CAW players constitute a small group of mostly anonymous, high-volume gamblers with an outsized impact on the betting markets–including in California–due to their use of sophisticated wagering technologies and the inducements offered to them in the form of attractive rates and rebates not available to the average punter.

At the time, CAW play was the main source of handle growth in California, which by extension “is contributing the lowest percentage for purses” and thereby presenting “a serious, long-term concern for California and its horsemen,” wrote Cummings.

Cummings's detailed study appears prescient. Since then, several reports have illustrated the extent of California's purse account woes.

To explain the recent 25% purse cuts at Golden Gate Fields, the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) said the track's purse account was over $3 million in the red. Purse cuts at Santa Anita stem from a near $4-million purse account overpayment. During the January California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) meeting, it was explained that Del Mar's purse account was overpaid by $2.1 million.

Pat Cummings | The Jockey Club

A complicated set of factors determine purse revenues. Field sizes, for example, are arguably the biggest architects of how much is wagered on an individual race. But CAW play has grown exponentially as a percentage of overall handle in recent years, giving it a key role in the sport's future in California. Why?

Unlike other states where purses are supplemented from alternative gaming like slot machines and casinos, California is reliant solely on betting to generate purse revenues. In other words, California more than any other major jurisdiction needs to thoughtfully manage its betting revenues–including from CAW–if it's to remain a healthy enterprise long into the future.

The problem with CAW–like so many aspects of the sport–is that it has long been shrouded in ambiguity.

To help peel back this opaque curtain, the TDN sought answers to some basic questions about how leaders in the Golden State manage such an influential part of the industry:

What CAW-related information is shared between whom? What oversight mechanisms are in place? If the state's horsemen and women feel they aren't getting a fair deal, can they leverage what they see as a better one? And where do state regulators fit into the scheme?

What is CAW?

In short, CAW players–frequently registered in offshore tax havens–use sophisticated digital tools and teams of staff to spot exploitable deficiencies in the betting pools, and to scour reams of betting and past performance data to identify winning opportunities at high rates of success.

Even individually, they can bet huge. Indeed, last year the Financial Times estimated that just two individual CAW players each wager “on the order of $1bn a year” on State-side racing alone.

In the U.S., CAW players largely wager through a handful of CAW agents' betting platforms, which in many ways act as glorified ADWs.

The biggest in terms of handle is the Elite Turf Club, majority owned by The Stronach Group (TSG), which also owns the Santa Anita and Golden Gate Fields racetracks in California. The New York Racing Association (NYRA) also owns a portion of Elite Turf Club.

Other key CAW platforms include Racing and Gaming Services (RGS), and Velocity, owned by Churchill Downs.

The bettors who aren't privy to the same rates and rebates as these deep-pocketed gamblers (more on this in a bit) argue that CAW players are driving the average gamblers away from the sport in droves, to the point where it's killing the betting markets and hurting purse revenues. Indeed, if CAW players become too big a percentage of the pools, their impacts become magnified and they essentially “cannibalize” the markets.

TOC president Bill Nader has pinned this tipping point at about 25% of the betting pools. Cummings's June 2023 report found that back then, CAW play in California often surpassed that benchmark.

CAW proponents counter that these well-capitalized gamblers provide vital liquidity and efficiency to the betting pools. Without them, these proponents argue, the sport would be significantly poorer, and that by sheer volume of play, they help prop-up purse accounts.

Indeed, the loss of just one major CAW player could hit a track's handle hard. This also means, however, that the biggest individual CAW players have historically been able to wield no inconsiderable leverage to negotiate their terms of play.

 What Portion of CAW Play Goes to Purses?

To understand what part of the betting dollar goes to purses, there are two terms of note: Host fees and Takeout rates.

“Takeout” is the percentage sliced out of every dollar wagered. This pie is divvied up various ways, including a portion funneled into the purse account. Bets wagered on-track direct the largest slice back into the purse account. Bets wagered through ADW and CAW platforms direct the smallest amounts.

Takeout varies on several things like the host track state and bet type. But takeout is determined by track management and regulators and is non-negotiable. A general rule of thumb is an average 20% blended takeout rate across the different pools.

For CAW play, when the term “rates” are mentioned, what is meant are host fees, and these are negotiable.

Host fees are what any wagering outlet pays to track operators for the contractual right to import a simulcast signal. A wagering outlet could be another racetrack, an ADW platform (like FanDuel) or a CAW platform (like Elite Turf Club).

   TDN spoke with several track and industry executives about the state of CAW play today. These experts said that CAW host fees for the premium tracks typically vary between 6% and 8%.

After breeders' premiums and other minor deductions have been removed, host fees are roughly split 50/50 between the track and the purse account in California.

Therefore, if Santa Anita beamed its signal to a location at a host fee rate of 6%, roughly 3% of the total amount handled on that signal at that location will flow back into Santa Anita's purse account.

Primary Oversight of Agreements

Before the beginning of each meet in California, the tracks present the TOC with a list of individual host fees charged to each location that receives its simulcast signal. For that track's meet to go ahead, the TOC must first sign this document, said Scott Daruty, president of both TSG's Monarch Content Management and of the Elite Turf Club.

“Before the Santa Anita meet opens, we give them a list of every location and price that Santa Anita is sold for,” said Daruty. “They [the TOC] either approve it or they don't.”

The list includes host fees the track charges CAW betting platforms. If the host fee of an individual CAW player deviates from that afforded an overall CAW platform, that too would have to be divulged, said Daruty.

“If there was an individual deal [between a single CAW player and the track], that would have to be disclosed to the TOC,” said Daruty.

Scott Daruty | Horsephotos

TOC president Bill Nader said that he has signed all such agreements since joining the organization in October of 2022.

Nader said he was unable to disclose what the host fees that CAW players receive. All host fees are private (not just for CAW players). But Nader described the negotiation of these fees as a “moving target as to how you get this right and how you get it right across all customer segments.”

Where Do Rebates Come From?

The way Nader and other experts explain it, the amount CAW players are “rebated” can be broadly calculated with this simple equation:

Rebate = Takeout minus Host Fee (plus any other associated minor fees). The smaller the host fee, typically the bigger the rebate.

Let's use the 20% blended takeout rate among the pools. And let's say the host fee (plus other associated fees) that the CAW player pays comes to 5%. The rebated discount for the CAW players, therefore, could be a maximum 15% on every dollar wagered (though more on this in the next section).

It's also important to note that bets with higher takeout rates leave the door open to potentially higher rebates. The seemingly counter-intuitive goal is that this leads to higher overall handle.

Several experts said the most successful CAW players can consistently win at an average rate of around 92%. At that rate, for example, a 15% rebate would see the player enjoy a 7% profit margin. According to Daruty, a 92% win-rate isn't typical.

“That's someone really hitting it out the park,” he said.

The bigger the rebate CAW players receive, therefore, the greater their overall profit. And the greater their overall profit, the more they're likely to wager. As one expert put it, “it's like a high-yield investment account.”

Indeed, former Australian bookmaker Tom Waterhouse recently said he was considering investing venture capital funds into horseracing-focused professional betting syndicates that receive these huge rebates.

“[Gambling] is a three trillion-dollar industry, and most people lose. The edge is against you,” said Waterhouse. “But there are a few groups globally that are able to find an edge.”

These rebates are usually returned daily–typically the following morning, said Scott Finley, former NYRA director of simulcasting with a long career in the pari-mutuel betting industry.

“In some cases, they might be done weekly,” Finley added. “But the general idea is, the quicker you front that money back to the CAW players, they're just going to churn that money and bet more. Remember, there's no credit betting allowed anywhere in the U.S. These are all true advanced deposit wagering accounts.”

The TOC, said Daruty, is not privy to the rebate rates that CAW players receive.

“I'm not sure the TOC has ever made that request,” said Daruty, when asked why this information isn't shared with the organization. “But if they were to make that request, I think our response would be to politely deny it.”

When asked why the TOC hasn't asked Elite for rebate data, Nader said that he can get a “very good idea of what the gross rebate would be” by looking at the takeout on the different bet types. “I can work that out,” he said.

What's in it for Elite?

All of which begs the question: What's in it for a CAW platform like the Elite Turf Club?

According to Finley, CAW platforms typically retain between 0.5% and 1.25% as a commission from the amount their players wager.

“It's all based on individual contracts between the [CAW platform] and their player teams,” Finley explained, about how these commissions are negotiated.

As an idea of what kind of number this commission might generate, Elite Turf Club handled over $180 million on Santa Anita's races during 2022, according to the CHRB's statistical opersion reports. At Del Mar during 2022, Elite handled just over $146 million.

Daruty said he was not at liberty to comment on the Elite Turf Club's commission rate.

When asked how, between the host fee and the CAW commission, it appeared that TSG was essentially double-dipping, Daruty said the company's tracks and Elite Turf Club performed two separate functions.

“It's only double-dipping if you're getting paid twice for doing the same thing. This isn't double-dipping because it's two completely different services. In fact, I think it's to the horsemen's benefit that we're operating Elite because they're getting more visibility and more knowledge,” said Daruty.

“If it was a third-party operator, they might not be getting that, but they'd still be paying the same fee,” Daruty added.

Individual Deals with the Tracks

At last year's Global Symposium on Racing in Arizona, Cummings raised the issue of individual players and their representatives negotiating directly with the tracks to receive favorable host fee rates. Some of these deals were negotiated years ago.

“There is undoubtedly a concern when one or two of the biggest players in the sport go door to door across this country and ask a track operator for a discount. Not a rebate–a discount on the host fee,” said Cummings.

John Woodford, chief executive of GWG Group, a Las Vegas-based LLC that provides domestic and international services to CAW players, said that while GWG does not have any such “bespoke” deals for its individual players, such agreements are unsurprising given the amounts sometimes wagered.

“It's the same for other industries,” explained Woodford, “if you're a significant contributor or participant.”

Last year, the Financial Times reported that just two individual CAW players that wager through the Elite Turf Club–Elite 17 and Elite 2–had significantly increased their wagering on California horse racing over the past 15 years.

Since that story came out, the CHRB stopped publishing wagering data showing individual CAW accounts–which it had done since 2008–and now pools these numbers together under the CAW platform. In fairness to the CHRB, however, no other jurisdiction publicly discloses this individual information either.

In this vacuum of individual player data, however, it begs the question: Are any CAW players still privy to favorable deals directly negotiated with California racetracks? Several sources consulted for this story said that at least one player still enjoys such a deal.

Nader declined to answer the question directly, but said that discussions with the tracks are ongoing, and that over the past year, the TOC had successfully negotiated better rates for its constituents. “Everything is a work in progress,” he said.

TOC Leverage?

If the TOC believes the horsemen and women don't receive a fair deal in these negotiations, it can refuse to sign the document authorizing tracks to send out their signals, essentially causing a simulcasting blackout. Nader calls this threat the “nuclear option.”

When asked if during his time the TOC has considered using this option during CAW negotiations, Nader responded that it should be used only as a “last resort.”

“You never really want to do that. If there's a complete breakdown, perhaps. But it should never come to that,” said Nader.

The TOC has deployed this “nuclear option” before in contentious simulcasting disputes. Back in 2008, the TOC withheld Hollywood Park's signal over multiple weeks to increase the amount ADWs were contributing to the purse account.

Bill Nader | HKIR

The move–which reportedly cost Hollywood Park some $500,000 a day in lost revenues–was deeply unpopular with both the ADW platforms and the tracks.

“It didn't make me the most popular guy in racing to the effect I got death threats against me and my family,” said then TOC president Drew Couto, who explained that during the simulcasting blackout, TVG repeatedly shared on-air his personal and home telephone numbers.

“They encouraged their disgruntled viewers to call and let their disappointment be known,” said Couto. “It also led to several death threats being called into the offices. The TOC had to close down for a few days while we addressed the security issues.”

But the TOC's hard-line stance in 2008 ultimately led to a better rate for the state's horsemen and women.

“They came around because we cut off the signal,” said Couto. “You have to have a strong board that says, 'we will weather the storm. But at the end of that, we will come out with better rates.' And those better rates will help us put on a better product. And that better product will hopefully appeal to players who want to bet eight-horse fields rather than four-horse fields.”

Couto said the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978 gives the TOC the authority to dictate rates and fees.

“The TOC has used that structure in the past to set the rates, to set access, to determine who has access, and to control the use of our product,” said Couto. “It's not the racetrack's product.”

When asked about this authority apparently afforded the TOC through the Act, Nader stressed the ecosystem nature of the industry.

“I would see it more as a 50-50 partnership between the tracks and the horsemen, especially in a state where there's no other purse-enhancing supplements. That's how the tracks get paid as well,” Nader said.

“I think what makes this sport so uniquely spectacular is the competition on the track and the competition on the Tote,” Nader added. “For us, it's more finding the right balance across all segments.”

CHRB'S Role

The TOC isn't the only guardrail to ensure that CAW fee agreements are drafted with horse racing's long-term interests front and center.

While the CHRB does not routinely see those documents, “The CHRB has full legal authority to review any agreement if that were to become warranted,” wrote CHRB spokesperson Mike Marten in written responses to several questions.

The CHRB, wrote Marten, has not yet exercised that legal authority.

In response to questions concerning betting integrity, Marten wrote that, “We understand that Monarch pays special attention to CAW companies (i.e. Elite and RGS) whereby each of the CAW players undergoes repeated, extensive background checks every six months.”

Marten added that the Thoroughbred Racing and Protective Bureau–a subsidiary of the Thoroughbred Racing Associations of North America–has “performed a thorough investigation of many wagering sites, including Elite and RGS, as part of its service to the racing associations.”

The CHRB, Marten wrote, “also has access to those reports if warranted.” And he added how, “sparked by concerns about the individual locations/operators,” the CHRB “some years ago” obtained an unspecified number of these TRPB reports from its client racetracks.

The review resolved any concerns, “so no was action taken,” he added.

Conflicts of Interest?

Eagle-eyed observers of California's racing product and betting markets might have noticed the ownership makeup of recent GII San Pasqual S. winner, Newgrange.

Since at least September of 2022, Newgrange has been owned by a group that includes Little Red Feather, Rockingham Ranch and David Bernsen.

Bernsen is the founder of GWG Group. One part of Bernsen's role at the GWG Group has been to represent individual CAW players in their negotiations with the tracks, but Woodford said that Bernsen hasn't run or managed the company for the past couple of years, and is now focused on industry initiatives “outside of the CAW sector,” including racehorse ownership.  Little Red Feather's managing partner is TOC chairman, Gary Fenton. Bernsen and Fenton, therefore, appear to sit on opposite sides of the CAW table. Does their ownership connection in Newgrange rise to a conflict of interest on the part of the TOC chairman?

Both Nader and Fenton said it doesn't. Nevertheless, Fenton said that he has recused himself from all CAW-related matters before the TOC since April of 2023 to avoid the appearance of any conflict of interest.

“Incidental co-ownership of a horse isn't considered a conflict by the TOC, but I made sure Bill and members of the board were aware. Still, due to the sensitive nature of simulcast rates, and out of an abundance of caution, when a matter connected with David [Bernsen] came up for the first time, I recused myself. Virtually all owners who serve on industry boards face similar instances,” wrote Fenton, in a statement.

Several experts interviewed for this story described TSG's ownership of both Elite Turf Club and two of the state's racetracks as a dynamic that does indeed rise to that level.

Daruty, however, refuted any conflict-of-interest accusations, and pointed to the historical ownership relationship between tracks and wagering outlets.

Though the nature of these “betting platforms” has evolved over the years–from on-track Tote windows to off-track-betting hubs to ADWs–the racetracks have always been part of the ownership mix, he said.

Daruty added, “This is just one more example of that.”

The post Computer Assisted Wagering: 101 for California Stakeholders appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Cummings, who describes the project as a work in progress, said one frustrating factor he has run into so far is that the fiefdoms don't want to make sacrifices for the greater good of the sport, a problem that has been around as long as the sport has.

“One of the things we found, and I think a lot of people would agree with this, is that if you started having a conversation with people in many different streams of the sport, the racing space, aftercare, the wagering side, when you're talking about kind of the big issues in racing, most people are going to agree about many of those things,” Cummimgs said. “And we've had some tremendous calls in the first couple of months with different organizations, leaders, individuals in every space of the business. And what we have found is that there's a tremendous amount of commonality. Our interests in improving the sport are shared. But when you start to poke into areas that directly impact certain individuals, the pushback starts to come and it's like, well, I agree on 90% over here, but on this 10%, which directly affects me, maybe I'm not so interested in changing all of a sudden, or maybe I don't want to go about rethinking the way in which my business generates revenue or how my members are impacted one way or another. So we are finding that there's a lot of openness to change, but there's a lot of potentially, you know, door closing that goes on when you suggest that change might need to affect everybody in some way, shape or form.”

Cummings said there will be eight key areas that the NTA will focus on.

“The way we see it, racing aftercare, education, sales, wagering, PR, marketing, breeding and then horsemen support rather generic catch all about the way in which we help not just owners and trainers individually, but their staffs and how they work and operate within our business,” he said. “If we have aligned that, there are these eight key areas that all need an element of focus and we have identified some opportunity areas within each of them.”

But without any authority or power, which rests now with the racetracks, racing commissions, HISA, The Jockey Club, horsemen's groups and others how can you usher in changes?

“I didn't have any authority with Thoroughbred Idea Foundation either,” he said. “But we inspired folks, we educated, we advocated and we did help get some things done and even some of those things that we did help facilitate getting done. They haven't always gone smoothly either, you know. So even when you do have that authority, it doesn't mean it's going to go off smoothly. When we set out five years ago and said, let's write a paper about breakage saying, 'Oh yeah, that's cute, that's nice and it's a problem and we need to fix it.' Well, yeah. So let's put a plan together to try and work on that. And we did. We had to get our law changed here in Kentucky. We tried to work with some other states. We realized some of those doors weren't open. We weren't able to work in New York, for example, on that particular topic. But maybe New York will focus on it in 2024. They've given some indications that there's a chance to do that. And if we saw New York adopt pending breakage in 2024, that be a huge win that I never saw coming.”

Also on the show the hosts discussed the Coolmore Stallion of the Week, Jack Christopher. By Munnings, Jack Christopher was 5-for-5 around one turn, including three Grade I wins, in the Woody Stephens by 10, the Allen Jerkens by 1 3/4, and the Champagne by 2 3/4 lengths–all that after his eight-plus length 'TDN Rising Star' debut at Saratoga.

Elsewhere on the podcast, which is also sponsored by Elite Power, WinStar Farm, the Pennsylvania Horse Breeders Association, 1/ST Racing, the KTA & KTOB, West Point Thoroughbreds, and XBTV.com, the team of Randy Moss and Bill Finley took a look back at 2023 and a look ahead to 2024. The consensus was that 2023, for numerous reasons was not a good year for the sport. To make things better we offered solutions for 2024. Finley advocated for the SafeSTRIDE technology, which has proven it can cause a significant cut in breakdowns to become a regular fixture at the track. “What are we waiting for?” he said. But Moss warned that as long as breeders don't focus on soundness and durability and continue to breed to fast horses who had brief careers and soundness issues, then nothing would change. The team also took a look at their Eclipse Award selections, and they largely agreed on all the categories. The exception was the Filly & Mare Sprint, where Moss is casting his vote for Echo Zulu (Gun Runner), while Finley and Zoe Cadman said they voted for Goodnight Olive (Ghostzapper). All three also cast their votes for Bill Mott for champion trainer.

Click here for the audio-only podcast and click here to watch the podcast.

The post Pat Cummings Joins the ‘TDN Writers’ Room’ Podcast to Discuss the National Thoroughbred Alliance appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Repole said he picked the name because he thought using the term alliance sent a message that the organization would be inclusive and because he is an admirer of the original NTA, also known as the National Thoroughbred Association. That organization was founded in the early 90s by Fred Pope and Repole's NTA shares some of the same goals of its predecessor.

“I've reached out to Fred and had a couple of great conversations with him,” Repole said. “What Fred's vision was 30 years ago for the sport was amazing and is a lot of what we need today.”

Repole said he will fund the new organization himself and said he is prepared to spend “millions” to see it succeed.

Even though he is among the most successful owners in the sport and a major buyer each year at the sales, Repole has been open about his frustrations with the industry and his fears that it isn't that far removed from extinction.

“Yes, we have survived, but that still means we've gone from 35,000 mares to 18,000 mares and all these tracks have closed,” he said. “You can call that survival and we have survived over the last 30 years. But there's no way racing will exist in another 15-20 years if we don't make changes now. It's easy for me to say I'll be out of the game in five years because everybody's going to be out in 10 years because it probably won't exist in 10 years.”

Repole said much of racing's problems can be attributed to the fact that no one involved in the industry seems to have a vision or strategy about how to grow the sport as a whole. It is vital, he said, for groups to put aside their self interests and begin to make decisions that will benefit the entire industry.

“This is a sport that has gone from growth to stagnant to now a massive decline,” he said. “How do we now go from keeping the status quo to improvement and then growth? Every successful business has a vision. There isn't anybody that has a vision for this sport. On top of vision, there is also no strategy. You can survive with strategy and no vision. You can't survive with no vision and no strategy.”

Repole is aware that his organization will launch with a distinct disadvantage, in that it will have no power to make any changes on its own and will be trying to make fixes in a sport filled with individual fiefdoms that traditionally look out for nothing more than their own special interests. The key to making progress, Repole said, is getting the various stakeholders to realize the sport will be better off overall if people are aligned and united and that a thriving sport is good for all involved.

“This is about unity, this is about improvement, this is about trying a different take to get everybody to work together,” he said. “This isn't going to be the Mike Repole vision. It's going to be a shared vision. This is a vision of listening, of talking to others. Maybe when they share their vision, which might be selfish, and we then tell them why the other nine spokes on the wheel won't work, we're hoping they'll say 'Now I get it. This doesn't work for the industry.' Once there's an understanding of what's working and what's not working, then we can figure out what we need to do better.

“Over the next 12 months we're going to see who cares about the industry and who cares just about themselves. Getting this sport united and aligned with a vision of what we want this sport to be is going to be so important.”

Repole said the first step toward getting industry leaders unified is to get them all in the same room.

“We need to bring people to the table,” he said. “If you get people together they will help each other. 'How did you handle that problem?' 'Well, this is what we did.' 'What worked here?' 'How did you do this?' The formation of great ideas happens with brainstorming.”

Repole said he had never met Cummings before he began to go to work on forming the NTA, but added that he was immediately impressed by his knowledge and enthusiasm.

“Pat has the compassion and the inspiration to fix this but obviously not the resources,” Repole said. “He's not one of the top owners or someone who invests a lot of money in the sport, which makes it tougher. But he still has the energy and passion. We hit it off right away. He's the perfect guy to lead this initiative.”

Repole's one-hour conference call with racing reporters was part doom and gloom, with just enough optimism sprinkled in that it's clear Repole is very dedicated to this project and passionate about racing's future.

“It's time to turn racing from the Flintstones to the Jetsons,” he said.

But he was not able to offer a lot of specifics concerning the formation of the alliance and just how it could twist enough arms that the changes Repole says the sport desperately needs can come to fruition. He's confident he can figure that out.

“When you're building this new brand or entity, you don't really know what you need or who you need until after you get started,” he said, referring to his creating and then selling the brands VitaminWater and BodyArmour.

The post Repole Announces Formation of National Thoroughbred Alliance, Hires Cummings as Executive Director appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Daily double pools on Sept. 4 (Races 2/3), Sept. 1 (Races 6/7) and Aug. 25 (Races 5/6) were subject to massive bets on combinations the manipulator(s) expected to lose. In each case, the bets were made in the final betting cycle when projected payouts for each combination are not updated until the race was underway.

TIF has drawn attention to such incidents, and the problems they create, at other U.S. tracks in the past. Most notably, Gulfstream Park eliminated its quinella pools after a significant manipulation event was detected in November 2022.

“These incidents at Prairie Meadows have all the hallmarks of pool manipulation based on TIF's multi-year focus and every time they occur, it calls into question the outcomes of the races involved,” said TIF executive director Patrick Cummings. “Integrity is paramount and when pools are manipulated like this, bettors are rightly confused and can lose confidence that races are run fairly and the betting pools are operated fairly.”

Click here for more on this story.

The post TIF Reports Prairie Meadows Hit By Pool Manipulations appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

But the game he was playing in 2013 is nothing like the game being played today. That, he says, is because of the proliferation of the Computer Assisted Wagering (CAW) players. He's found that he can't compete against them, their algorithms, their ability to bet huge amounts at the very last second and their huge rebates.

In a Tweet posted Sunday, Sumja announced that he was walking away. “They (CAW players) have infiltrated every last pool and after 40+ years I am done feeling and being duped by sketchy practices,” he wrote. “Going to concentrate on other sports I am excited about. They ruined horse racing.”

Ironically, the decision came after he made a winning bet on the 20-cent jackpot Pick Six at Del Mar. The winners paid $5.40, $14, $5.20, $56.80, $6.60 and $4.40 and the bet paid $3,216. Sumja is convinced it should have paid more and that the reason it didn't is because the CAW players swooped in and took home most of the pool.

“It's been a culmination of years of just feeling like something is going on that makes me feel that I am not playing on a level field because of the computer players,” he said. “I don't understand technology, so I don't know how they are doing it. But I do know that when you see late odds changes and they are correct way too often in terms of them winning it seems not possible. It gives me a feeling that I am playing in a game that is stacked against me. You know the old adage, when you feel like you are the sucker at the table it's time to get up. I have read what Jerry Brown wrote in the Thoroughbred Daily News and have followed all the numbers Pat Cummings has been coming up with. It's made me realize I have no edge anymore. If I can't beat the computer players why should I play?”

Sumja said he had been wagering about $500,000 a year and worked with two other horseplayers, one betting $2 million a year, the other $1 million. Both partners have also quit wagering on racing. Sumja's wagering dollars are now devoted to sports betting.

“We're all out, but I don't think the tracks care,” he said.

As is the case with many horseplayers, Sumja got tired of watching the horse he wagered on at 4-1 30 seconds before the race break on top and go down to 8-5. Even when those horses won, it left a bad taste in his mouth and he can't understand why the horses whose odds take a late plunge seem to win far more than their fair share. He is not willing to concede that maybe that's because the CAW players' algorithms are so good that they usually come up with the winner.

“I'm not going with the company line that they are just great handicappers. I don't buy it,” he said.

Sumja wants the tracks to close the pools well before the race starts.

“They have to close the pools off significantly ahead of the first horses going into the gate,” he said. “That would take away the feeling that something isn't quite right. You bet on sports and you take a team at +$350, the game ends and you win you get paid +$350. If you take a team getting four points and if they cover the spread you win. What horse racing is doing would be like them telling you with a football bet we'll let you know what the spread is after the game has started. You might have plus three or plus six. We'll let you know during or after the game. Why would you play that? You wouldn't. Shut the pools down three minutes to post. Shut everything down. Let every player see what odds they are really getting.”

Sumja understands why the tracks willingly accept wagers from CAW players. By some estimates they now account for one-third of all the dollars wagered on U.S. racing or about $4 billion annually. The tracks have made a business decision that it's in their best interests to take their bets. Sumja counters, saying that a lot of players are now doing the same, making a business decision that because of the CAW players it is not in their best interests to continue betting on the sport.

“If that's what racetracks want, to cater to CAW players, that's fine,” he said. “But you have a choice not to play nowadays. There are so many other types of wagering available. I've been making my own football line since I was 15. I love betting on sports. And when I make a sports bet that is paying 7-2 I get 7-2 if it wins and not 6-5. It's a refreshing feeling.

“In his article, Jerry Brown wrote about the myth that horse racing won't make it without the money being bet by CAWS. Horse racing made it for 100 years before anyone ever heard of CAW. I understand games change. If racetracks feel this is what they need to do to maintain their business that's what they're going to do. It also comes to a point where you make your own decisions and when you realize you're in a bad spot you've got to stop playing. That's my position. I'm not playing anymore. Neither are my friends.”

Sumja said that after he posted his tweet he heard from dozens of people who said they also have quit betting on racing and that they were happy that he spoke out. The horse racing industry used to get $500,000 a year in handle from Brent Sumja. Now it gets none. How much longer can this keep happening and how many more Brent Sumjas can it afford to lose before real and lasting harm is done to the sport? These are real problems and so far the sport hasn't been able to offer any serious solutions.

The post Fed Up With the CAWs, Brent Sumja is Now an Ex-Horseplayer appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Patrick Cummings, the moderator of the panel on CAWs, is the Executive Director of the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation, a racing-industry think tank. Cummings took the panel through a brief history of parimutuel wagering and the changes the industry has seen before landing at the crux of the subject matter: CAWs.

“The CAWs are individuals with well-resourced staffs, developing couture models assessing vast amounts of data,” said Cummings. “They deploy finely-honed algorithms to efficiently place bets, often at the last possible second, all while receiving significant rebates for their play.”

The rebates, he said, while sizeable, were only one of the challenges that CAWs present to racing. The other is their ability to bet large amounts of money at the last possible second before the race, which gives them an advantage over regular players.

Pat Cummings | Skip Dickstein

“In pari-mutuel wagering, betting late has always been beneficial,” Cummings said. “But, when all betting was done on-track, betting late came with the risk you might not get your bet down at all.

“That's not a concern now, especially for the CAWs, who've been given the ability to place batch bets, dumping vast amounts in the final cycle of betting. The impact of that is witnessed every day, in nearly every race and across almost every pool.”

That impact, he said, has led us to where we are now: CAWs have grown from 8% of total handle in 2003 to around 33% of handle today. At the same time, when adjusted for inflation, non-CAW wagering is down by nearly two-thirds over the same time period. That's a concern because the money returned to racing in the form of purses is much greater from normal bettors than from those receiving huge rebates. So while handle may be up, “the greatest source of growth has been a handful of high-frequency bettors,” who pay less back into the system.

“How the evolution of CAWs is managed and how we support the existing customers we still have might be key to the future of wagering on racing in today's tech-forward world–one with unfathomable processing power, machine-learning, AI and more,” Cummings said.

Cummings led a Q-and-A session with Joe Longo, the General Manager of Content Managing Solutions for NYRA, which owns an ownership stake in the Elite Turf Club, one of the largest computer syndicate operations; and Dr. Marshall Gramm, a horse owner and professor at Rhodes College.

Gramm said he had written models with partners based on statistical probabilities. He started receiving rebates in 2011, and said that doing so not only allowed him to turn a profit, but to increase his handle enormously, from $49,000 in 2010 to $25 million in 2015. He has gone on to be a major racehorse owner, with 116 horses he now owns alone or in partnerships.

Gramm said that some in the industry have come to believe that rebates are all negative, but that his churn had increased exponentially because of it.

Love it or hate it, though, CAWs are here to stay, said Gramm.

“There's no walking back from it,” he said. “The computers aren't going away. You can't step back in time.”

Neither panelist addressed the issue that Cummings talked about in his introduction and that was covered in Jerry Brown's TDN op/ed, Existential Crisis, that because in parimutuel markets, players are playing against one another, regular people are effectively paying more, and leaving the game.

Longo discussed how NYRA has become the only racing organization to ban CAW bettors in the win pool within two minutes to post in order to negate the late odds fluctuations which have become so frustrating to horseplayers. Longo said that while no other organization had followed that lead, he felt that others eventually would.

HISA Panel Discusses Adjustments to New Rules

Trainers Jena Antonucci and Ron Moquett served as panelists, along with Ben Mosier, Executive Director of the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU), and HISA's Lisa Lazarus on a Q-and-A panel moderated by Jim Gagliano, the President and COO of The Jockey Club, on how trainers were adjusting to the new HISA regulations.

Gagliano asked the two trainers how their life had changed under HISA.

Trainer Jena Antonucci | Skip Dickstein

Antonucci said that she was already running her business along the lines that HISA requires in terms of record-keeping, but acknowledged that that part of the business had been a learning curve for other horsemen. Moquett said that, “as a Thoroughbred trainer, there's a new set of rules to follow and we're going to adapt to those rules, but primarily, we keep the priority on the horse.”

Antonucci acknowledged that there were concerns and bumps in the road as the program has gotten underway, but urged people to come forward with those problems so that the solutions could be found. But the benefits, she said, were dramatic.

“I may be a minority in this thought,” she said, “but I find it has been the great equalizer. It isn't a secret that there is availability of different levels of pharmaceuticals on different levels. Really smart chemists, and people looking to gain an edge. So I feel the biggest benefit has been to probably the hardest hit of this industry, which is the middle and the smaller side, where it has allowed a level playing field and where that guy or gal who busts their butt 24/7 can walk into a race and not feel like they're going to watch another horse re-break at the top of the stretch. That their plied trade and their skill set will have an opportunity to shine, where that eight-percent trainer historically, where it looks like I can't train a racehorse? All of a sudden, he's winning more, or she's winning more, and it's not because we've done anything different in our practice. And you know what? What I do, I do darned well, and my horse–whether it's in the Grade I Belmont Stakes or a $12,500 maiden–is going to have the chance to march down that stretch and compete eye-to-eye with the horses next to them, and there's not a pharmaceutical in our way.”

The crowd gave her an ovation after the comment.

“There are a few parts of it that have been very challenging,” said Moquett. “You're dealing with a large group of people who are now just getting introduced to technology. I'm helping people who are sometimes my competitors try to understand and navigate the system.

“I wear a number of hats,” he said. “I train horses. I own horses. I'm a member of the HBPA, and I'm on the HISA Advisory Committee. I'm constantly a sounding board. People come to me and say this is unfair, and I come to [HISA]. It's new. There are going to be problems, and they're going to have to listen to horsemen. It doesn't matter how good [Lisa Lazarus] is at her job, we need the Bill Motts and the Steve Asmussens. My job is to say, `look, I understand what you're trying to do, but we need to do a better job of explaining to people what the differences are between accidental contamination, an overage of an allowed medication and someone trying to gain an edge.' I'm basically representing 4,500 people that have to go through every regulation that HISA believes is okay. So [Lazarus] and I will get together, we'll battle, and we'll come to a solution. I will say we don't always get along that great, but she has been very good about hearing me out.”

Lisa Lazarus said, “One of the things we heard a lot was that if the public hears that a trainer has a medication overage, they think that they're a cheater. That they don't understand the difference between true doping substances, and medications that are allowed, but just not on race day. And so, one of the things that the [AMDC] does is distinguish very clearly between allowed substances and banned substances.” Violations for each were very different, she explained. “We're there to protect the 99% of trainers who are competing cleanly, so that they get a fair race.”

Safety, and The Traceability of Thoroughbreds

Tracing what happens to a Thoroughbred when it leaves racing or breeding has long been a problem for the industry, an issue that Kristin Werner, the Senior Counsel for The Jockey Club, addressed in her report on Thoroughbred Safety.

“I am pleased to announce that the `Transferred as Retired from Racing' process has gone digital,” said Werner. “The permanent removal of a horse's eligibility to race is beneficial to the retiring racehorse, but the process requires thoughtfulness and transparency on the part of the seller and buyer to avoid contractual disputes or other disagreements. To that end, the previous process required a notarized signature and hard-copy form to retire a Thoroughbred from racing. With the assistance of digital signature verification, we are now able to confidently collect the required signatures through the Interactive Registration website, which will make the process easier for everyone involved.”

Kristin Werner | Skip Dickstein

Werner also reported that the ease of traceability is increasing due to the replacement of hard-copy certificates with digital ones starting with the foal crop of 2018. This, she said, “will allow The Jockey Club to follow up with the certificate manager to try to trace a Thoroughbred that has exited the racing or breeding population with an unknown outcome. When this system is in place in 2024, an automated prompt will be triggered when a horse has not been reported dead and has no racing activity, no breeding activity, and no Thoroughbred Incentive Program number for a specified time period. The communication will explain why the prompt was triggered and will ask the manager to indicate the horse's current status.”

For foals born in 2017 and prior that had made a start in the past 10 years, she said, The Jockey Club would be reaching out to the last connections to try to determine their status.

Werner also addressed racing's safety issues.

“In 2022, data analysis from the 14th year of reporting to the Equine Injury Database (EID) showed a decrease in the rate of fatal injury in 2022 to 1.25 fatalities per 1,000 starts,” said Werner. “This is the lowest cumulative fatality rate since the EID was launched in 2009, and is the fourth consecutive year that the rate has decreased. While 99.88% of Thoroughbred races were completed without a fatality last year, clusters like those that occurred in April and May of 2023, unfortunately, cast a shadow over the good news and bring equine fatalities back into the headlines of national media,” she said, referring to the fatalities during the week leading up to the Kentucky Derby.

Werner said that the advent of the EID had allowed them to identify 35% of the risk factors which put horses at increased risk for breakdown during the running of a race. Those factors include a horse's vet list history, the race distance, and the time a horse has spent with a trainer. Long races, and longer time with a horse's trainer make that horse statistically safer.

The Safety Committee is also calling for the dissemination of information regarding the consistency and maintenance of track surfaces. “The Thoroughbred Safety Committee today calls for that information to be frequently measured at periodic distances and made available to the public,” said Werner. “Working with other key industry stakeholders, especially the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority and the Racing Surfaces Testing Laboratory, The Jockey Club recommends exploring the best methods for providing the racing surface data to the horsemen and public, including through an app, website, or other electronic feed. As with all of its recommendations, The Jockey Club will help provide resources to ensure this recommendation is met.”

Analytics in Sport

Michael Lopez, the Director of Football Data and Analytics for the National Football League, is a Saratoga resident who used to teach at Skidmore College in town, and a long-time horse racing fan. He talked about how the NFL uses data to drive decision-making, and ways in which he felt horse racing could do the same.

Michael Lopez | Skip Dickstein

And while the sports are completely different, there were several interesting parallels.

Wearable technology has been an interesting new potential safety tool for horses, designed to measure things like their regular stride to detect any changes that might indicate a problem. The NFL is doing the same.

“Recently,” said Lopez, “all NFL players are now wearing RFID chips in their helmets, shoulder pads, and cleats, small enough so that the players don't feel them, but enough so that a signal is emitted each time they step onto the practice or game field. The burden is heavy–this data is messy and the tracking cumbersome–but the idea of a cleat specific to a running back on turf, or a helmet specific to a quarterback who likes to scramble–gives the league plenty to work on. And each practice, each club is required to wear tracking devices that give insight into a player's load, distance traveled, speed, etc., which enables sports scientists to evaluate performance, if players need to tone down, or injury recovery.”

Moreover, the NFL is timing the replay review process to ensure that a coach's challenge in a more prominent game is treated the same way that it would be in a less-prominent one. After the non-disqualification of Forte (Violence) in the July 29 GII Jim Dandy S. prompted much discussion over whether a less well-publicized event would have merited a DQ, the topic struck home. “The horse racing corollary is obvious,” said Lopez. “When, why, and how stewards decide for or against a disqualification, because a possible DQ at Del Mar should have the identical decision-making process to one at Saratoga.”

Engagement With Racing

Lindsay Czarniak | Skip Dickstein

Lindsay Czarniak was just a baby when her father Chet took the job as the first-ever horse racing reporter for USA Today in 1982. Today, she is a sports broadcaster who anchored SportsCenter for six years and who works as a Fox Sports sideline reporter. She is a studio host for NBC's summer and winter Olympics. She is also an influencer with America's Best Racing and a West Point Thoroughbreds partner who was one of the co-owners of Jace's Road (Quality Road) in this year's Kentucky Derby. “My goal was to give folks that pay attention to my content the VIP access,” said Czarniak. “I had so many people pulling for Jace's Road because they knew we were in the big race.”

Her advice for racing? Lean into storytelling and access; just because it feels normal to people within the industry doesn't mean that it is to fans. “There is a family aspect, a necessary aspect, a high-stakes aspect to this sport that your average sports fan would consume.”

She also advised racing to place itself where young people consume content, i.e., streaming platforms, digital and social media, etc., and to communicate the safety steps that have been taken.

Racing and Data

Kyle McDoniel was named the President and COO of Equibase on June 1, 2023, and comes from a sports and data background, having most recently served as vice president of U.S. Strategic Partnerships for SportRadar, a sports technology company.

McDoniel talked about the challenges inherent in GPS tracking of horse racing, and said that Equibase is now producing tracking at 28 tracks across the U.S. and Canada, representing over 75% of North American handle. In addition, he said the company was continuing to invest in graphical representations of past performances, including those that illustrate stride frequency and length averages, among other things.

Janney's Closing Remarks

Stuart S. Janney III | Skip Dickstein

In his closing remarks, Jockey Club Chairman Stuart Janney said that the advent of HISA had done a lot to secure racing's future.

“Four years ago, at this program, a great Australian breeder-owner, John Messara, speaking about the proposed federal legislation, said, `You've got everything to unleash your monster of economic rewards if you were to join the rest of the world in this harmonization in terms of the drug rules.' John was right and we are here today and it's now time to capture that future.”

To do so, said Janney, “I have two suggestions. First, we have to embrace the international aspect of the sport. Racing is global and thankfully, in many parts of the world, the sport is thriving.”

His second suggestion, he said, involved marketing. “We need to get past the concerns that we are constantly in turmoil, rocking from one crisis to the next. Another Round Table speaker from the past, David Fuscus, [who] discussed crisis management, said, `If we come together as an industry, negative perception can be turned. There is hope we can come through these dark days, but to do so, the public needs to understand what we're doing and believe we are on a path to success.'”

Entire Conference Available Online

To watch the entire Round Table conference, click here.

The post Technology, Engagement, and the Future the Focus of Annual Round Table Conference appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Using data from Del Mar, Cummings concluded that CAW players are betting more each year and that the amount of betting from “everyone else” is declining.

“Not only are the sharks growing, but the minnows are declining,” he said. “For the first time in this paper, were able to really separate how the CAW play has grown and how all other customers have in almost every pool shrunk. Total handle figures are often marketed in the industry press releases, they're touted. It looks like on an annual basis that not a whole lot has changed. That's not telling us the accurate picture. For years now, the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation has wanted to really dive into who's betting, how are they betting, how are they participating and how is the market changing? What we're seeing now more clearly than ever before is what's happening with all other customers. We're talking about people that may bet $10 a year or maybe even $2 million a year. They are a smaller percentage of the pools and declining.”

When asked if this could lead to a “doomsday” scenario, whereby the “sharks” have driven all the “minnows” out of the game, Cummings said that is in fact a concern.

“I'd call it a real threat,” he said. “And I would suggest that some of the biggest sharks are eating some of the smaller ones too.”

He estimated that CAW players now account for 33% of the total handle in U.S. racing

Cummings is not in favor of banning CAW players. He recognizes that if they go away overall handle would plummet, which could be catastrophic. The answer he says is to find ways to level the playing field when it comes to the sharks versus the minnows, starting with the takeout.

“Takeout rates have not come down commensurate with all of this money coming in (from CAW players) at low price points and driven by technology,” he said. “That's the opposite experience that investors have had in almost all other areas, where we have seen costs for customers come crashing down. The days of the $35 stock commission are long gone. And yet 50, 60, maybe even 70% of all trading on the stock market now is high-frequency trading. Ordinary investors in 401Ks and IRAs, regular mutual fund holders, exchange traded funds, different products have been created to allow ordinary investors to buy and hold. And their costs have come down from where they were 20 years ago. We have not seen that same evolution in American horse racing wagering, which remains one of the most expensive gambles out there.”

Cummings also called on the industry to end all jackpot bets. He has found that not only do they keep money out of circulation by cutting down on churn, but that the CAW players often come in and take home a disproportionate amount of the pool at the expense of the regular player.

“If you run a parimutuel wagering business and your goal is to keep collecting commissions on parimutuel wagering, then why introduce a bet that limits the number of times that a customer can keep coming back to your window and churning their money?” he said. “You're going in the complete opposite direction to all traditional business logic, which is you should drive customers back into your wagering pools. Yet, tracks continued to persist with these bets. The jackpots need to go as quickly as possible. Tracks need to revert to a traditional play, get that daily payout, get that churn up. The sport needs churn. It's better for every stakeholder along the way.”

Elsewhere on the podcast, which is also sponsored by Coolmore,https://lanesend.com/  the Pennsylvania Horse Breeders Association, Kentucky Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders,  1/st Racing, WinStar Farm, Lane's End, XBTV.com and https://www.threechimneys.com/ West Point Thoroughbreds, the team of Bill Finley, Randy Moss and T.D. Thornton, took a look at the win by Two Phil's (Hard Spun) in the GIII Ohio Derby and his subsequent injury and retirement. There was a look back at the Royal Ascot meet, where one of the highlights was the win by the U.S. based 2-year-old filly Crimson Advocate (Nyquist) in the G2 Queen Mary S., and a look ahead at Saturday's GI Stephen Foster S. at Ellis Park. The podcastwrapped up with a discussion on a new proposed rule by the New York Gaming Commission which would require all horses to undergo checks by a veterinarian 72 hours prior to a race or a workout.

Click here to watch the Writers' Room podcast or here for the audio-only version.

The post Pat Cummings Joins The TDN Writers’ Room Podcast appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

“The Thoroughbred Idea Foundation's analysis of data from Del Mar between 2018 and 2022 showed on an inflation-adjusted basis, per-race (or per-opportunity basis for certain bet types) CAW betting, from what is believed to be 17 accounts, has grown tremendously in the last five years-up 46% in the superfecta pool, 49% in trifectas, 78% in pick fives, 128% in the show pool and a staggering 403% in the pick six pool,” reads the report, concluding, “The trend for all other customers is disturbing.”

This trend is problematic; the report concludes that major problems is that the increases in CAW betting, due to rebates, does not make up for the handle decline from other sources. That has a deleterious effect on purses, whose soul source of funding in California is through wagering.

The report, “Sharks & Minnows–Managing the Growing Imbalance in Racing Wagering Markets,” is available on the TIF website, racingthinktank.com.

CAW bettors receive rebates on the takeout because of the large volumes they bet, but they quote Del Mar president Josh Rubenstein as saying that those rebates will be limited at the Del Mar summer meet–at least in the win pool.

“We get that late odds fluctuation is frustrating to players,” Rubinstein said, referring to the fact that CAW players place their bets based on their perceived value in the odds close to post time, which creates major odds shifts–often after the horses have left the gate.

“Beginning with our upcoming summer meet, [we] will be implementing new protocols for CAW players that are designed to limit participation in the win pools at two minutes to post. Based on what we've monitored and analyzed from other tracks, we believe these protocols will reduce late odds changes.” TIF reported that the largest rebates will be given to bets made with more than three minutes to post, a smaller amount at two minutes, and the smallest rebate at under two minutes. Non-rebated customers pay 15.43%, the report says.

“Limiting CAW guardrails to merely a rebate change in the win pool, while potentially helpful in reducing some late odds changes, amounts to little more than window dressing for mainstream customers,” TIF concludes. “CAW betting in Del Mar's exotic pari-mutuel pools, particularly the trifecta, superfecta, pick three, four, five and six pools has been substantial. Play from Elite (Turf Club, a top CAW) and RGS (Racing and Gaming Services, another) customers exceeded 32% of total handle in each of those bet types last year and was 38% of pick five handle.

“CHRB data does not delineate how much is staked on the early pick five, with its friendly 14% takeout to mainstream bettors, and how much is on the high takeout late pick five, with a 23.68% takeout rate. It is reasonable to expect the percentage of CAW play reflects their enormous pricing advantage over the public on the late pick five. Total handle figures do not tell the most accurate story. In nearly every pool offered by Del Mar, all non-Elite and RGS handle is declining.”

To read the full report, click here.

The post TIF Issues Alarming Report on Computer Assisted Wagering in CA appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

According to the TIF report, there were more than 33,000 races for Thoroughbreds in the U.S. in 2022, but if you asked the public to name just three of them, chances are they would be the GI Kentucky Derby, the GI Preakness S. and the GI Belmont S.

The report takes the position that the Triple Crown races, despite massive coverage across multiple platforms, still relies on potential hearsay and not regulatory bodies with the specific expertise to offer “formal updates regarding the health and soundness of horses entered in the races which attract the most public attention.”

TIF piece goes on to argue that, “Actual details which media, horseplayers and fans alike can consume, eliminates speculation and repetitive inaccuracies that take hold, particularly across social media, while proving to a wider audience what many inside the sport already know–veterinary scrutiny has never been stronger!”

As with Forte's (Violence) leg injury or Mage's (Good Magic) cut above his eye leading up to this year's Kentucky Derby, the majority of the time the public hears from a veterinarian only after an injury has occurred. Though safety and welfare initiatives are welcomed without question, TIF advocates regulators going further to communicate with the public about the horses and their fitness to compete in the most important U.S. races.

“Communication” will occur regardless–first as whispers amongst some insiders, then tweets and texts that spiral endlessly–all while, as TIF wrote, “the truth is likely sitting in regulatory silence.”

As for international examples, they abound TIF offers. The protocols surrounding the G1 Melbourne Cup in Australia and the pre-race screening administered by the likes of the Hong Kong Jockey Club are models that the U.S. can emulate, which will lead to progress and transparency for the sport.

Click here to access the full report on the TIF website.

The post TIF Says Triple Crown Pre-Race Inspection Reports Should Be Public appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The entry portal closes at 11:00 a.m. E.T. this Saturday, May 6. Players should keep track of their answers as you will not be able to revisit the survey portal once you submit your entry. Should a horse named directly in a prop be scratched, all answers to that prop may be counted as correct.

Winners will be notified by email late on Saturday evening to identify how to direct charitable donations. The top finishers will get to direct $20,000 in donations to four racing charities, which are: Backside Learning Center at Churchill Downs, New Vocations, Permanently Disabled Jockeys Fund and Second Stride. Click here, for more information.

The post TIF Hosting Derby Prop Contest For Racing Charities appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post