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

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

CHRB Awards ’24 SoCal Dates, But Warns NorCal Uncertainty Could Be Factor In Final Say

Southern California's racing calendar for 2024 will nearly mirror this year's dates template, with the exception of Del Mar Thoroughbred Club being awarded a fifth week at its fall meet to dovetail with that track's hosting of the Nov. 1-2 Breeders' Cup.

But several California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) commissioners who voted in favor of next year's SoCal schedule at the Aug. 17 monthly meeting made it clear those dates allocations were not to be considered a “rubber stamp” approval that couldn't change at some point in the future.

That caveat was relevant because of the uncertainty unleashed upon the statewide industry July 16 when 1/ST Racing, which owns both Santa Anita Park and Golden Gate Fields, announced that Golden Gate would cease racing at the end of this year.

On Aug. 16, a 1/ST Racing executive said at a meeting of the CHRB's race dates committee, which reports to the full board, that the company might be willing to push back Golden Gate's closure by six months, to June 2024, pending discussions with industry stakeholders about how to best re-work the NorCal schedule in a way that doesn't harm the $30 million investment the company is making to improve SoCal racing.

That Wednesday news about Golden Gate's possible six-month reprieve prompted differing opinions on Thursday between the California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT) and the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) about how the CHRB should handle its scheduled agenda item that dealt with the awarding of the '24 SoCal dates.

Alan Balch, the CTT's executive director, advocated for the CHRB to hold off on awarding the '24 SoCal dates.

“We believe the entire state is interdependent,” Balch said. “We welcomed the [1/ST Racing] suggestion [Wednesday], not only that they would consider extending northern California at Golden Gate, but that they supported additional racing in the future in Northern California after the closure of Golden Gate. Since the state is integrated, because horses run [on both northern and southern circuits], we strongly urge this board not to allocate southern California dates given the pendency of potential legislation, and for many other reasons, until all the stakeholders can get together [to work out a plan].”

Bill Nader, the TOC's president and chief executive officer, said that it was his group's belief that the “absence of insight in knowing what the north might look like didn't really influence the south.”

Thus, Nader continued, it would be “prudent” to award the SoCal dates on Thursday in order to give “the rest of the country some clarity and completeness that California is still strong and has a vision leading into 2024.”

Bill Nader | Horsephotos

CHRB commissioner Thomas Hudnut said he thought the CTT's idea had merit because delaying the awarding of dates to Santa Anita could be used as an aid in negotiating how 1/ST Racing might help the industry absorb the massive gap it is creating in the NorCal schedule.

“We can't force dates on anybody. But we can withhold them,” Hudnut said. “And I think there is some merit in the suggestion of the CTT to avoid awarding any dates right now. The dates are the 'carrot,' and the 'stick' we have is not awarding them pending people getting their collective acts together…”

After listening to industry stakeholders go back and forth for 2 3/4 hours at Wednesday's dates committee meeting, CHRB commissioners Wendy Mitchell and Damascus Castellanos both expressed concerns on Thursday how some entities didn't seem to be acting with enough urgency considering one month has passed since 1/ST Racing let it be known it would walk away from California's lone commercial Thoroughbred license in the north.

“I've been on this board four years now, and we're really at a crossroads more so than I think we've been [at] in my time here,” Mitchell said. “And I'm very concerned…. It is more urgent than it's ever been to have the industry stay in California.”

Said Castellanos: “Everybody has an idea of working together and doing what they've got to do for the industry. But nobody really came to us [Wednesday] with a plan…. So my concern is the urgency…. We can't force dates on anybody. You guys have got to come up with this…. I suggest, as an industry, get together. Figure it out.”

Eventually, Hudnut moved to defer the allocation of the SoCal race dates until the board's September meeting. But no commissioner seconded his motion, so it died.

CHRB chairman Gregory Ferraro, DVM, took a different approach. He not only made a motion that the board take up the SoCal dates issue right away, but he specified that the '24 dates for that region be “the exact replication of the dates we awarded for 2023, with the exception of the one week” during which Del Mar hosts Breeders' Cup.

Santa Anita, this year's Breeders' Cup host, currently has control of that extra autumn week. Its executives did not lodge any opposition Thursday to Del Mar being granted that week in '24.

Ferraro's motion was seconded. Before the final vote was taken, CHRB vice chair Oscar Gonzales reminded commissioners who might be cognizant of Hudnut's “carrot and stick” analogy that the board still has other resources to act as cudgels of compliance, such as the CHRB's powers to halt any licensee's ability to race at any time, or even to deny a license altogether after blocks of dates have been awarded.

“I mean, we have a lot of latitude as the board, so it's among the reasons that I intend to vote for southern California racing dates knowing that this board has been empowered [to make changes after awarding blocks of dates],” Gonzales said. “I believe we are going to be paying very, very close attention to see how things unfold here over the next few weeks and months.”

The motion to award the '24 SoCal dates then passed, with Hudnut casting the lone dissenting vote.

The exact blocks of SoCal dates were not read into the record prior to the vote. But the template they will follow lines up with year's rotation: Santa Anita from Dec. 26, 2023, to late June 2024; then Los Alamitos through early July; Del Mar through mid-September; Los Alamitos until late September; Santa Anita through late October; Del Mar through the first week of December; Los Alamitos until late December.

The post CHRB Awards ’24 SoCal Dates, But Warns NorCal Uncertainty Could Be Factor In Final Say appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Mandatory Jockey Breeding Rights Discussed at CHRB Meeting

The California Horse Racing Board's Jockey and Driver Welfare Committee held a relatively rare meeting Wednesday in Sacramento to discuss several items, including a novel and somewhat controversial proposal to require the granting of a one-time breeding right or season to the winning rider of a future stallion that wins certain California graded stakes.

As the CHRB's meeting package points out, owners have typically given a stallion share to the regular rider and trainer of horses that retire to stud. But that voluntary practice “has evolved, some would say eroded, over time and now often includes a single season breeding right,” wrote the CHRB.

The proposal currently has little in the way of specifics, such as which graded stakes such a program would encompass.    Nevertheless, during the meeting, further flesh was put to the bones of the reasons spurring the idea.

CHRB executive director Scott Chaney explained how, because of a recent spate of high-profile jockeys leaving California for supposedly greener pastures, it's important “we explore ways in which we can retain jockeys.”

Continuing along that theme, CHRB vice chairman, Oscar Gonzales, argued that California's historically strong jockey colony has been a mainstay of the state's racing industry.

However, “things are changing quite a bit,” he said, pointing to fast-evolving betting tastes. And so, the proposal “is worthy of a hard look at what we could be doing.”

Furthermore, “anybody who thinks jockeys are well compensated for what they do are well off the mark,” said Gonzales, breaking down the way in which jockey fees are carved up among agents and others, and the lack of uniform retirement plan for riders.

Using an annual book of 140 mares as a baseline threshold, “I believe asking for a one-time breeding right, not a lifetime breeding right, but just a one-time breeding right for a graded stakes win is not too much to ask,” said Gonzales.

The two other commissioners present at the meeting, Damascus Castellanos and Thomas Hudnut, both expressed reservations about the proposal.

“I like the idea of wanting to do something for the riders,” said Hudnut. “I'm not sure that this is the best way to do that.”

Hudnut explained that he would have a “hard time” requiring that owners to grant breeding rights–“which are somebody's property”–to a jockey, and that a thorough legal analysis first be done to understand the legal feasibility of such a mandate.

He also raised the issue of riders flying into California on a temporary basis to ride in graded stakes. “I wonder what giving Irad Ortiz breeding rights would mean to him,” he said, raising the issue of potentially limiting such a mandate to California-

based jockeys.

In response to Hudnut's comments, Chaney admitted that the proposal has yet to undergo a full legal analysis

The committee ultimately decided to discuss the idea further before potentially sending a more complete proposal before the full racing board. The process to implement such a proposal would have to go through a public comment period before the full board could take a formal vote on it.

Earlier in the meeting, the committee discussed plans to plug a glaring gap in California's jockey safety net–the lack of regulations governing jockey concussion protocols.

As part of the safety component of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA), all tracks are required to have in place jockey concussion protocols come July 1 encompassing both a baseline concussion test and a concussion management program.

The meeting packet included a detailed rider concussion program as laid out by the Jockeys' Guild.

Due to the speed with which such protocols must be adopted, Chaney explained ways in which a jockey concussion protocol could be fast-tracked through the regulatory process.

“I think this is an example of something we could do through a protocol, as it's required by HISA. It doesn't have to be regulatory, which would speed the process,” said Chaney, who suggested bringing the issue to the full board in June, giving the committee more time to evaluate the Jockeys' Guild's plan.

Other agenda items included a proposal to reduce the weight allowance given to new apprentices from 10 pounds to seven, except in stakes races and handicaps.

In relation to that proposal, the committee discussed the feasibility of raising the minimum weight from 112 pounds to 114 pounds, and to reduce the maximum amount of overweight from seven pounds to five.

Both items will now go before the full racing board at some point in the future.

The post Mandatory Jockey Breeding Rights Discussed at CHRB Meeting appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights