The Week in Review: In 2024, the Sport Needs to Do Better

The remaining days in 2023 dwindled to a few last week, a welcome development considering the year that it was. Yes, there was some good news. Arcangelo (Arrogate) winning the GI Belmont S. for trainer Jena Antonucci was as good a story as we've seen in some time. The saga of Cody's Wish (Curlin) continued to tug at our heartstrings. The sales continue to post huge numbers. Purses have soared in Kentucky and at Oaklawn, with maidens running for pots in excess of $100,000.

But for every good story there seemed to be 10 bad ones.

With the animal rights community and some portions of the media putting unrelenting pressure on the sport, there's never a good time to go through a rash of breakdowns, but for it to happen surrounding the running of the GI Kentucky Derby was bad timing at its worst. There were 12 deaths at Churchill Downs crammed into just a few weeks and it got so bad that racetrack management decided to pull the plug on the remainder of the meet and move everything to Ellis Park.

Then Saratoga happened. When New York Thunder (Nyquist) broke down strides before the wire in the GI H. Allen Jerkens Memorial S. the number of horse fatalities at the meet had soared to 12. It was a horrible sight to behold for a national television audience and the 48,292 in attendance. And it was a ghastly reminder of what happened three weeks earlier to Maple Leaf Mel (Cross Traffic) in the GI Test S. She, too, broke down right before the wire in a spill that was as ugly as it gets.

The Breeders' Cup was not immune to tragedy. Though no one was seriously injured on the day of the races, Geaux Rocket Ride (Candy Ride {Arg}) and broke down and had to be euthanized and Practical Move (Practical Joke) suffered an apparent heart attack and died, both while training for the GI Breeders' Cup Classic.

The fatalities obviously caught the attention of 60 Minutes, which, in November, aired a story that focused on the breakdowns and the sport's doping problems while casting a brutally negative light on the sport. Then we learned that we will get more of the same sometime in 2024. In December, FX, a subsidiary of Disney Entertainment, announced that there would be an upcoming documentary, “The New York Times Presents: Broken Horses,” which it said would examine “systemic issues, questionable practices and urgent calls for change that have shaken horse racing to its core.”

When it comes to the economics of the sport, there was more troubling news. Through November, handle was down nearly $500 million on the year or 4.39%. That means we are on our way to seeing the steepest declines in handle, outside of the COVID year of 2020, since 2011. Does that have anything to do with the computer-assisted wagering (CAW) players? Probably. They have tilted the pari-mutuel pools to a point where the regular horseplayer is getting killed and getting out.

In July, 1/ST Racing announced that Golden Gate Fields would be shutting down for good at the end of the year, throwing the Northern California circuit into chaos. The track got a reprieve, but a brief one. It is now scheduled to cease operations on June 11. That's when it will join Arlington Park, Calder, Hollywood Park, Bay Meadows and others that couldn't make it to the finish line. Some wonder whether Santa Anita, which sits on property that is estimated to be worth $1 billion, will someday join them.

Racing can't afford to have another year like this. Things need to change. While there are no magic bullets, here are what I believe are some practical and common sense solutions to some of the problems.

The sport needs to fully embrace StrideSAFE. StrideSAFE is a biometric sensor mechanism that slips into the saddle cloth to detect minute changes in a horses' gait at high speed. Those changes can, and often do, signal that a horse is in the early stages of having a problem that could lead to a fatal injury. The technology has been around since 2011 and, while it has been experimented with here and there, it remains largely absent from the backstretch of America's racetracks. Why? There's no doubt that widespread employment of StrideSAFE will cut down on the number of horses that break down and there's no excuse for the sport to continue to drag its feet when it comes to embracing the concept.

The CAW factor is a major issue that's not going to go away, no matter what harm it might be doing to the overall health of the sport. It has become an unmanageable runaway train, with these players betting so much money that no track is going to turn away their business. But some guardrails would help. More tracks need to do what NYRA has done. They have effectively closed the CAW players out of the win pool by no longer allowing them to place bets at the very last second. They have also been excluded from NYRA's Late Pick 5 and the Cross Country Pick 5.

The betting product also needs to be better and more geared toward the booming market that is made up of sports bettors. The sport has not been nearly aggressive enough when it comes to getting the on-line sports betting websites to start accepting bets on racing. To date, the only one that has been signed up is FanDuel. That also means adopting fixed-odds wagers, which are what the sports bettors know. Only Monmouth Park has gone down this road and two years after it was implemented in New Jersey the concept is limping along. No other tracks or states have tried fixed-odds betting and, in New Jersey, only the second-level tracks are available to the fixed odds bettors.

The takeout remains too high. With betting on a horse race often involving a rake of around 20%, the game is always going to have a tough time competing with other forms of gambling, where the effective takeout rate is lower. We're seeing some progress in this area, with a number of tracks lowering the takeout on horizontal wagers like the Pick Four and Pick Five. In 2023, Hawthorne took a major step in the right direction by lowering its takeout on win, place and show wagers to 12%. But we need a lot more of the same. With so much of purse money now coming from alternative sources like slot machines, there's no reason why tracks in places like New York and Kentucky can't at least experiment with reduced takeout rates.

Fix the Triple Crown. It needs it. The GI Preakness S. is no longer coveted by the sport's major trainers and has become a weak link in the Triple Crown. Everyone wants to run in the Derby and then they scramble, some pointing for the GI Belmont S., some ready to put their horses on the shelf until the big summer races. The 2022 Derby winner, Rich Strike (Keen Ice) passed on the Preakness and, this year, Derby winner Mage (Good Magic) was the only horse to go in the first two legs of the Triple Crown. The result is that the Preakness is less important than it has ever been and that only weakens the Triple Crown as a whole. When 1/ST floated the idea of running the Preakness four weeks after the Derby, NYRA reacted by announcing that it had no intention of moving the date of the Belmont. Yes, a Belmont run five weeks after the Derby works well for NYRA, but it needs to put its self interests aside and do what's best for the sport and shift the Belmont to late June or early July.

While we're at it, the purses for the Triple Crown races are too small. In this day and age, the $1.5-million purse for the Preakness is not going to motivate anyone to run. These are supposed to be the most important races in the sport and their purses should reflect as much. For all three races, the purses should be raised immediately to $3 million with the goal of eventually making them $5-million races.

These are things that can be done. Let's not let another year go by in which the sport embraces the status quo while the outlook for its future continues to get worse. The year 2024 is upon us, let it be the year where the sport takes much needed steps in the right direction.

The post The Week in Review: In 2024, the Sport Needs to Do Better appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

What Does Next Year Hold For California Racing?

Nearly seventy years ago, Sports Illustrated turf writer, Jim Murray, penned a love-letter to Santa Anita, and its opening day sonata of sun and sport unmatched by any East Coast oval stunned into icy retreat by the “fierce howlings of blue northers spun across finish lines.”

Santa Anita, Murray wrote, was an “extravagance of beauty.” It was also a well-oiled money-spinner. Huge purses lured the best horses to Los Angeles, and the best horses lured the biggest crowds, their pockets brimming with the spoils of a post-war industrial boom transforming this callow cow-town into a maven of modernity.

“One day (Handicap Day in 1947), so many people showed up (85,500) that a crisis was created (the plumbing caved in under the strain) and the card almost had to be canceled,” Murray wrote.

This year's opening day at Santa Anita tells a different tale. A crowd of over 37,000 contributed to the “best handle ever among a total of 17 opening dates conducted on a Tuesday,” as the track's publicity department put it.

Putting inflation adjustments aside for the moment, that still constitutes a 30% drop from last year's total–the sort of back-foot number stakeholders desperately wanted to avoid as the track embarks upon another grueling six-month marathon into one of the most consequential years yet for the state's racing industry.

Amid an economic landscape of consolidation and contraction–which gives the distinct impression of a giant puzzle set where the pieces don't quite fit together–decisions will be made that will set this ship's course for the foreseeable future. Icebergs abound.

The compass guiding many of these decisions is this spinning dial: Can a sustainable long-term racing circuit in Northern California be pieced together in the void left by Golden Gate Fields?

