california racing | Horse Racing Free Tips

Senator Feinstein Pens Letter to Stronach Group About Golden Gate Closure

California Senator Dianne Feinstein issued a letter Wednesday to The Stronach Group (TSG), which owns Golden Gate Fields, requesting answers to the reasons behind the planned closure of the track at the end of the year, and the impacts from the company's decision on other industry sectors.

Since TSG announced on July 15 with a short statement light on detail the closure of Golden Gate Fields–a momentous decision that figures to upend a way of life for many in California–the company has remained publicly mum when pressed about the decision.

“I appreciate the steps The Stronach Group has taken in recent years to address equine safety and welfare concerns at your tracks and for your ongoing operation of Santa Anita Park. Nevertheless, your decision to close Golden Gate Fields will affect many California residents and merits further explanation,” wrote Feinstein, in a letter posted on the senator's website. The Los Angeles Times first reported the missive.

In the letter, Feinstein details the following questions that she enjoins the company to answer:

What is your rationale for closing Golden Gate Fields and why did you choose December 2023 as the closure date?
Will you help employees of Golden Gate Fields find other work in the horseracing industry or elsewhere? If so, which employees and how? Will you offer them positions at the other racetracks you operate?
What are the plans for the land?
How will the closure impact the other track you operate at Santa Anita Park?

“Golden Gate Fields has hosted horse racing since 1941 and is the last remaining full-time horse racing track in Northern California. As you have noted, your decision will have profound impacts on the livelihoods of the permanent and race-day employees at Golden Gate Fields as well as regional horse owners, trainers, jockeys, and stable personnel that consider it their home track,” Feinstein wrote.

Feinstein's letter follows TDN's own efforts to elicit answers from TSG about the closure of Golden Gate.

Between July 16 and July 24, TDN submitted each day to TSG a series of questions covering a variety of issues. TSG responded only once. “For now, the [Sunday] statement is going to be our comment around the story. We look forward to being in touch in the future about our plans,” wrote Stefan Friedman, a TSG spokesperson.

In light of the ongoing information blackout, the TDN published those questions on Monday in an open letter to the company, asking when stakeholders can expect the details they need to make tough long-term business decisions.

Feinstein has inserted herself before in this manner into California racing industry matters.

In late 2021 after the sudden death of GI Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit (Protonico), Feinstein called on the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) to conduct a “thorough, transparent and independent investigation.”

The post Senator Feinstein Pens Letter to Stronach Group About Golden Gate Closure appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Greg Ferraro Q&A, Part II: HISA Rollout “Inconsistent and Uneven”

After Sunday's announcement that The Stronach Group (TSG) will close at the end of the year its flagship Northern California racetrack, Golden Gate Fields, the company at the helm of the sale has gone silent, ignoring all of TDN's requests for comment this week.

To bring much-needed illumination on this seismic decision, the TDN spoke Thursday morning with Greg Ferraro, the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) chairman.

Among several points raised, Ferraro shared his thoughts on the need for a fixed hub of racing in Northern California to secure the long-term viability of the state's racing industry, and for necessary renovations of Santa Anita's backstretch accommodation as a condition of licensure at the track.

Ferraro also expressed concern that TSG has not fully considered the potentially stark ramifications from Golden Gate's closure on the rest of the state's stakeholders, including the breeders, owners, trainers and other licensees.

“I have the feeling–I don't know–but I have the feeling since The Stronach Group hasn't put anything out there yet, that perhaps they don't have their plans fully developed,” Ferraro said.

Read part one of the interview here.

The CHRB chair, however, didn't just speak on Golden Gate Fields. Ferraro also shared his thoughts and concerns surrounding the ongoing rollout of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA)'s Anti-Doping and Medication Control (ADMC) program.

Part two of this interview has been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

TDN: Let's shift gears and move on to the ongoing rollout of HISA's Anti-Doping and Medication Control program. Very broadly, how would you assess the job they've done so far?

GF: I would say it's inconsistent and uneven.

Their rules are somewhat complicated for people. Sometimes they haven't made things completely clear. But their application of the rules and their disciplinary actions have been uneven and inconsistent.

What the basic plan is, is to make a major cultural change in the way racing operates. And in order to do that, you have to have some trust within the industry. I don't think their initial steps have built any sense of trust. So going forward, the industry's a little reticent, let's put it that way.

TDN: What specifics can you point to when you say, 'inconsistent and uneven'?

GF: The incident with the joint injections where some trainers were fine and others weren't. Some horses were disqualified and others weren't. They withheld the names of violating trainers for a long time. Nineteen trainers.

Then there's the inconsistency in the enforcement of this provisional suspension [in the event of a positive for a banned substance]. That's been quite a concern to trainers because a trainer could be put out of business with basically no warning, the way they are going about it.

From a California point of view, we're always quite concerned about due process. [Trainer Ray] Handal is a perfect example. They suspended him. Then, once they looked into it, they found out it was contamination in the feed. It's happened before. The mill runs the cattle feed before they run the horse feed, and the horse feed is contaminated.

So here, this guy is knocked out of business for [nearly] a week, traumatized financially and emotionally, and then it's reversed.

Instead, if they had they just notified the trainer, investigated for a few days and had a hearing before [potentially] suspending somebody, it seems to me that's a fairer way to go. I think most of the trainers in California are used to that kind of system, and that's their feeling as well.

TDN: What you're saying is the current system of an automatic provisional suspension after a positive for a banned substance needs to be eliminated or modified?

GF: Yes. Given the American jurisprudence system of innocence until proven guilty and due process, I think it needs to be reorganized.

TDN: You mentioned joint injections. In California prior to HISA, the intra-articular corticosteroid fetlock injection rule mandated a 30-day stand down period prior to racing, and all intra-articular corticosteroid joint injections had a 10-day stand down before workouts. HISA's intra-articular joint injection rule requires a 14-day stand down before racing and a seven-day stand down before workouts. Do these weaker intra-articular joint injection rules concern you?

GF: Yes, that's a concern to us. It's a step backwards for California. We noticed once we put that rule in place in California, we dropped the musculoskeletal breakdowns dramatically. So, we think it's important.

We tried to get HISA to go along with [California's rules], but they wouldn't. We're still in discussions with them about it. We've cooperated a lot with HISA and we've been supportive of them. And I don't want to come across as being negative of HISA. But for California, you know, it's a bit of a step backward. It's a big expense. And we're not getting that much out of it because we've been ahead of the game nationally for quite some time now.

The corticosteroid issue is something they need to take another look at. Corticosteroids are not bad per se. But corticosteroids and high-speed works combined are not good at all.

Take any athlete that goes into training. Over time, their joint health degenerates. It's just part of what happens. You wear the surfaces down. You can't really slow that [process] down, but you can certainly speed it up. And one way to speed it up is to inject joints [with corticosteroids] in close proximity to high-speed works.

And so, what we've done in California–and what HISA needs to do–is impress upon the trainers that they need to discontinue this attitude of injecting to run or to work and look at corticosteroids as something that they use as a medical treatment combined with rest and other rehabilitative procedures.

Long-term, intra-articular corticosteroids should be eliminated completely from racing.

Santa Anita | Benoit

TDN: What argument does HISA give in pushing back against adopting California's stricter rules?

GF: You have to realize that much of the rest of the country had [weaker] rules [than California]. And so they say, 'we're getting so much pushback from the rest of the country that we can't do it.'

But what we've argued is to let California have its stricter rules and use us as a model. Then, at some point in time, you can go back to the rest of the country and say, 'well, California's had this rule in place and look what it's done. It's been beneficial. Why don't we adopt it nationwide?'

California is the point of the spear in terms of dealing with the public and the liability of horse racing. I think they should use us as a sort of leader in animal welfare and jockey welfare.

TDN: Do you think HISA's approach on this issue runs counter to their stated mandate of animal welfare and safety?

GF: Correct. What it takes is somebody with enough backbone to stand up to the pushback.

I mean, we got pushback in California, too. But we did what we thought was right and it's proven to be beneficial. Now, the horsemen look at us and say, 'well, we didn't like it in the beginning, but we realize it was worth the sacrifice.'

TDN: Are you worried California, after a sharp downward trend in equine fatalities in recent years, might now see an uptick in fatalities and injuries as a result?

GF: Absolutely. That's what our worry is.

TDN: Wow. Because of this, has the CHRB thought about the possibility of California opting out of HISA–at least until these fixes have been secured?

GF: No, we wouldn't do that. We're supportive of HISA overall. We think the concept of a standard rule nationwide is beneficial to the industry overall. These are growing pains. I think we're better off to work within [HISA]. Us pulling out is just not an option.

The post Greg Ferraro Q&A, Part II: HISA Rollout “Inconsistent and Uneven” appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Northern California Trainers React to Golden Gate Closure, Plot Their Next Moves

Whether someone had the biggest stable in Northern California or a two-horse operation, the news released Sunday that Golden Gate Fields, which opened in 1941, will shut down at the end of the meet in December was a punch to the gut and led to a great deal of uncertainty. Horsemen have just five months to figure out what they will do next. The possibilities are many. They could shift their operations to Santa Anita. They could stay put and hope that the California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF) circuit expands and offers enough racing opportunities to make it viable to remain in Northern California throughout the year. Or they could simply leave the sport.

The TDN checked in with six Northern California trainers, ones with both big and small stables, and asked how they plan to try to make the best out of a bad situation and whether or not they will relocate to Southern California.

Steve Sherman: I was surprised by the announcement like everyone else. I really didn't have a clue. They had just fixed the roof on my barn, so I really didn't think this sort of announcement would be coming out. I was shocked. You always heard rumors that the place could be gone in two, three years, but I certainly didn't think it would be closing in December. As for a plan, I'll be honest with you, I don't have one. I will see how things shake out. I don't want to make too quick of a decision. Is Santa Anita an option for me as we speak right now? No. I have no plans to go there. Things could change, but as of right now it's not my plan. I was going through my barn and I probably have 10 to 12 horses that could compete down there. It's just a different beast down there compared to the way it is here. The horses are much better and the races are a lot tougher. That's why you see a lot of horses come up north. It's because they can't handle it down there. Out of 1,000 horses here, maybe they'll get 200, 300. That might help short term, but if those horses don't do well there and don't pan out what does the long-term picture look like? And where are the other 600-700 horses going to go? I don't see what Santa Anita is envisioning. Maybe they were expecting to get half the horse population from here or maybe two-thirds of it. If so I could understand what they're trying to do. But when people start going through their barns and trying to figure out what horses can make it down there, there's probably not that many. The numbers don't add up.

Dan Markle: I had a pretty good routine. Raced up at Emerald in the summer and went down to Golden Gate in the winter. That worked out pretty good. But to lose Golden Gate is devastating. With them closing Golden Gate I'm going to have to think of something new. I don't have the caliber of horses that can compete at Santa Anita, so I won't be going there. And the purses at Santa Anita aren't that great either compared to some of the other big tracks. I guess I'm going to have to relocate. Maybe they can get something going with the Fairs. I think that's possible. If that happens it might work out better than what we had before. But I'm not in favor of moving my operation down there at all.

Marcia Stortz: I am hearing that CARF is going to try to work things out so that the meets go for 10 months between Sacramento and Pleasanton. I'd like that because it would be good to get back on the dirt. I have a couple of horses that would fit in Southern California but not really many more than that. It's a different league. We were told in December a year ago that The Stronach Group was going to replace the surface, which was, in my opinion, in dire need of repair. We were told the new surface would be put in by June when we left for the fairs. When it wasn't purchased in the winter, the writing was on the wall in my opinion.

I would never move to Santa Anita. First of all, I don't think I would get the stalls. I suppose I could try to get into Los Alamitos.

Golden Gate | Vassar Photography

Brendan Galvin: It was a bit of a shock. We were kept in the dark, but we do know that the people at CARF are trying to organize something. It's unfortunate that they are closing Golden Gate. That place has been good to me. I've got to go some place or I've got to retire and I don't have the money to retire. I'll either go to Southern California or another state. I've got some nice allowance horses here, but they probably wouldn't be allowance horses down there and that's a problem. I also have some cheap horses who would have no business going down there. It's a real kick in the head. I'm hoping the fair tracks can get something together. If they don't expand I think that will be the end of the fair circuit because nobody is going to ship all the way back up here for a few months of fair racing. There are a lot of horses here who would be running over their heads at Santa Anita. These horses are here for a reason. Everyone wants to win at Santa Anita and Del Mar and if they could they would be there already and not racing in Northern California. These horses are here for a reason.

Tim Bellasis: Nobody knows what to do. We are all hoping that CARF steps up to the plate and it looks like they will and that would allow racing to continue in Northern California. They're saying they could race 10 months out of the year. They've worried for a good five years that Golden Gate was going to close so they have a plan that can be put into action fairly quickly. They'll get some of the better barns from here with the better horses. They may go down there. Out of my 10 horses I've got now, seven of them are Santa Anita rejects. I wouldn't be capable of making any money down there. When Golden Gate decided they weren't going to put down a new surface on the Tapeta track, which was way overdue, you could pretty much tell what was going to come next. Santa Anita will get some of our horses, but it will be a small percentage. I think only 10-20% of the horses we have in Northern California could win a race down there.

Reid France: For me, it wasn't a big surprise. That being said, it's a bummer. It's the track I attended as a kid, I won my first race there and had a lot of success there. It's very disappointing that it's going to be gone. As far as my plans go, nothing is set in stone. We still don't know what kind of dates will come out of this. I will keep my options open and look at places like Florida, Kentucky and New York. Once we know what our options are here and we can sort some things out, we'll try to figure out where we'd go. We'll consider sending some to Santa Anita because we have a lot of Cal-breds. We're not closing that door. But we will look at a lot of places, all the major racing jurisdictions and see where we're at. I probably have a handful that could fit at Santa Anita. I'm sending five to Del Mar and will see what happens with them. This will all work itself out.

The post Northern California Trainers React to Golden Gate Closure, Plot Their Next Moves appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

With Golden Gate Closing, Can Nor-Cal Fashion Alternative Circuit?

One day on, the fallout from The Stronach Group's (TSG) announcement that it is closing Golden Gate Fields at the end of the year continues to reverberate around the state's beleaguered platoon of trainers, owners, breeders and other stakeholders.

“It's like you're Jimmy Stewart in It's a Wonderful Life, and you're losing your job right before Christmas,” said trainer Tim McCanna Monday, while on the road to Del Mar for the track's summer meet. “It just really leaves things up in the air.”

The reason for the closure of Golden Gate, according to TSG's Sunday announcement, was to focus its racing and training venues at Santa Anita Park and San Luis Rey Downs, consolidating the horse population in Southern California with the goal of increasing field sizes and adding another day of racing to the weekly racing calendar at Santa Anita.

McCanna, who maintains a stable of roughly 36 horses at Golden Gate, said that about half of his string are classy enough to fit the Southern California circuit. But at the moment, McCanna is unsure where the rest of his string might head, he said.

As such, McCanna said that he might end up leaving California entirely to race elsewhere. “It's possible,” he replied.

“I don't want to,” he added. “My home's up in Washington. It's a great commute for me back to my ranch up there, and to my owners up there. I still run at Emerald Downs. It was just a good fit, Northern California.”

Given the political winds that have pummeled California racing, and the spotlight Golden Gate has been under by animal rights groups in recent years, there's a palpable sense of inevitability about the closure among many industry stakeholders.

More shocking has been the abrupt nature of the announcement, poorly timed to coincide with the Northern California yearling and horses of racing age sale Aug.15 at Alameda County Fairgrounds.

“If I were those guys, I wouldn't even call the van to pick the horses up,” said Tom Bachman, a long-time owner-breeder in the state.

The decision to close Golden Gate, Bachman added, will likely hit the state's biggest breeders the hardest–a grim prognosis with profound implications for Santa Anita.

During Santa Anita's recently concluded six-month meet, Cal-breds made up about 37% of all individual starts, according to DRF chart data, and Cal-bred races constituted more than 20% of the overall races.

While Cal-breds make up a significant portion of Santa Anita's inventory, however, their influence is waning, according to DRF chart data. The average Cal-bred race field size at Santa Anita's recently concluded meet was 7.36. In 2018, it was 9.01. Ten years ago, it was 9.70.

“I don't know what's going to happen to Barton Thoroughbreds, and the Terry Lovingiers and Tommy Town–those people who breed a large number of horses–I just don't know where those horses are going to find a home,” Bachman said, before estimating that only between 10-15% of the horses at Golden Gate would suit the SoCal circuit.

“The Stronach Group have made a really poor decision trying to prop up Santa Anita with the horses from Golden Gate,” Bachman added. “There's just not enough horses at Golden Gate to make the difference down there.”

Bill Nader, president and CEO of the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), voiced frustration at the dearth of specific details currently on offer.

“It's all happened so fast,” said Nader. “Whether anybody thought this day would come or not, to that end we're surprised by the news, but we're not shocked by the news.

“By the same token, we do not have the complete story yet to really have any kind of meaningful discussion that can result in a recommendation as to what the best avenue is to take California racing forward,” he said. “There's so much missing detail at the moment, it's hard to give you a complete answer.”

The TDN requested an interview Monday with a TSG representative and submitted a series of questions.

Among the questions raised were those about future land use at the facility, and about specific reasons for the planned closure. Earlier this month, for example, the TDN reported that Berkeley City Council had issued a proposed ordinance that, if passed into law, would make it illegal to keep a horse stabled for more than 10 hours a day at Golden Gate, and requires that every horse has access to a minimum of one-half acre pasture turnout.

The TDN also asked about the organization's short and long-term future for Santa Anita. This included whether it planned to invest in renovating the track's long rundown living quarters for the backstretch staff–what many would see as a gesture of the organization's firm commitment to horse racing in the state.

Golden Gate Fields | Shane Micheli/Vassar Photography

TSG declined to answer the questions. “For now, the [Sunday] statement is going to be our comment around the story. We look forward to being in touch in the future about our plans,” wrote Stefan Friedman, a TSG spokesperson.

But amid the rubble of Sunday's announcement, the California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF) has emerged swiftly with a possible alternative vision of racing in Northern California.

CARF executive director, Larry Swartzlander, shared with the TDN Monday a one-page document outlining in bullet-point CARF's position on the 2024 racing program.

Among the points raised, CARF proposes:

-That TSG reassess Golden Gate's closure date to run through the end of next June. This would give stakeholders more time to realign the racing calendar.

-That Cal Expo in Sacramento becomes the “base of operations” for year-round racing in Northern California.

-That CARF forms a new racing association called “Capitol Racing.”

-Finding revenue sources to support “capitol improvements” at Capitol Racing tracks, including a new turf track at Cal Expo.

-A new racing calendar with reduced dates with the intent to improve field size, return racing to four days a week, and give the Cal Expo turf course time to recover, among other reasons.

-Moving summer racing at Cal Expo to the evening.

According to Swartzlander, a new turf course at Cal Expo would take approximately six months to build and cost roughly $6 million.

There's currently no funding for the proposed track, though Swartzlander said there are a “variety of different funding sources” he was looking at.

“This was a unilateral decision,” said Swartzlander, about Sunday's announcement by TSG. “And now, this all needs to be reassessed with all the stakeholders of California.”

The next California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) race-dates committee meeting is on Aug. 16.

When approached about CARF's proposals Monday morning, Alan Balch, executive director of the California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT), declined to comment, other than to say that “we don't know what the CARF plan is, and we will evaluate what we see when we see it.”

Nader was similarly equivocal. “We can look at that as an option, and we'll have a conversation with them later this week,” said Nader.

“But again, we've got to put that down alongside whatever it is this plan is going to look like–we'll call it the 1/ST Racing, Santa Anita and San Luis Rey plan. Until we have those side-by-side, I think it's impossible to really come to any meaningful decision,” he said, adding that the TOC board was planning to meet via telephone late Monday afternoon.

“I expect emotions are going to run high,” he said. “It'll probably be a spirited conversation. But we won't have a unified position because there are a lot of pieces to this puzzle that are still unclear.”

Given the general quality of racehorse participating at Golden Gate, a potential obstacle to broad participation among that group at Santa Anita would be the minimum $10,000 claiming threshold at the track–a condition of licensure imposed by the CHRB in 2019.

According to agency spokesperson Mike Marten, however, the CHRB looked at Santa Anita's most recent license application–spanning their recently concluded winter-spring 2022-2023 meet–and that condition “was not discussed or included.”

Another wrinkle in this whole fragmented saga is TSG's potential purchase of the Arizona Downs racetrack, as reported by the TDN in August of last year.

Reached Monday morning, Tom Auther, an Arizona Downs owner and partner, said he and his partners have continued to speak with TSG representatives “every once in a while,” but that other potential buyers were circling the facility.

“I don't know if Golden Gate going away helps, hurts, or makes any difference at all,” he said, when asked if the announcement changes the color of these ongoing negotiations. “We've walked a couple other entities through it. But I don't want to make things sound imminent because it isn't.”

The post With Golden Gate Closing, Can Nor-Cal Fashion Alternative Circuit? appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post