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

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.

[Note: Read more on the Handal situation here.]

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

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

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

In March of 2021, Golden Gate was the site of an on-track protest against horse racing organized by Direct Action Everywhere (DXE), whose spokesperson Cassie King, said DXE was spurred to action by the deaths of three horses during a recent four-week period.

CHRB vice chairman Oscar Gonzales introduced a motion to grant Golden Gate a three-month license in order to review its safety policies, but that measure failed on a vote of 3-4. Instead, commissioner Dennis Alfieri suggested monitoring the track's safety record every 30 days, and a six-month license was approved on a vote of 4-3 (racing from Dec. 26 to June 14, 2022).

Gonzales, Wendy Mitchell, and Brenda Washington-Davis voted against the six-month license. Alfieri, Damascus Castellanos, Alex Solis, and chairman Dr. Greg Ferraro voted for it.

Ferraro said he had traveled to Golden Gate with executive director Scott Chaney and equine medical director Jeff Blea to talk about the injuries.

“We can't ignore these injury rates,” Ferraro said. “We're willing to work with them and try to improve the situation.”

At last December's meeting of the CHRB, the fatality rate at Los Alamitos (29 in a one-year period) came under scrutiny when preparing to grant that track's race dates for the year. Board members voted to grant the track a six-month license, instead of one year. In January 2021, after Los Al enacted a series of protocols to improve safety, the CHRB voted to restore a full-year license with enhanced scrutiny.

Read more at the Daily Racing Form.

The post ‘Can’t Ignore These Injury Rates’: CHRB Grants Golden Gate Six-Month License With Increased Monitoring appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

The state of California has seen a 50% decline in equine fatalities over the last two fiscal years, owing to steps taken by the industry to increase safety at the state's racetracks. In fiscal year 2018-2019, a total of 144 horses died from racing or training injuries or other causes while stabled at CHRB facilities. The number dropped to 72 in fiscal year 2020-2021.

According to information provided by the California Horse Racing Board, equine fatalities have been trending downward since 2005, but the last fiscal year marked the most significant improvement in a single year. Continuing the actions of previous Boards, which included establishing an entry review panel for Santa Anita at the direction of Governor Gavin Newsom, the current commissioners expanded the review panel program to all tracks to make certain that entered horses are fit to compete.

Over the last 19 months, CHRB Chairman Dr. Greg Ferraro, Vice Chairman Oscar Gonzales, and Commissioners Dennis Alfieri, Wendy Mitchell, and Alex Solis, later joined by Commissioners Damascus Castellanos and Brenda Davis, have taken more than 40 regulatory actions intended to either directly or indirectly protect horses, thereby reducing fatalities and protecting riders. Among the more significant actions, the commissioners:

• Adopted rules limiting the use of the riding crop, which at the time were the strictest rules in the nation, while enhancing penalties for violation of those rules.

• Required trainers to participate in a full postmortem examination review to make them aware of the nature of the injuries and to discuss ways to prevent such injuries in the future. This has helped lead to a culture change in the California horse racing industry whereby participants are placing a higher priority on the protection of horses.

• Allowed Official Veterinarians to require diagnostic imaging prior to removing horses from the restrictive Veterinarian's List and permitting them to train or compete.

• Prohibited or severely restricted the use of bisphosphonates, thyroxine, extracorporeal shockwave therapy, and intra-articular injections prior to workouts and racing.

• Took significant steps to make veterinary treatments transparent to authorities and in certain cases new owners.

The CHRB recently created the new position of Chief Official Veterinarian, naming Dr. Timothy Grande to oversee veterinarians, veterinary procedures and practices throughout the state. Dr. Jeff Blea was also appointed to the role of Equine Medical Director.

“I took this job a year-and-a-half ago because I recognized this Board's and the Administration's commitment to real, significant, long-term reform in the arena of animal welfare,” said CHRB Executive Director Scott Chaney. “It has been gratifying to be a part of this sea change in racing, and the results are undeniable. We clearly have more work to do, but with this reform-minded Board, dedicated staff, and committed stakeholders, the future is bright.”