TDN tried unsuccessfully in recent weeks to reach California Association of Racing Fairs (CARF) executive director, Larry Swartzlander. The LA Times, however, this week quoted Swartzlander as saying that he was “60%” certain a deal could be reached whereby the fair circuit would take over Golden Gate's dates, though would likely reduce them from 132 days a year to 103.

Tom “Bomber” Doutrich, CARF racing secretary, told the TDN he's “hopeful” an announcement about any such plan will arrive early in 2024. “There are two things you can say about CARF,” he added. “We need to get the purses right. And we've got to get a facility that we can turn into a top-class facility. We're working on that right now.”

 

NORCAL

To say that time is of the essence when it comes to these negotiations does a gross disservice to ticking clocks everywhere, as well as to the heads of racing operations juggling families, employees and their own tentative futures.

Golden Gate Fields is scheduled to race through June 9, 2024, after which the facility is set to close permanently. Next year's fair schedule is currently set to close out with a fall fair meet at Fresno from Oct. 2 through the 13th.

In the aftermath of the announced closure of Golden Gate, Swartzlander made several proposals for a restructured Northern California circuit, including a permanent base split between Santa Rosa and Cal Expo, or only at the latter track.

But such plans would require reaching an agreement with California's harness racing industry, which only last year extended its lease of operations of the Cal Expo Harness racetrack until May 2030.

Jack Liebau (right) with Tim Yakteen | Benoit

In the event no concrete proposal for Northern California materializes, a legislative fix may be sought to expand the menu of Thoroughbred races offered at Los Alamitos, said Bill Nader, president of the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC).

“We're on the clock and we're moving into 2024, so we have come up with alignment between the three tracks in the south for horses in the north to have suitable opportunities to compete in the south at Los Alamitos, Del Mar or Santa Anita,” said Nader.

This “alignment,” explained Nader, would include a statutory change to permit Los Alamitos–outside of their scheduled Thoroughbred meets–to stage Thoroughbred races beyond the current limit: 4 1/2 furlong races capped at a $5,000 claiming price.

“Provided there's no operator or plan that comes forth in the north, it would allow for those horses to remain in California and have a suitable opportunity to compete within their own state seamlessly. At least we have that,” said Nader, about such a proposal.

According to Jack Liebau, vice president of Los Alamitos, a legislative fix to go into immediate effect–as opposed to the start of January 2025, like most bills passed next year–needs an “urgency clause” requiring a two-thirds vote by the legislature.

“I think we can get the legislative change if it's fully supported by the industry as a whole. I don't know why anybody would oppose that,” said Liebau. “The devil, of course, will be in the details.”

According to Liebau, Los Alamitos can accommodate around 300 additional horses. In Golden Gate right now, there are around 1,150 horses.

But how motivated are trainers currently stabled at Golden Gate to funnel their horses south, in the event plans to furnish an alternative Northern calendar fall apart?

Answers are buffeted by other gusty headwinds. Purses at Golden Gate's final meet have been slashed by 25%, a result of the purse account being overdrawn by $3.1 million. (Nader told the TDN that Santa Anita's purse account is also in the red to the tune of $3.7 million)

In January, Berkeley City Council might vote on an ordinance that could essentially close Golden Gate before its anticipated June curtain call.

Ed Moger, a leading trainer at Golden Gate, recently said that while a 25% purse cut would likely spur some barns to cross state lines and relocate to Turf Paradise, he might shift a significant portion of his horses to Santa Anita instead.

“It's tougher to win a race at Santa Anita,” said Moger, at the time. “I'll have to play it by ear.”

But not everyone appears as ready to pack up box and truck for a trip south–not trainer Tim McCanna, who said that such a wholesale move would come only after every other alternative had been exhausted.

Blaine Wright | Benoit

“Seventy-five percent of the horses in the north won't fit the south,” McCanna explained, estimating that about 15 of his 40-horse Golden Gate string might suit the Southern circuit. “Most of the trainers can't go there either,” he added, alluding to the increased costs of Southern California living.

McCanna said he's “quite hopeful” an alternative Northern California circuit can be pieced together. But he also feels as though the Northern California trainer colony has been largely ignored by industry leadership during the travails of the past year.

“We were ambushed by this,” said McCanna, adding that an ownership group had recently moved five of his horses to Turfway Park, because of the purse cuts.

“The mood around the track is that it feels like we've been shot in the back,” said trainer Blaine Wright, who currently has around 50 horses at Golden Gate. “My clientele is not very happy with this purse reduction.”

Like McCanna, Wright is playing it by ear, hoping that in the New Year, news of a new viable Northern California circuit will trickle through.

If it doesn't, Wright said that he's already warned two of his staunchest patrons that the tough economics of maintaining a SoCal barn might behoove them to shut up shop.

“I said to them, 'if you don't want to race on the West Coast and you'd like to go to the Midwest or East where things are happening good, that would be fine,'” said Wright. “But I warned them, 'if you want to stay on the West Coast, my advice would be to get out of the business because the horses we have aren't going to do at Santa Anita.'”

Wright added: “How do you tell the people who have basically made your living for 16 years to get out of the business? I'm just trying to be truthful when I'm telling them I think the writing's on the wall here and the end's coming soon.”

 

BREEDERS

Back in August, long-time owner and breeder, Nick Alexander, warned the consolidation of racing in the south would be a body blow for the state's breeding industry. Has his thinking evolved since?

“No, is the short answer,” said Alexander, who added that he still expects to maintain his 35-strong broodmare band through next year.

Adrian Gonzalez | Fasig-Tipton

From a squad of five racehorses previously at Golden Gate, Alexander has shifted three south, and plans to do the same with one of the other two horses remaining. More broadly, he said he's “not optimistic” an alternative Northern racing circuit can be formed.

“It's a damn shame for the breeders up there,” said Alexander. “I'm 81 years old. If I was fifty and had kids in college and was trying to be a trainer in Northern California, what the hell would I do?”

Adrian Gonzalez of Checkmate Farm-a 66-acre ranch in Parkfield, California-is one of those trying to build a business for his young family.

Of Gonzalez's 30-strong broodmare band, about half are headed to Kentucky stallions, he said, and he's in two minds whether to bring them back to California to foal.

“If there's no commercial market left in California, we need to make sure our stock is something that can be sought after in other markets,” Gonzalez said. “Most of our clients are doing something similar,” he added.

Given this trend, Gonzalez said he's concerned about a sharp dip in Cal-breds in three years–what would be especially troubling if the state racing industry can be fortified against further erosion in the meantime, he added.

“The long-term impacts are definitely something we need to be focused on,” said California Thoroughbred Breeding Association (CTBA) president, Doug Burge.

As positives, Burge singled out how active California buyers were at Keeneland's November breeding stock sale. While Golden Gate's purses have been cut, he added, lucrative Cal-bred bonuses remain in place.

“I think in the future we'll see a major focus on quality,” Burge said, pointing to the recent run high-profile successes for horses bred in the state, including a 1-2 finish in the recent G1 La Brea S. for Cal-breds. “But we obviously need the numbers as well.”

Indeed, while California's foal crop has steadily declined–by nearly 25% between 2012 and 2021–Cal-breds have been playing an ever more important role in propping up the California racing calendar.

During Santa Anita's 2022-2023 six-month meet, Cal-breds made up about 37% of all individual starts, and Cal-bred races constituted more than 20% of the overall races carded.

Is there a number of foals bred annually below which the state's breeding industry becomes an unsustainable model?

Tom Clark | Jill Williams

“That depends on how much racing we'll have here in the next few years,” Burge said. “When you announce the closure of a major racetrack, it's obviously going to have a major impact.”

Tom Clark, the owner and manager of Rancho San Miguel–a mainstay of the state's breeding industry–estimates double digit declines in the number of mares bred in the state next year. Last year, 1,874 mares were bred to California stallions. Twenty years prior, the number was about three-times that.

“The response so far from clients generally has been to cut back or exit the breeding industry in the state,” said Clark. “The only exceptions are some of the larger farms–Barton [Thoroughbreds] and John Harris and Loveacres [Ranch]–who have continued to invest in broodmares for their own account.”

While the popularity of Clark's stallions means Rancho San Miguel has so far been fairly insulated from the worst of the declines, he said, unintended consequences are percolating through.

“I've got about 20 mares people want me to find homes for,” said Clark. “I just gave three away to new homes as of this morning. It's happening.”

Which begs the question: How will recent events impact California's flagship off-track Thoroughbred rehoming program?

“When they first announced that Golden Gate Fields would close, I had three different owners call me, and I took in three different horses,” said Lucinda Lovitt, executive director of the California Retirement Management Account (CARMA). “They didn't know what the future was, and they just wanted to make sure their horse had a good place.”

As the sport rolls into the New Year, however, Lovitt said she doesn't anticipate a situation where California's aftercare facilities are swamped with urgent requests.

That said, “I would expect we will continue to see what we've seen this past year, which is less space available in aftercare charities, and higher demand for these fewer slots,” said Lovitt.

 

STATISTICS

It was the author Fletcher Knebel who made the observation, “smoking is one of the leading causes of statistics.”

If only horse racing could so readily dismiss its numerical DNA.

This recent New York Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association (NYTHA) backed study by a cohort of Yale undergrads highlighted how a common feature of a contracting market is consolidation, and how this trend is impacting everything from the training population to racetrack management.

Indeed, nationally over the last 20 years, the industry has lost nearly 55% of its trainers, they found. Most have been “micro-trainers” and “midsize” trainers with a maximum 40 discreet horses respectively.

At the opposite end of the scale are “super trainers” who operate stables with 80 or more horses.

Bill Nader | Horsephotos

The number of super trainers has stayed relatively constant in the midst of declining trainer numbers. In 2003 there were 123 super trainers, and in 2022 there were 114.

The same trends play out in California, with the bottom end getting clobbered while the top end stays remarkably strong.

According to numbers crunched for the TDN using DRF chart data, the number of trainers making at least one individual start in California decreased by nearly 50% between 2007 and 2022.

The trainers with 20 or less individual annual starters decreased a similar 50% during that period.

The number of trainers with at least 100 individual annual starters in California, however, has remained around the 8-10 mark since 2009.

Last year, nine trainers with at least 100 individual annual starters in California–just 3% of the total trainer colony–accrued 35% of the total prize money and made 21% of the total starts.

In another worrying trend, training in California is becoming less and less of a young person's game.

According to data put together by the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB), the median age of a licensed trainer in California was 52 in 2003. As of this year, that statistic has matured to 61.

The guiding light behind these numbers is field size, which in turn drives handle, which in turn fuels purses. Field size has been especially problematic during Santa Anita's six-month winter-spring meet these past five years, though it has rebounded very slightly.

For the six-month meet in 2021-2022, the combined dirt and turf field size was 7.12. For the 2022-2023 meet, the combined field size was 7.2.

With that in mind, Nader said he doesn't expect the recently announced purse cuts to make a dent into the $3.7 million Santa Anita purse overpayment.

“I don't think it'll reduce at all, based on the current trends in business. If anything, the overpayment might even go up a little bit,” said Nader. “That's why the wish list for 2024 is to secure a secondary source of income to preserve and protect the purse structure and the industry going forward.”

But what could that be?

Twin sports wagering measures were torpedoed on last year's state ballot, casting dark clouds over future efforts. And though horse racing's standing in Sacramento has improved since the nadir of the 2019 Santa Anita welfare crisis, how likely is legislative support, even for an industry estimated to directly contribute over $4.5 billion to the state's economy, and over 77,700 jobs?

“It's incumbent upon all of us here to try to get something where the state legislature provides some type of recognition to the industry, and a level of support–again, maybe not the same advantages the other competing states enjoy–but something that gives us a chance to compete,” said Nader, declining, however, to speculate upon any specifics of what that “recognition” might look like.

Furthermore, should the heightened impact from the state's super trainers on field size during a period of such accelerated contraction be high up on the TOC's agenda for next year?

