Greg Ferraro | Horse Racing Free Tips

CARF Issues Statement After 1/ST Ultimatum on NorCal Racing Dates

Ahead of a critical California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) meeting Thursday to decide essentially whether or not to give Northern California stakeholders a fighting chance to build a circuit in the void left by the imminent closure of Golden Gate Fields, 1/ST Racing and Gaming set out their stall Tuesday in a letter to the regulator urging them to decline race dates to the North.

In a proposal to the state regulator, the California Association of Racing Fairs (CARF) outlined a 10-week meeting this year that would run from Oct. 19 to Dec. 15 at Pleasanton.

If the CHRB affords those dates to the north, 1/ST Racing and Gaming executive vice-chairman, Craig Fravel, warned of several consequences, including purse cuts at Santa Anita, reevaluation of planned investment projects at Santa Anita, and the “analysis of alternate uses” for Santa Anita and San Luis Rey.

“While this is understandably disconcerting to owners, trainers, and workers in the North the ultimate survival of the full ecosystem is at risk,” wrote Fravel.

On Wednesday, CARF issued a statement saying that while they did not have a great deal of time to put a plan together, “we did have an incredible depth of experience.”

“We brought together the best and the brightest of our sport. Our commitment was to develop a horse racing plan that is modern, enhances the economic and social health of the community, is safe for the horses and jockeys, fun for our fans and generates excitement in Northern California,” wrote Larry Swartzlander, CARF executive director, justifying the North's plan in several bullet points, including how “Alameda provides a financially sound location.”

“We anticipate more dynamic racing fields–higher purses and betting opportunities that enhance the fun,” wrote Swartzlander. “At the same time, we have adhered closely to ideas offered by experts as we continue focusing on the health of our horses and jockeys.”

In Tuesday's letter to the CHRB, Fravel questioned one of the potential logistical hurdles standing in the way of CARF's proposal: A golf course that operates on the Pleasanton infield.

“There is clearly a contractual issue with the golf operator that is not disclosed in the materials and extremely vague language regarding protocols that will be implemented,” wrote Fravel.

In a prior letter to CHRB chair, Greg Ferraro, members of the California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT) and the Jockey's Guild urged the board to support year-round racing in the North, arguing that issues with the infield golf course had already been addressed.

“Active play and access to the golf course will continue to be strictly prohibited during racing hours as has been done in the past,” the letter states.

“Horse racing and the golf course are both important to the community. It does no good to permanently close the golf course only to anger the community. Horse, rider, and personnel safety remains the single greatest priority; however, we firmly believe both can coexist–as has been successfully done for over 40 years,” the letter adds.

“Nets surrounding the golf course provide cover, and since they have been put in place, there have been no accidents. In addition, Alameda County Fair will actively manage and limit play and course activities during training to areas of the course that pose little risk to balls being hit on to the track. For example, these managed activities will include supervised youth programs like the First Tee,” the letter states.

In a brief call Wednesday with owner-breeder Justin Oldfield–part of a working group geared around cultivating the plan–he said that CARF has put forward a proposal that meets all the CHRB's required conditions.

“Tomorrow, it's absolutely imperative that the CHRB weigh in and award us dates based on the merits of that plan,” he said.

“We have a lawful and tested racing association that's going to manage the meet. We have financing that's been put up as seed money that shows the strength of the 13 member fairs within CARF,” said Oldfield.

“People want to stay here,” Oldfield added. “There are families. Businesses. There's an agricultural component to this. Three-quarters of the horses in the North are Cal-Bred. Look, those horses aren't going to go south.”

Outspoken owner-breeder Tom Bachman said Wednesday that 1/ST's letter to the CHRB comes after too many cuts to the industry by the company and too little investment.

“They should be trying to make the pie bigger rather than trying to take a bigger piece of a shrinking pie,” said Bachman. “They do the opposite of what they should be doing.”

As for potential purse cuts at Santa Anita, earlier this week the California Thoroughbred Breeders Association (CTBA) announced how purse bonuses paid to California-breds that win maiden races would be sliced when Santa Anita's spring meet begins on Apr. 19, as first reported by the DRF.

The bonuses–which are being cut from $17,500 to $15,000–are paid to maiden winners in open company or state-bred races at races at 4 1/2 furlongs or more.

The post CARF Issues Statement After 1/ST Ultimatum on NorCal Racing Dates appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read part one of the interview here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Santa Anita | Benoit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source of original post

Greg Ferraro Q&A: Northern California Racing ‘Necessary’ For Racing’s Viability

Sunday's news that The Stronach Group (TSG) will close its flagship Northern California racetrack, Golden Gate Fields, at the end of the year has ripped through the state racing industry like a cannon shot.

It has left owners, breeders, trainers, grooms and a whole multitude of individuals whose livelihoods hinge around the sport scrambling for answers as they attempt to plot their futures in a vacuum of hard facts.

Instrumental in this confusion is the glaring dearth of public information coming out of TSG. Every day this week, the TDN has submitted a series of basic questions about the company's decision to sell Golden Gate Fields and its short- and long-term plans in California.

TSG has responded only once, on Monday, pointing to its Sunday statement–a statement scant on detail.

Seeking clarification therefore on the reasons behind, and ramifications from, Sunday's news, TDN spoke with Greg Ferraro, the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) chairman.

Ferraro didn't just speak about Golden Gate Fields, but also shared his thoughts and concerns surrounding the ongoing rollout of the Horseracing and Integrity Act's anti-doping and medication control program (ADMC).

The HISA-related portion of this interview will be published in part two in Saturday's TDN.

The following has been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

TDN: When did you first know that TSG was selling Golden Gate?

GF: The staff at CHRB heard about it last Friday. Somebody from the agency called with some questions about Golden Gate. [CHRB] staff said, 'well, why are you asking these questions?' And they said, 'Well, the state was in negotiations to make a deal on Golden Gate.'

Then we called The Stronach Group executives and said, 'Do you know what's going on?' They said, 'Yes, Golden Gate is going to be sold,' and asked us to keep it confidential until Monday when they intended to make an announcement. But obviously, it leaked and came out on Sunday.

TDN: Which state agency contacted the CHRB?

The California Business, Consumer Services and Housing Agency. [It presides] over several boards including Parks and Recreation and Natural Resources. We're one of them as well.

TDN: Is the end date for Golden Gate of December 2023 set in stone?

From what my sources told me yesterday, yes, that's set in stone. Any idea of extending dates beyond [Dec.] 18th is a no go.

TDN: Do you know what the motivating factors were in the decision?

No, I don't. Probably the ability to make a deal with the state. Developers have never been interested in the Golden Gate property because of the height limit [on developments]. You can't develop it to make any money.

TDN: Is that what it's going to be used for, a park?

It's not final yet, but I know that's what the negotiations are about.

TDN: Do you think that proposed Berkeley City Council ordinance had any sway in the decision?

I don't think so. Golden Gate has fought those battles before, and I think they would have fought it again.

TDN: What do you make of TSG's argument that this consolidation will reinvigorate racing at Santa Anita?

They claim that they're going to make capital investments in San Luis Rey and Santa Anita to improve racing and make up for the difference of the loss of training facilities in Northern California. I don't know how that's going to work. We'll have to wait and see what they propose.

TDN: Do you know what those capital improvements are?

No, I don't. They haven't detailed anything yet. I assume by our board meeting in August [16th] they'll have some kind of a proposal.

TDN: You haven't seen any detailed TSG proposal yet?

No, I haven't.

TDN: Does it concern you that they'd make such a momentous decision without simultaneously sharing with the public their vision for the future?

It could have been presented a little better, let's just say.

TDN: Are you worried that they don't have a detailed plan?

I'm worried that the proposal is not going to satisfy the needs of the Northern California horseman.

TDN: What do you make of CARF's proposal for Cal Expo to become a hub of racing in the north?

It's an interesting proposal. They're talking about Pleasanton, Santa Rosa and Cal Expo, with the idea that they could race maybe up to 10 months and have their headquarters at Cal Expo.

The problem is the harness [racing industry] has a 10-year contract for training at Cal Expo. So, I don't know where harness racing would go or how you would get around that. But I think it's worth looking at. It's something California horsemen and the breeders are certainly interested in.

TDN: How important is maintaining a substantial racing presence in Northern California for the future of California racing, in your opinion?

It's vitally important. If you just take a look at the foals bred in California, 35% of them race at Golden Gate Fields. That's a substantial number of horses. The thought of moving all these horses to southern California, there's only 20% of them that are suitable for down here. So, what are you going to do with the rest of the horses?

I think some sort of Northern California [circuit], or if it's not Northern California alternate track somewhere, would be necessary for the viability of racing.

TDN: If TSG's vision goes ahead and you see those horses from up north come down south to consolidate racing down there, could that facilitate the collapse of the breeding industry in California, which already isn't terribly healthy?

That's what the breeders are worried about. Yes.

TDN: Are you worried about it as well?

Fifty percent of the horses that race at Santa Anita are California-breds, and that's only 20% of the foal crop.

TDN: It sounds as though then you're leaning towards the CARF proposal.

I think it's interesting. I wouldn't say I'm leaning towards anything at this point. Myself and the rest of the board, we feel it's up to the industry to really solve this problem. We can't do it. The board can't do it. We can assist. We can approve any proposals that look interesting.

But I think at this point, the board would sit back and wait and see what the industry comes up with, what alternate plans they have, and then we can help guide or participate with the industry to solve the problem.

CARF's proposal is interesting. We haven't seen yet what The Stronach Group's proposal is. And maybe there are alternate proposals. Everything's happened so fast that we really haven't had time to dig into what the proper solution would be.

TDN: TSG has been quiet since the announcement, at least publicly. Could the CHRB hold an emergency meeting before Aug. 16 to force the company to divulge information that stakeholders need?

It's something we would consider, but there's no sense holding the emergency meeting if there's no information to come forward at that meeting. So, right now we're looking at different groups to see if they have their proposals consolidated enough to give us a chance to look at it.

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

TDN: If indeed TSG doesn't have a solid plan, given how integral they are to the future of California racing, do you have concerns about their approach to conducting their business?

Of course. Yes.

The other issue is the money. Betting in Northern California, the money stays in Northern California. In Southern California, the betting stays in Southern California. But The Stronach Group is looking at these capital expenditures. They're going to request part of the Northern California money, and I'm sure that the other groups like CARF and perhaps the breeders are going be opposed to that. So, the real fight may be over where the funds go.

TDN: Speaking of capital expenditures, I think a key thing for many trainers, and certainly the stable staff and the grooms, are the backstretch living conditions at Santa Anita. If indeed TSG succeeds in its plans, could a rehaul of the Santa Anita backstretch be a condition of their license?

Absolutely. It would be.

We're always concerned about the welfare of the backstretch workers given Santa Anita as it stands now. They couldn't absorb any more backstretch workers in those facilities. And so, something would have to be done.

The welfare of the backstretch workers is a primary concern for the board. As it is, where are those people going to go after Dec. 18th? I mean, the week before Christmas, they're out of work, you know? And, and so, that's quite a concern for us as to what's going to happen to those people.

TDN: What do you see when you plot California racing's future–especially a likely future without Los Alamitos. And what role could and should the CHRB play in shoring things up?

It's a concern to us. I mean, Los Alamitos is probably short-lived. If something happened to Doc. [Dr. Ed] Allred, I think that would be the end of Los Alamitos. That leads to Santa Anita and Del Mar. And given the value of Santa Anita's property and The Stronach Group's performance so far, you wonder how long Santa Anita could survive.

So yes, the CHRB is quite concerned about the continued viability of California racing. It's mostly in the hands of the industry. But we're certainly going to take any steps we can to help the industry survive and be healthy.

The post Greg Ferraro Q&A: Northern California Racing ‘Necessary’ For Racing’s Viability appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

CHRB Advances 90-Day Layoff Scrutiny Rules

With the aim of reducing the incidence of large-bone fractures, the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) voted unanimously Thursday to advance two new rules that would require examinations and veterinary and training record disclosures for every horse that has not had a recorded work or a race within the past 90 days.

Citing the “concerning rate” of large-bone fractures in horses returning to training after extended periods, the CHRB meeting packet stated that, “An initial examination will be required by both a regulatory veterinarian and the attending veterinarian, including review of veterinary and training records for the previous 60-day period, prior to the horse going to the track to train.

“Additionally, a follow up examination will be required between 30 and 45 days. The goal is to provide a baseline examination and identify any at-risk factors that may predispose a horse from suffering a catastrophic injury related to the shins, tibias, shoulder, pelvis, etc…”

Also, amendments were advanced to clarify existing CHRB rules regarding the specific requirements of racing soundness examinations, including the condition of the horse when presented for examination, who must be present, and how the examination information will be recorded.

“These clarifications also establish consistent requirements for both racing soundness and training soundness examinations,” the CHRB analysis stated. “Additionally, requirements for veterinary treatment records are clarified, including the timeframe for trainers to submit records and the official veterinarian's responsibility to maintain the records.”

CHRB chairman Gregory Ferraro, DVM, said prior to the vote that the new regulations are “directed at long bone fractures of the shoulder and tibia. Horses that come to these injuries have a typical profile that we've identified. This particular regulation would address that profile and require examinations at specific times in order to prevent serious injury.”

The proposed rules now advance to a 45-day public comment period, which will be followed by a final CHRB vote.

The post CHRB Advances 90-Day Layoff Scrutiny Rules appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post