The post Safety Initiatives Paying Off in California appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

That purse penalization had been proposed by the CHRB in March in an attempt to disincentivize riders from disregarding the number of times and manner in which a Thoroughbred can be struck with the whip, particularly if the jockey believed the reward of winning a multi-million-dollar stakes far outweighed the cost of incurring a comparatively smaller fine or suspension.

When the Guild and other stakeholders argued last month that going after purse money was too harsh, the CHRB voted 4-3 to table the measure and revise it. The new version that the board voted 6-0 on Apr. 21 essentially is the same proposal, except with the purse penalization removed from the new language of Rule 1688.

Left intact from last month's version was an amendment to change the maximum fine of $1,000 and a minimum suspension of three days to a minimum fine of $500, or, if determined by the stewards to be an egregious or intentional violation, a larger fine, a minimum suspension of three days, or both. That is the meat of the measure that now advances to California's mandatory 45-day public comment period before it will come back to the CHRB for a final vote.

Based on testimony delivered Wednesday by Shane Gusman, an attorney representing the Jockeys' Guild, the riders aren't likely to challenge the proposal before its expected adoption.

Gusman thanked the CHRB for addressing concerns that he aired on behalf of the Guild back in March. “We certainly appreciate the clear linking of the most egregious conduct with the significant, or higher, penalties, and the elimination of the 50% purse forfeiture provision,” he said. “Those were pretty large concerns of the folks in the Guild in California.”

Gusman did say that parts of the penalty scheme do “remain concerning,” including there now being no cap on the maximum fine. He said that creates a concern that “someone could get a fine that's out of whack” in relation to the infraction, and he asked the board to monitor the wide discretion that stewards will be given once the new version of the rule gets officially enacted.

Gregory Ferraro, DVM, the CHRB's chair, reminded Gusman that jockeys always have the avenue of appealing stewards' fines to the full board if they believe they're not fair, adding that, “I think your worries there are probably not significant.”

At the March meeting, CHRB Vice Chair Oscar Gonzales had said that “this rule is [about] making sure that the upcoming Breeders' Cup goes off [more] smoothly than anything else.” He articulated a concern that the combination of two days of Grade I stakes and too weak a penalty scheme would create “a wild west type of a situation” in which jockeys openly flouted the six-strike, underhand-only, no-more-than-two-hits-in succession rule in order to cash in on a lucrative and prestigious payday.

Scott Chaney, the CHRB's executive director, noted that it is standard for the stewards to hold daily briefings with visiting riders from other parts of the country and from overseas during the Breeders' Cup week, and that this year the stewards will be tasked with making sure no rider can say he or she wasn't aware of the whipping protocols and the penalties for violation.

“I think this protects the domestic rider,” Ferraro said with respect to the Breeders' Cup. “Our concern had been that riders, particularly from foreign countries, could violate the rule, and a $500 fine and three-day suspension would be meaningless to them. This allows for considerably more punishment for egregious violations and it's increasingly fair to our domestic rider colony.”

But the Breeders' Cup is only two days a year every several years in California. Chaney, a former steward, explained how the new proposed rule will also affect everyday riding.

“The idea is that it standardizes penalties throughout the state,” Chaney said. “Based on existing language, it appears that we have sort of a disparate application among boards of stewards. And so to be more fair to jockeys, particularly in Northern California, it would create a minimum fine. It also delineates the cases in which stewards would deviate from that fine” for any outlandish abuse of the whip.

CHRB commissioner Alex Solis, a retired Hall of Fame jockey who had spoken out against the version of the rule that was floated last month, was absent from Wednesday's meeting and thus did not cast a vote.

The post Revised CHRB Whip Penalties On Target For BC, Largely With Guild’s Blessing appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Dr. Gregory Ferraro, chairman of CHRB and a former equine veterinarian himself on the southern circuit, described Dr. Blea as “a nationally known and widely respected equine veterinarian” and said Blea “is recognized for his clear thinking and fairness in his decision making.”

Under contract arrangements between the CHRB and the School of Veterinary Medicine (SVM) at the University of California, Davis, the EMD serves as a member of its faculty. CHRB Executive Director Scott Chaney said the CHRB worked closely with UC Davis during the process, which was prolonged by the pandemic. A joint panel from UC Davis and the CHRB interviewed candidates and selected Dr. Blea.

“We value this partnership,” Chaney said. “We were fortunate to consider several well-qualified candidates. I am very pleased with the process and the choice. I look forward to working closely with Dr. Blea to make racing safer at this critical time.”

Dr. Blea brings 28 years of veterinary experience with him, and before that breifly rode as a jockey. He has served in leadership roles nationally with the American Association of Equine Practitioners and regionally with the Southern California Equine Foundation and was a director of the Dolly Green Research Foundation from 1999 to 2015.

“As Equine Medical Director, I look forward to working with industry stakeholders in further advancing the progressive transformation of horse racing in California with the emphasis on horse safety, welfare, and integrity,” Blea said.

“Dr. Blea is an excellent choice to become EMD. He has a broad background in horse racing and is well respected by his colleagues here in California and nationally,” added Arthur.

The post Jeff Blea Named CHRB’s Next Equine Medical Director appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

In the immediate aftermath of that controversial interim licensure in December, Los Al owner Ed Allred had threatened to close his track and develop the property for a purpose other than racing, which would also affect the afternoon Thoroughbred meets that Los Al hosts in June/July, September and December. Allred had cited concerns that Los Al could not compete with other national Quarter Horse venues under only a six-month license, because owners, trainers and the track's racing office all need to make plans for an entire year of racing.

Striking a much more conciliatory and cooperative tone than at the last meeting, Allred and other Los Al executives, in asking for a reconsideration, testified on Thursday that they now have a more comprehensive equine safety plan in place, including the recent hiring of three retired CHRB investigators to oversee improvements related to horse health.

Yet even as Los Al officials spoke of those beefed-up efforts to improve equine safety, the CHRB pressed track officials about two Thoroughbred training-related deaths that occurred at Los Al Jan. 17. One horse suffered a catastrophic leg fracture during a workout, and a filly that had just completed a workout and was about to be endoscoped in her stall by a veterinarian died suddenly. Both incidents are under CHRB investigation.

It's worth noting that back at the December meeting, an initial motion to grant a standard one-year license to Los Al failed after the board–which was short by one member because commissioner Alex Solis was not in attendance–deadlocked 3-3. A second motion to grant the one-year license conditional upon a mid-year safety review also came up tied 3-3. Faced with not granting any form of licensure to Los Al, the CHRB eventually settled 5-1 on the half-year license, with chairman Gregory Ferraro, DVM, the lone dissenter.

On Thursday, the CHRB took nearly three hours of testimony and public commentary on reconsidering the one-year license for Los Al. Prior to the vote, Ferraro reiterated his point from last month that granting only a half-year license made no sense considering the CHRB has the power to halt any California track's racing at any time over safety issues.

“What does a six-month license achieve, except animosity within the industry?” Ferraro asked rhetorically. “I don't see the need to limit the length of the license. Given the economic hardships resulting from the pandemic, why should the CHRB put at risk the financial viability of Los Alamitos and the Quarter Horse racing industry?”

Vice chair Oscar Gonzales, who had pushed hard for the six-month license last month, lauded Los Al Thursday for its renewed commitments to horse safety. But he said he still wasn't going to change his mind about wanting the track to be more closely watched because of its high number of equine fatalities.

“When I see an industry or a racetrack react in the way [Los Al] did by [giving] pushback on a one-year versus a six-month license, it makes me wonder what happens when the newly established federal regulatory powers take full effect,” Gonzalez said, alluding to the recently enacted Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act.