“In terms of trying to get more competitive field sizes and better business results, it's better if there's more parity. Sure. But how you manufacture that, it's tricky,” said Nader. “It's hard to say to an owner, 'you need to give your horse to this trainer and not that trainer.' It has to be carefully thought through.”

 

SANTA ANITA

The variables weighing in on the future of the sport are–for want of a less utilitarian phrase–multifactorial. Just take the topic of Computer Assisted Wagering (CAW).

CAW players constitute a small group of high-volume and largely anonymous gamblers with an outsized impact on the betting markets—including in California—due to the use of sophisticated wagering tools. Because of their high stakes play, they're offered inducements in the form of rebates and reduced takeout rates largely not available to the average punter.

Last summer, Del Mar introduced measures to help curb CAW play. By the meet's end, Del Mar's total handle was down some 10% compared to the year prior, according to the DRF.

The TDN asked the CHRB for a breakdown of CAW play per-pool for last summer's meet at Del Mar. The agency said it does not yet have those granular figures.

Santa Anita's new Tapeta surface being installed | Santa Anita

But the CHRB provided a total breakdown of handle per betting location, including from the most influential of these computer syndicates, the Elite Turf Club, a Curacao-based company owned by The Stronach Group and NYRA Bets LLC.

According to this data, Elite Turf Club total handle during Del Mar's summer meet dropped 23.7% from 2022 to 2023: $116.9 million last year compared to $89.1 million this year.

How industry leaders in California manage the thorny topic of CAW play next year, therefore, will be a key driver of revenues.

For many stakeholders, another key tangible will be the roll-out of TSG's much vaunted $30 million-plus investment into the Southern California racing furniture, including new stabling at Santa Anita, new tracks at the facility, and industry support funds.

The replacement of Santa Anita's dirt training track with Tapeta is scheduled for a mid-January finish. According to Craig Fravel, chief executive office at 1/ST Racing, there are tentative plans to modify one of the barns at Santa Anita next summer.

The other big-ticket items slated for development in 2024–including a new one-mile turf chute, an equine swimming pool and horse exercisers–have been put on hold, however.

“We've wanted to focus on getting the synthetic surface done. The price tag on that has come in higher than we had expected,” said Fravel. “Right now, we're just very much focused on the racing calendar, trying to enhance the prospects for horses moving down here and improving the product in Southern California.”

The post What Does Next Year Hold For California Racing? 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

CHRB Vice-Chair: 1/ST Racing ‘Doing Things That Are Detrimental to California Racing’

Although the recently reported purse cuts for the upcoming meets at Golden Gate Fields (25%) and Santa Anita Park (5%) were not on Thursday's official agenda for the monthly California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) meeting, the commission's vice-chairman, Oscar Gonzales, made it clear that the owner of both tracks, 1/ST Racing and Gaming, was going to face some tough questioning on the topic when the CHRB next convenes in January.

TDN's Dan Ross had reported Dec. 9 that Golden Gate is overpaid to the horsemen's account by some $3.1 million as the Northern California track is set to start what is expected to be the final race meet there (Dec. 26-June 9). 1/ST Racing disclosed back in July that it would be ceasing racing at the lone remaining non-fairs track in that region of the state.

In that same article last week, Bill Nader, the president and chief executive officer of Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), confirmed that Santa Anita's overnight purses are also scheduled to be lowered for the winter/spring meet that starts Dec. 26, with $2 million sliced from the track's stakes schedule.

Gonzales particularly took umbrage on Dec. 14 with the Golden Gate reduction, noting that he has received “a lot of phone calls” about “this drastic purse cut here in Northern California that I would describe as being very unexpected.”

“And that's really thrown a lot of the Northern California horsemen, [and] us commissioners, off guard,” Gonzales continued. “I had thought that there was a deal that [1/ST Racing had] put on the table, which was to extend racing [instead of closing at the end of 2023]. Then it appears as if this unexpected development, which is not a normal meet, but rather a [condition book that includes a] very drastic cut to the Northern California horsemen.”

Beyond the cuts themselves, Gonzales said he had issues with how horsemen found out about them.

“Process is everything,” Gonzales said. “And I just think that blatant disregard in terms of how it was communicated, if it wasn't for what appears to be a couple of news stories that were written, Northern California horsemen were just notified by the condition book. That's not how you do business. And I just feel that we have to remain vigilant when management comes before us, because I believe they are doing things that are detrimental to California racing.

“We have Arizona that's getting ready to reopen with higher purses,” Gonzales said, referring to Turf Paradise, which is slated to start racing Jan. 29 after a nine-month closure, and appears to be luring California stables out of state. “Meanwhile, we're cutting them. I just don't think that there's anybody paying very close attention about how we make sure we're retaining quality horses and quality horsemen.

“So I am concerned to say the least, and I cannot wait until we have representatives of that particular racetrack here before us, because I have a lot of questions for them,” Gonzales said.

Reached via phone after the CHRB meeting, Craig Fravel, the chief executive officer at 1/ST Racing, declined an opportunity to respond to Gonzales's comments.

But Fravel did want to make a statement about the Golden Gate purse cuts.

“I think it's just useful to point out that for the last year and a half, we have been in discussions with the TOC relating to reducing purses so that the actual purse liability is met from purses generated,” Fravel told TDN. “And they have been resistant to those purse cuts, so we have advanced sums well in advance of the actual purse liability to horsemen in Northern California. And I don't think it's unreasonable at all for us to try to recuperate them in accordance with what the actual statutory obligations are.”

At the CHRB meeting, when Gonzales asked the board's executive director, Scott Chaney, what power the board had to intervene, Chaney said the commission has few options beyond its obvious cudgel of compliance, which is control over the track's licensure.

“It's an interesting question. The purse structure is something that is decided on between the TOC owners' group [and] the particular racetrack,” Chaney said, explaining that purse agreements are basically predictions about handle revenue that can sometimes result in under- or over-payments.

When they occur, usually the tracks and horsemen agree to rectify the imbalance one way or another at the next scheduled race meet for that particular venue.

“So an overpayment or underpayment can be corrected over time,” Chaney said. But in this instance, because of the wrinkle with 1/ST Racing slated to shutter Golden Gate, “there's not another meet that Golden Gate's going to have to correct it. So I think in many ways this in uncharted territory,” he added.

“When Hollywood Park closed [10 years ago this month] it was a little bit different,” Chaney explained. Even though Hollywood was also shutting down after having overpaid the purse account, “Los Alamitos Race Course assumed a large part of that overpayment in exchange to take some of their racing dates. We don't have that same situation in Northern California. So needless to say, it's pretty difficult.”

Chaney added that “with respect to the CHRB's role, it's somewhat limited.”

Chaney pointed out that “TOC obviously has to develop their position. I think it's fair to say Northern California TOC members and Southern California TOC members probably view the purse cut differently. And so my understanding, at least, is that the TOC is not opposing the purse cut. So I think there's an internal dispute within the horsemen's group.

“The second piece is [that] part of the race meet agreement allows the tracks unilaterally to cut purses up to 25%. Beyond that, obviously there would have to be negotiation,” Chaney said.

“So I don't see a statutory, regulatory or legal role in settling this dispute,” Chaney said. “I would definitely say can use our 'influence' [with] both race-date allocation and licensure-granting. They are levers that the CHRB always has to kind of exact more fairness, if you will.”

During the meeting's public commentary section, the Pleasanton, California-based horse owner and breeder George Schmitt went into detail about the alleged dissension within TOC that Chaney had alluded to.

“The only group that are in the [TOC] bylaws that can negotiate for Northern California is [the TOC's] Northern California racing commission,” Schmitt said. “That committee voted unanimously not to accept the 25% reduction in purses. They were overruled by the management of the TOC.

“It is likely that there will be lawsuits filed unless they fix the problems that they have,” Schmitt continued. “A number of us in the north, at this point in time, believe that to take care of horse racing in the north, we need to establish a Northern California owners' organization [so as not to be] simply overridden by people in Southern California who could care less about what happens in the north.”

The post CHRB Vice-Chair: 1/ST Racing ‘Doing Things That Are Detrimental to California Racing’ appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights