Northern California race dates | 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

1/ST Racing Says It May Sell Or Close Santa Anita

1/ST Racing, the owners of Santa Anita, have threatened to close or sell the “Great Race Place,” making the threats on the eve of a critical meeting of the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) in which the future of racing in the northern half of the state will be decided. Santa Anita has been calling for racing to shut down in the North, which, it believes, will help strengthen racing at Santa Anita and the other Southern California tracks.

The story was first reported by John Cherwa in the Los Angeles Times.

With 1/ST set to close Golden Gate Fields on June 9, the future of Northern California racing is very much up in the air. Hoping to save racing in that part of the state, Pleasanton, a fair track, will ask the CHRB to approve a 10-week meeting that would run from Oct. 19 to Dec. 15.

If those dates are approved, it may complicate Santa Anita's efforts to reallocate revenue from simulcasting that is currently split between the northern and southern tracks. 1/ST is backing legislation that would reallocate simulcast money from Northern California to Southern California in the event that racing ceases to exist in the northern portion of the state. Santa Anita believes it needs the extra simulcast money to make racing viable in its part of the state.

Additionally, Santa Anita is hoping that with Golden Gate shutting down, many horsemen from that area will relocate to Santa Anita. If that happens, Santa Anita management believes it can add a fourth day to its weekly racing schedule and will be able to card races with bigger fields.

On Tuesday, Craig Fravel, the executive vice-chairman of 1/ST Racing and Gaming, sent a three-page letter to the CHRB, urging the Board not allocate the extra dates being sought by tracks that are members of the California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF).

Fravel contended that if racing is approved at the CARF tracks “an analysis of alternatives for Santa Anita and San Luis Rey (training center) will be undertaken in short order. As noted, the current financial model and required capital expense make no sense and the consolidation of operations as discussed last year and at the January Board meeting is the only alternative that has been presented.”

Fravel also wrote that over the last five years Santa Anita has incurred operating losses in excess of $31 million while investing over $32 million in capital projects.

“The current model is simply unsustainable,” Fravel wrote.

Fravel also contended that the proposals being floated by the CARF tracks “is lacking in so much detail that it is difficult to understand what has been done over the last eight months and even more difficult to understand how the Board can be asked to put the entire thoroughbred industry in the state at risk by allocating dates on the basis of speculation.”

Fravel also said that allocating dates to the CARF tracks will lead to immediate purse cuts at Santa Anita and planned capital projects will be re-evaluated.

The post 1/ST Racing Says It May Sell Or Close Santa Anita appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Vocal Two-Circuit Supporters in Cali Come Out Firing in First of Many Expected North/South Skirmishes

The precarious, up-in-the-air future of California racing and whether or not the state can continue to support two geographic year-round circuits was made no clearer after Thursday's California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) meeting. The 3 1/2-hour session was dominated by discussion of competing North-versus-South plans that both tried to carve a sustainable path forward while underscoring the dire circumstances that face the industry with the June 9 closure of Golden Gate Fields looming like an unavoidable asteroid.

Although the CHRB concluded the meeting–which featured testimony that was at times emotional, hopeful, angry, and even ominous–without taking any voting action on the situation, proponents behind ideas that would turn one of the NorCal fairs locations into a venue capable of hosting nearly year-round Thoroughbred racing had a decided edge in turnout and vocal support.

In part, that's because those NorCal-based supporters enjoyed a home-track advantage, because the Jan. 18 CHRB meeting was held at Cal Expo in Sacramento, the preferred location for a year-round venue as outlined in a presentation by the California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF).

But the locale wasn't the only factor, as much of the back-and-forth debate also came across as a referendum about larger racing entities allegedly trying to trump smaller ones, whether or not 1/ST Racing and Gaming–which owns both Golden Gate and Santa Anita Park–will be good for the state in the long run, and whether or not the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) organization speaks for all the stakeholders in the state or just the higher-end stables based in SoCal.

Yet it was telling that no fewer than 26 industry stakeholders spoke before the board on this wide-ranging, controversial North/South topic during the public commentary period, and not a single one voiced support for an alternate plan proposed by TOC in conjunction with executives from Santa Anita Park and Del Mar Thoroughbred Club.

That TOC-backed concept would consolidate all commercial-track racing in the state at SoCal. The goal would be to maintain level purses there under a simulcast revenue “redirect” plan that would also try to accommodate displaced Golden Gate outfits by creating more opportunities for lower-level horses to race at Los Alamitos Race Course, dropping the “claiming floors” at both Santa Anita and Del Mar, and establishing “relocation allowances” for stables that had to pack up and move.

The TOC's takeaway message was that even though it is in support of any “feasible and viable” plan to keep year-round racing afloat in NorCal, a danger exists in the form of increasing economic pressures in the South that, in turn, could contribute to millions of dollars in purse overpayments at Santa Anita and Del Mar that would likely erode the overall California product.

“With the closing of Golden Gate, can we continue to support two full-time circuits? This is a fair question,” said Bill Nader, the TOC's president and chief executive officer.

“We are running out of time,” Nader continued. “If there is agreement on one point, I think it would be that the latest possible decision on the allocation of 2024-25 race dates would be at the CHRB meeting in March. This would help re-establish stability and certainty for the many who are looking for answers.”

Nader's tone was largely somber and straightforward as he discussed the TOC's rationale with executives from 1/ST Racing and Del Mar presenting alongside. But at times his comments were met with derision and catcalls from opponents, who greatly outnumbered the supporters of the TOC's plan.

Many of those same folks also cheered and applauded any mentions of trying to save year-round NorCal racing.

At one point, CHRB chairman Gregory Ferraro, DVM, asked audience members to respect decorum so that the outbursts wouldn't bog down the meeting. But his request to “stop the clapping and the booing” went largely unheeded.

Larry Swartzlander, the executive director for CARF, detailed his organization's work-in-progress plan to install a seven-furlong track inside the current main mile oval at Cal Expo, which for years has largely hosted Standardbred racing outside of the short season that the Thoroughbred fair races in Sacramento.

Swartzlander said Cal Expo would likely race 103 Thoroughbred dates in the future (on the outer oval), with cards scheduled roughly twice weekly when the other NorCal fairs weren't in season.

“We are looking at funding from horsemen, CARF, and potential grants,” Swartzlander said, admitting that his plan is just in its initial stages because horsemen in California have only known since July about 1/ST Racing's plan to close Golden Gate.

As a result, Swartzlander was light on specifics such as firm costs and a timeline.

Swartzlander said next up is a Jan. 26 meeting with the Cal Expo board of directors seeking conceptual approval.

“If the board does decline to approve racing at Cal Expo, we will move to Pleasanton,” as a potential year-round NorCal racing home, Swartzlander said. “The Pleasanton board is very strongly in support of racing, and if I have to make one commitment to you, Pleasanton will race.”

When CHRB executive director Scott Chaney pressed Swartzlander for cost details, Swartzlander gave an estimate for state-owned Cal Expo's overhaul in the $1- to 1.5-million range.

Chaney expressed surprise at such a low figure.

“I'm not going to lie. I think you're very low,” Chaney said.

“One of the things that concerns all of us is uncertainty right now,” Chaney said. “We're, I'm sure, bleeding horses every day because there's no clear plan. We don't know what we're doing in the future [and] I am concerned about timeline and cost at Cal Expo. I just think it's unrealistic. I know it's unrealistic, to be honest.”

Commissioner Wendy Mitchell said she appreciated CARF's efforts at coming up with a plan, but also expressed doubts.

“I don't see how any of this lines up,” Mitchell said. “And I guess my concern from a regulatory or from the industry perspective is I don't want to create false expectations for people that are really unattainable…. I don't mean to be negative or a doubter, but I'm trying to be realistic and pragmatic about what the industry is facing.”

Commissioner Damascus Castellanos said that the time crunch and uncertainty was caused by 1/ST Racing, not CARF.

“The industry was kind of slow to get going on this whole thing,” Castellanos said. “We would be so further along if [1/ST Racing] came to us with proper notice [and] the groups in this room today probably could have gotten together and been done with this plan.”

Ian McLean, an owner and breeder, said during the public commentary session that the CHRB itself is partly to blame.

“If I'm not mistaken, this board works for us. We don't work for you,” McLean said. “The one thing that I've asked this board for years and years is to give us more attention in NorCal. Give us more time. Make us more important. Listen to what we have to say, and make us feel like we matter. And I don't think that's been done.”

McLean said the CHRB's response to CARF's proposal is too focused on negativity and “looking for the holes” in the plan.

“And I agree that you should look for the holes,” McLean continued. “But you should also look for 'How could we patch those holes?'”

Jamey Thomas, a third-generation NorCal trainer, advocated for the CHRB taking a slower approach.

“CARF needs time to get all this situated and done,” Thomas said. “It's kind of been a rush job. They're rushing us, forcing us, to get this stuff done faster than it can be done. Again, if they had let us know a year ago, by now everything could have been in place, we would have had a place to run. And we will have a place to run. The thing is, we just need the time.”

Tom Bachman, who said he's been breeding and selling Thoroughbreds in California for 40 years, underscored that the state's bloodstock industry works on a different timeline.

“My concern as a breeder is that the decisions I make today, the results are three or four years away when I've got to sell,” said Bachman. “So it's very difficult to have faith that three or four years from now there's sustainable racing in California. So my breeding now has moved to Kentucky.”

Johnny Taboada, who was a TOC director until last Sunday, when he was one of three directors to resign in protest over the TOC's proposed statewide consolidation, told the CHRB that the NorCal fairs are in jeopardy without a year-round track in the region.

“If you rush into the decision without giving the chance for the NorCal [entities to come up with an plan for a] circuit, you're going to not only put people out of work, you're going to be closing the fairs as well,” Taboada said. “If we don't have the dates assigned to the North and therefore the money goes to the South, that will be the end of not only NorCal racing, but also the fairs.”

CHRB chairman Ferraro wrapped up the session by saying that this is only the first major discussion on an enormously important topic.

“We needed your information. We need your input,” Ferraro said. “I'm telling you, it's not easy sitting in this chair looking at this situation. It is almost a no-win situation for this board. We're going to do the best we can to do right by everybody. But obviously, we have no decision-making [Thursday], so we will have to end this meeting without a decision, and we'll see what happens over the next couple of months.”

The post Vocal Two-Circuit Supporters in Cali Come Out Firing in First of Many Expected North/South Skirmishes appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

CHRB Sets ’24 NorCal Schedule, but GGF’s Closure Remains ‘Elephant in the Room’

The California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) on Thursday approved a calendar that fleshed out the Northern California racing schedule through mid-September 2024. But the initiative still left race-date gaps late in the year that must be addressed both for next season and the future as stakeholders and regulators attempt to realign the circuit in the wake of news that Golden Gate Fields will not be part of the racing landscape beyond next June.

Back on July 16, 1/ST Racing, which owns both Santa Anita Park and Golden Gate Fields, announced that Golden Gate would cease racing at the end of 2023. That timetable was later revamped by 1/ST Racing, which earlier this month announced that it would keep NorCal's last remaining commercial track open through mid-June of 2024 in an effort to provide stability for a circuit that will soon have to rely on extended fairs racing to remain viable.

Prior to the CHRB's 7-0 vote on Sept. 21 to approve 2024 dates for the work-in-progress circuit, Scott Chaney, the board's executive director, explained that even though a measure of short-term certainty would be achieved, at some near-future point everyone involved in the process would have to deal with the “elephant in the room” that will arrive in the form of Golden Gate not opening on Sept. 11, 2024, for its traditional autumn meet.

Chaney outlined two likely post-Golden Gate scenarios: That entities wanting to conduct new race meets will “find a home for dates and make more of a year-round racing calendar,” or the NorCal circuit will morph into “a really great fair season each summer, and [then try] to take care of those horses that might not have a place to run in Southern California” while NorCal racing goes dark, perhaps for months at a time.

“So I think that's what's facing the industry going forward,” Chaney said. “We've kind of kicked the can down the road a little bit, and I really appreciate [the six-month Golden Gate extension]. But the hard decisions, we've really just forestalled them for a few more months.”

Chaney also underscored that any entity wishing to fill the NorCal dates void would be advised to get its act together sooner rather than later, “because we have humans and horses that we have to think about come the end of fair racing next year.”

Chaney read into the record the schedule the commissioners approved. At least for right now, it will look like this for 2023-24:

“Golden Gate Fields from late December through June; followed by the normal four weeks of Alameda County Fair; followed by the normal three weeks at Cal Expo; followed by Santa Rosa, who is requesting and is interested in an additional third week, and then followed by Ferndale, who also is interested in a third week,” Chaney said.

“So that takes us through Sept. 10,” Chaney said. “The one remaining fair would be Fresno, and they are requesting the first two weeks of October. So that leaves the last few weeks of September, and then mid-October through December, unallocated.”

Larry Swartzlander, the executive director of California Authority of Racing Fairs, told the board prior to the vote that, “We would like to see the dates awarded for the fall period, but at this point we don't have a definite location.”

CHRB vice chair Oscar Gonzales tried to strike a positive tone by pointing out that while not perfect, the NorCal situation is not as bleak as it looked two months ago when the bombshell Golden Gate news first dropped.

“We definitely want to reassure Northern California horsemen, breeders and owners in particular, that racing will continue; that this board is going to do everything that we can,” Gonzales said, alluding to the work that still needs to be done.

Bill Nader, the president and chief executive officer of the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), pledged his organization's support for NorCal, and he said the TOC recognized the important role the circuit plays in the state's overall racing.

But Nader did express concern about a third week of racing at Ferndale, which he said averaged only 5.12 starters per race over two weeks this summer.

“So to stretch it to three weeks, from the TOC point of view…I just think it might be one step too far,” Nader said, adding that keeping the Ferndale meet at two weeks, at least for now, “would make better sense.”

Swartzlander defended Ferndale based on its small-track aesthetics trumping the low number of starters.

“When you talk about the number of horses, last year we had 5.02, which was less than we had this year,” Swartzlander said. “Every year Ferndale is basically in that category. You know, I can't applaud it or say negatively against it. It is what it is. And if you've been up there–great fans; have a good time–it's just a good atmosphere. And I believe with the third week, and also you change the playing field in Northern California, [we] expect to have better support.”

Gonzales pointed out that by allocating dates on Thursday, the CHRB wasn't outright approving a three-week license for Ferndale. That decision to grant actual licensure will happen closer to the race meet's start, which is standard procedure for the CHRB. Gonzales said if veterinarians and other CHRB staffers at that time present evidence that three weeks at Ferndale would be too much of a strain or a stress on horses, the board will address the issue.

The post CHRB Sets ’24 NorCal Schedule, but GGF’s Closure Remains ‘Elephant in the Room’ appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post