Gonzalez then told his fellow commissioners who support granting a one-year license that they should be aware that “this phase of engaging with Los Alamitos is a new one. And I don't want anyone to think for a minute that the powers that have been vested by the state of California in the CHRB, that [those standards] are going to be compromised in any way. In fact, [closer scrutiny] is just a start if we don't see immediate and quick improvements when it comes to horse safety and the welfare of workers at Los Alamitos.”

Commissioner Wendy Mitchell said she sided with Gonzalez in this sense.

“There are some serious credibility issues, from my perspective, with the [Los Al closure] threats that were made at the last meeting,” Mitchell said. “This is our job and our responsibility…. If we do something you don't like and then you threaten to shut down, that's not the way to work with a regulatory body. And that's not an appropriate response.”

With the full seven-member board voting on Thursday, there was no chance for another round of deadlocks.

Voting in favor of granting a full-year 2021 license to Los Al were commissioners Ferraro, Solis, Dennis Alfieri and commissioner Damascus Castellanos.

Voting against were commissioners Gonzalez, Mitchell, and Brenda Washington Davis.

In other CHRB business, the agenda for Thursday's meeting included an option for the board to convene a closed session to hear two separate requests to overturn and appeal a Dec. 9 stewards decision not to disqualify Justify and Hoppertunity based on their 2018 scopolamine positives. With the open portion of Thursday's CHRB meeting extending to nearly five hours, it was not immediately clear before deadline for this story if those matters were taken up in the executive session or what action might have resulted.

The post In CHRB Reversal, Los Al Gets Year-Long QH License appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Born in Berkeley and schooled in the east and at the University of California–Berkeley, Kelly entered the broadcasting business, founding Kelly Broadcasting Company and later founded and ran Summit Broadcasting Radio Company. He owned television stations in Seattle and Sacramento. He was also a successful banker, having founded River City Bank in the state capitol and was also a successful real estate executive.

A horse owner since the 1960s, Kelly has raced horses in England, Ireland and Australia in addition to the U.S. He most notably raced MGISW Borrego (El Prado {Ire}) with trainer Beau Greely and also had horses with Bob Baffert, Richard Mandella and Christophe Clement. Gingham (Quality Road), a horse raced by Sarah Kelly and Jane Wiltz, won the Angels Flight S. just last month at Santa Anita for Baffert. Kelly and his wife also campaigned Red Vine (Candy Ride {Arg}), a stakes winner and runner-up in the GI Breeders’ Cup Dirt Mile and GI Cigar Mile H., with Clement.

Kelly also maintained racing stables in Australia with Gai Waterhouse and in Ireland with Jessie Harrington. Sarah Kelly’s Cayenne Pepper (Ire) (Australia {GB}) was runner-up in the G1 Irish Oaks July 18. Kelly, in conjunction with Reg Inglis and Paul Frampton, signed for an A$2-million son of I Am Invincible (Aus) top the 2018 Magic Millions Gold Coast Yearling Sale in Queensland, Australia.

“He was quite a guy,” said Dr. Greg Ferraro, chairman of the California Horse Racing Board and a longtime Kelly friend. “He could make anyone laugh. He always lifted your spirits.”

Ferraro told of business associates Kelly had worked with 30 and 40 years ago writing him letters recently sending thanks for his council and guidance and how it had shaped their careers and lives. He spoke personally of Kelly sending him to a Louisville hospital for a life-saving operation, then make a huge donation to the hospital in Ferraro’s name.

“He didn’t make it in his name, which he should have,” said Ferraro, “but that was John. He did so many good things for so many people and he never bragged or looked for credit. He just was a good person who did good things. He was special.”

Kelly is survived by his wife and six children, as well as many grandchildren.

Those wishing to make a donation in his name are encouraged to do so at two of his favorite projects–the Center for Equine Health at the UC Davis School for Veterinary Medicine or the Gregson Foundation, which services backstretch workers and their families.

At his request, there will be no services.

The post Prominent Owner, Successful Businessman Jon Kelly Dies appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post