleasanton proposal submitted by CARF that were included in the CHRB meeting packet, “In order to provide for the additional horses expected to run at this meet, more than 300 portable stalls will be moved to [Pleasanton's] Alameda County Fairgrounds. No other improvements to the facilities are needed at this time. However, future investments could include additional permanent stalls, improvements to the grandstand and the installation of a turf course.”

Larry Swartzlander, the executive director for CARF, later put an approximate $7-million projected price tag on the turf course, noting that it wouldn't be undertaken until at least year two of the Pleasanton phase-in.

CARF's plan further called for other dates formerly run at Golden Gate to be reallocated this year between Sonoma County Fair (July 31-Aug. 20), Humboldt County Fair (Aug. 21-Sept. 17) and the Big Fresno Fair (Sept. 18-Oct. 15).

CARF and Alameda County Fair have drafted a licensing agreement that will cover five years, the written materials stated.

Back in January, the TOC had previously articulated in front of the CHRB that even though it was in support of any “feasible and viable” plan to keep year-round racing afloat in NorCal, a danger existed in the form of that move increasing economic pressures in the south that the TOC believes would erode the overall California product.

On Thursday, Bill Nader, the TOC's president and chief executive officer, said that while agreement among its board members wasn't unanimous about not backing the Pleasanton plan, “in terms viability, there just wasn't enough assurance that this was a viable plan.”

Nader said the TOC had difficulty with the extended Pleasanton meet using the higher California takeout structure that applies to fairs (instead of the lower commercial takeout scheme that Golden Gate would have been required to use), because, he explained, that form of bet pricing would be burdensome to horseplayers.

Nader also said that he wasn't sure CARF's proposed daily purses (which are still a work in progress) reflected an accurate projection, because Pleasanton would basically have to match what the better-established, lower-takeout Golden Gate meet generated in betting handle to achieve it. The TOC, he said, has come up with slightly different and lower figures.

Nader made it clear that he wasn't arguing which projection was right and which was wrong. But he did state concerns that within a few months, the CHRB will have to make decisions on 2025 dates allocations, and that even then, the Pleasanton meet won't yet be completed, so no one will have “the real truth” on whether the numbers make sense or not.

“The TOC does represent the north. It does represent the south,” Nader said, which elicited catcalls and boos from many in attendance who have accused the TOC of not being representative of the NorCal interests. “What we want is just reliable, accurate information to understand what puts California in the best position going forward.”

Nader continued: “No matter what we do, no matter what decisions are made, there's going to be some pain, and there's going to be some who are going to walk away disappointed. And unfortunately, that's inevitable. I don't care what decision is made–no matter what we do, it's going to have impact to the detriment of some. Frankly, I just think it's unavoidable.”

Alan Balch, the executive director of the CTT, explained prior to the CHRB's vote why his organization backed the NorCal plan.

“Our board, nine people south and north, are unanimous in supporting the effort to keep Northern California racing going,” Balch said. “We believe that racing is California is not going to survive in any meaningful, important way without California breeding, [and] we just need to have a chance to keep breeders interested and motivated to breed, and to provide hope for the future.

“We can all disagree about the viability of any particular northern plan,” Balch said. “But with no plan and no racing in the north, there is very little incentive for California breeders to continue.”

Balch said that his constituents have heard too much rhetoric from the TOC and 1/ST Racing along the lines of, “If this northern money doesn't come to the south, we'll have to cut purses in the south.”

But, Balch postulated, “Do these people realize that if there is no Northern California racing, the Northern California purses will be cut to zero? Does that make sense? Not if we're all in the same state. We have to work together.”

Prior to the CHRB's unanimous vote in favor of the NorCal plan, CHRB chairman Gregory Ferraro, DVM, pointed out that, “This is a serious fiduciary responsibility that the board is taking on here, [and] it's increasingly clear to me that if racing is going to survive in California at all, we can't make two circuits. We have to make one circuit [in which tracks] are not conflicting with each other, where you're benefitting each other.”

CHRB vice-chair Oscar Gonzales added that even if the NorCal interests get what they want out of the vote, they, too, must realize that SoCal does need some form of cooperation and financial help.

“I believe that this [vote] should be an opportunity to reset, [and] the start of mending fences,” Gonzales said. “And [then] let's get on with making California racing the best in the nation.”

Castellanos concurred.

“We need to work together. We need to figure out how to keep racing in California. Not just northern, not just southern–in California. Because if we keep on going at this rate, we're going to implode. There's no reason for us to cannibalize each other,” Castellanos said.

The post CHRB Unanimously Approves Plan to Make Pleasanton New Center of NorCal Circuit appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights