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

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

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

Ferndale Grandstand Deemed Unsafe For August Meet

The operators of the Humboldt County Fair in Ferndale, California, are scrambling for a solution after just finding out this week that an earthquake from six months ago so badly damaged the grandstand at the half-mile racetrack that county officials now won't permit the structure to be occupied for the six-day race meet Aug. 18-20 and 25-27.

Larry Swartzlander, who serves as both the executive director California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF) and the director of racing for Ferndale, told the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) during Thursday's meeting that plans are already underway to bring the grandstand up to code while also securing the use of tents as a backup so the races won't have to be scrapped.

“The county has said that the grandstand was not safe to conduct racing at the August meet,” Swartzlander said. “What has occurred since then? You  know, the position of Humboldt and CARF is very clear: We will race.

“The [fair's] board, I've talked to the president and the vice-chair [Thursday] morning,” Swartzlander said. “We've already identified a contractor that will do the work, and they're having a meeting later [Thursday] with the county to put the details together. And it will be completed by Aug. 1.

“I've already got my staff working on a contingency if it would happen that we couldn't use the grandstand, [and] everything could be moved to another location [on the property], so I don't see that as a concern.”

Swartzlander did not go into greater detail about the damage and the costs to repair it, and the CHRB did not press him on those issues prior to moving ahead and unanimously approving the track's license to conduct the meet. The board did, however, instruct Swartzlander to keep the CHRB informed on the status of the repair work.

Published reports this week in two publications that cover Humboldt County filled in some of the blanks that didn't get addressed at the June 29 CHRB meeting.

The Lost Coast Outpost reported June 28 that “an engineering firm surveyed the damage at the fairgrounds following the Dec. 20 earthquake, and found that though the stands can hold the weight of the people expected to sit upon it, it would likely crumble in the event of an earthquake.”

Quoting from a recently released county report on the damage, the Lost Coast Outpost stated, “the structural engineering inspection determined that the building currently appears adequate to support vertical loads, but not lateral (seismic) loads of the type that need to be taken into account for occupant safety. Even though there is a limited window of time where the structure might be occupied, the risk of doing nothing and allowing occupation is not acceptable.”

That story further estimated a $1-million cost for a short-term fix just to enable the fair to conduct its races with people in stands shored up by bracing, while a more permanent repair would take longer to complete and would cost in the neighborhood of $2.3 million.

The North Coast Journal reported June 27 that, “The announcement of the price tag was met with palpable dismay by the board. The association currently has $628,317 in its accounts [and that the] state Office of Emergency Services would only reimburse for either the temporary fix or the permanent one, but not for both.”

It's also an open question right now as to whether the association (which runs the fair) or the county (which owns the property) is responsible for making the call on the extent of the repairs and initially paying for them before applying for whatever emergency reimbursements might be available.

The county fair itself would be allowed to operate without fixing the stands, so long as they were cordoned off. But without the revenue from racing, the fair association is facing a losing financial proposition.

“Our structural engineer says that the risk of an earthquake during that period of time is very low, but if there were to be one during the fair, it would be catastrophic,” Tom Mattson, the Humboldt County director of public works, was quoted in the North Coast Journal as saying at a public meeting.

When asked at that meeting which entity would make the call on the extent of the repair work, Mattson said, “That's a political decision, not my decision.”

Asked to provide his recommendation, Mattson said, “My recommendation would be to do the long-term fix.”

Ferndale's survival as California's northernmost county fair racing outpost has faced multiple stressors over the past year.

Back on Nov. 15, 2022, police arrested the fair association's bookkeeper on charges of embezzlement, and the fair association's general manager and three long-time directors  also stepped down around the same time. The North Coast Journal reported in this week's story that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is now handling the case.

In March, the CHRB ruled that the 2023 Ferndale meet would once again have to run its second of two weeks of racing against overlapping competition from the commercial licensee Golden Gate Fields. Ferndale representatives have repeatedly told the CHRB in recent years that a second week of un-overlapped racing is required for any racing there to be viable. They have also noted that the fair plays an important role in supporting lower-level racing in the state, and have pointed out that Ferndale routinely outdraws Golden Gate in attendance.

Beyond this week's unexpected news about the grandstand being declared unfit for occupancy, the North Coast Journal additionally reported that the stands “have also been vandalized recently, with people breaking monitors and leaving broken glass behind.”

Just prior to the CHRB vote to green-light the August meet, CHRB vice chair Oscar Gonzales told Swartzlander, “I do know you guys can improvise so that if the grandstands are not able to be used, [there are] other areas of the premises [where] patrons can be at in a safe manner. But we have to really rely on the county's expertise, and we always put safety first…

“I remain a supporter of Humboldt racing, so we'll be looking forward to getting the 'all clear' sign if that's the case. And if not, the plans that will be made to ensure that people are safe,” Gonzales said.

The post Ferndale Grandstand Deemed Unsafe For August Meet appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights