Summer Breezes: Aug. 26, 2022

Some of the most highly anticipated races during the summer racing season are the 'baby' races during the boutique meetings at both Saratoga and Del Mar and at Ellis Park, which attracts its fair share of high-priced offspring from a variety of top national outfits. Summer Breezes highlights debuting 2-year-olds at those meetings that have been sourced at the breeze-up sales earlier in the year, with links to their under-tack previews. Already this year at Saratoga, City Man (Mucho Macho Man), Mo Strike (Uncle Mo) and Empress Tigress (Classic Empire)–each a graduate of the 2-year-old sales–have already struck at stakes level, while the likes of juvenile purchases and 'TDN Rising Stars' Taiba (Gun Runner), We The People (Constitution) and Onesto (Ire) (Frankel {GB}) have also left their mark on graded/group competition this season. To follow are the horses entered for Friday:

Friday, August 26, 2022
Saratoga 4, 2:47 p.m. ET
Horse (Sire), Sale, Price, Breeze
Flashy Alex (Gormley), FTMMAY, $12,000, click
C-Tom McCrocklin, agent; B-Randi Persaud
Quick to Accuse (Accelerate), OBSMAR, $200,000, click
C-Sequel, agt for Chester & Mary Broman; B-Mike Ryan, agt

Ellis 5, 5:52 p.m. ET
Mendeavour (Mendelssohn), OBSAPR, $175,000, click
C-Golden Rock Thoroughbreds, agent; B-Ryan Ritt

Del Mar 1, 6:00 p.m. ET
Bluegrass Ryder (Noble Mission), OBSAPR, $40,000, click
C-GOP Racing Stable Corp; B-John P Warren

Ellis 7, 6:48 p.m. ET
Play the Music (Mo Town), OBSAPR, $300,000, click
C-Eisaman Equine, agent; B-Glassman Racing LLC

Del Mar 4, 7:33 p.m. ET
Almont (Smiling Tiger), FTMMAY, $85,000, see below
C-Classic Bloodstock, agt; B-Little Red Feather, John Dowd, agt

 

The post Summer Breezes: Aug. 26, 2022 appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Multiple Moving Parts in Monarch, AZ Simulcasting Morass

For over two years, the simulcasting signal from 1/ST-operated racetracks, along with several others around the country, has been missing in Arizona–the residual fall-out from a long-simmering dispute between the owners of Arizona Downs and the arm of The Stronach Group (TSG) tasked with distributing the company's signal.

In both California and Arizona, stakeholders argue that this simulcasting blackout has hit both the bettors and the industry–by how much appears open to debate.

A recent analysis by the Arizona Horseman's Benevolent & Protective Association (AZHBPA) of the projected lost revenue to California purses between 2020 and 2021 pinned the number at more than $1,1 million, and another nearly $900,000 in lost track commissions.

The estimated loss to Turf Paradise alone between the years 2021 and 2022 amounts to more than $1 million, said Vince Francia, general manager of Turf Paradise. For Arizona Downs, however, the impact has been “negligible,” say track operators.

Scott Daruty, president of TSG's Monarch Content Management, also downplays the impact of the hamstrung signal to Monarch's bottom-line, saying that the resulting lost fees is only a fraction of Monarch's total business. He also disputes the AZHBPA's projected losses to the California purse account.

Monarch's umbrella extends over several California tracks–including Santa Anita Park, Del Mar, Golden Gate Fields and Sonoma County Fair–as well as Turf Paradise, Lone Star Park, Gulfstream Park, Laurel Park, Pimlico, Rosecroft Raceway, Monmouth Park, and Meadowlands.

Against the backdrop of this ongoing dispute, there are indications that 1/ST is eyeing potential inroads into the Arizona marketplace.

Within recent months, representatives of 1/ST have visited Turf Paradise with the intention of possibly purchasing the facility, said Francia. AZHBPA executive director, Leroy Gessman, said that 1/ST recently did the same at Arizona Downs.

According to two sources familiar with the situation, 1/ST has made a thus far unsuccessful bid to purchase Arizona Downs.

Daruty declined to comment whether 1/ST has indeed made any formal bid to purchase Arizona Downs but called the Arizona marketplace “one that appears to have potential.”

 

 “At that point, you're negotiating with a terrorist, right?”

The genesis of this rather convoluted simulcasting dispute goes back years.

In summary, when Arizona Downs reopened for live racing in 2019, Monarch sent its signal to the track itself but not to the track's network of Off-Track Betting parlors (OTB), and at a higher rate than its Arizonan neighbor, Turf Paradise.

In contrast, Monarch distributed its signal to Turf Paradise and its network of some 60 OTB's.

When asked about the contracting disparities between both Arizonan tracks, Daruty said at the time that Arizona Downs had been “consistently delinquent in its payments to our racetracks.”

In an effort to resolve industry stakeholder disgruntlement, the state passed in 2019 a law requiring all simulcast providers that send their races into Arizona to offer the products uniformly among all tracks and all their OTBs.

The following January, the Arizona Racing Commission passed a motion requiring the three racetracks in the state–Turf Paradise, Arizona Downs and Rillito Park–to comply with that law.

The commission also sent a letter to Monarch to “stop sending any simulcast signals to Arizona permittees racetracks and/or their additional wagering facilities.”

To all intents and purposes and despite various legal maneuverings in the interim, that state of affairs has remained, and Monarch has not beamed its signal into Arizona since.

At the start of Santa Anita's most recent winter meet, Monarch approached the operators of Arizona Downs with an offer of all Monarch content to the entire Arizona marketplace, including to Arizona Downs' network of OTBs, said Daruty.

According to Daruty, the operators of Arizona Downs made several unilateral modifications to the contract which were unacceptable. They included reducing the fees paid to Monarch tracks below the previously contracted rate between them, and a requirement for Monarch to “pre-approve” new simulcast locations without the ability to conduct legal and regulatory due diligence, said Daruty.

“At that point, you're negotiating with a terrorist, right?” said Daruty, once again raising Arizona Downs' reported history of delinquent payments.

“We can't abandon our principles and abandon our reasoned business approach to distributing our signals,” Daruty added.

Detailing a back-and-forth process of negotiations, Tom Auther, an Arizona Downs owner and partner, said that Monarch initially offered Arizona Downs a contract with non co-mingled pools–what he described as an immediate non-starter–and then an offer charging the track overall as much as twice what Turf Paradise was paying.

Monarch subsequently declined Arizona Downs' counter-offer, which was to pay Monarch 20% more in fees than Turf Paradise, said Auther.

“Twenty percent's still a lot of money,” Auther said. “If we paid what they want us to pay, the horsemen would not approve it because there'd be no money left–only three percent left in horse purses.”

When asked about Arizona Downs' reported history of defaults, Auther said that they had offered Monarch to escrow an adequate amount of money to offset the anticipated costs. “They refused it,” said Auther.

In an effort to understand the impact from the nixed signal into Arizona on California's horsemen, the Arizona HBPA contracted the firm Global Racing Solutions–founded and operated by Pat Cummings–to run the numbers.

According to GRS' calculations, California horsemen lost $1,115,000 in purse contributions between 2020 and 2021, and California track operators missed more than $877,000 in commissions during that same period.

To put that into perspective, California's purse total in 2021 was some $118 million.

TDN reached out to Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), who declined to comment.

As for Monarch, when they last ran the numbers, “the host fees that the Monarch tracks received out of the state of Arizona were less than one percent of the total host fees received by the Monarch tracks,” Daruty said. “It just doesn't move the needle for us.”

Daruty also said that the AZHBPA's projected California purse loss numbers were over-estimated, though added that Monarch hadn't run their own calculations.

And what of the potential impacts on the Arizona tracks? Again, there are mixed-signals.

Between 2021 and 2022, Turf Paradise lost an estimated $1,011,317 due to the missing Monarch signal, the estimated loss to the purse account was $944,915, and the estimated loss to the Regulatory Wagering Assessment (RWA)–a wagering tax used to fund the state racing department–was $61,139, according to Francia's calculations.

Auther, however, shared handle numbers with the TDN–taken, he said, from the state commission's website–comparing the year 2021 with 2018, when Turf Paradise received the Monarch signal.

According to Author's numbers, Turf Paradise lost in 2021 more than $8 million in overall handle compared to 2018. Turf Paradise operated in 2021 with 13 fewer OTBs than in 2018, however, and those OTBs were closed for 1038 days more than in 2018, according to Auther's calculations.

Auther also estimated that the annual hit to Arizona Downs' business without Monarch has been negligible. “It exists,” said Auther, about the loss. Horseplayers, however, have simply adjusted their betting patterns to other available options, he said, adding that the loss of the Monarch product to Arizona Downs was one of quality rather than numbers.

More broadly, Arizona HBPA president Bob Hutton broached what he sees as some of the more deeply felt impacts to the state's racing industry.

“With the state of racing the way it is, when we're trying to get fans to the sport, why is this good?” said Hutton, critical of Monarch's part in the negotiations. “This is costing horsemen all over the country money, and why? I don't get it.”

Turf Paradise, it should be noted, has been for sale since at least 2020.

According to Francia, 1/ST representatives recently toured the track with a potential eye to purchase the facility. “They have not made an offer but they have looked at the track,” he said.

According to Gessman, representatives from 1/ST have similarly toured Arizona Downs, adding that he was present at the visit.

According to two sources who wished to remain anonymous, 1/ST made the owners of Arizona Downs an offer for the facility which was subsequently declined.

Both Auther and Daruty refused to comment on any possible offer that 1/ST has made for Arizona Downs.

Though calling the Arizona marketplace one with potential, Daruty added that “I think all the infighting and frankly some of the regulatory dysfunction has just left it in a place that's not healthy.”

The post Multiple Moving Parts in Monarch, AZ Simulcasting Morass appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Sam Houston, Lone Star Apply For 2023 Race Dates

Edited Press Release

During Wednesday's meeting of the Texas Racing Commission meeting, Sam Houston Park General Manager Dwight Berube confirmed that the Houston-area track will apply for 43 live race dates in 2023, beginning Jan. 6, 2023. The 2023 Texas live racing schedule will be similar to 2022, as Lone Star Park has already applied for 48 days.

While plans for the overall stakes program have not been finalized, the 2023 race meet at Sam Houston will feature the inaugural running of the $100,000 Texas Thoroughbred Association Derby and Oaks for graduates of the 2021 TTA Yearling Sale and 2022 TTA Two-Year-Olds in Training Sale.  The schedule will also include 10 Texas-bred stakes and two legs of the Clarence Schaubauer, Jr. Texas Stallion S.

“With Monday's Texas Thoroughbred Association Yearling Sale on the immediate horizon, we appreciate the continued support of the Texas tracks,” TTA Executive Director Mary Ruyle said.  “On Monday, we will offer more than 200 yearlings, which is the most in recent history. Over the past couple years, we have made great strides in the quality of racing in Texas.”

The post Sam Houston, Lone Star Apply For 2023 Race Dates appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

In Advance of HISA Appeals, Court Date, Two Sides Hone Arguments

In advance of oral arguments scheduled Aug. 30 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the two sides involved in the injunction appeal brought by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act Authority (HISA) have filed legal briefs that they hope will sway the court to their side of the case.

Both HISA and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are defendants in an underlying lawsuit led by the states of Louisiana and West Virginia, plus the Jockeys' Guild, that alleges unconstitutionality and federal rulemaking procedure violations regarding HISA's initial framework of regulations that went into effect July 1.

At issue in the appeal is whether a lower court (U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana) erred in preliminarily enjoining HISA regulations that were purportedly harming the plaintiffs. The issuance of that preliminary injunction favored the plaintiffs, but HISA and the FTC appealed it to the higher court.

The Appeals Court then ordered Aug. 8 that with the exception of three specifically contested HISA rules, HISA's legal authority would once again be valid in the two plaintiff states until that court heard oral arguments on the appeal. What happens in the Appeals Court will affect other actions in the lower court related to the underlying lawsuit.

“The district court had jurisdiction over Plaintiffs' claims,” stated an Aug. 19 brief filed by the plaintiffs. “The district court correctly concluded that Plaintiffs have standing because enforcing HISA's rules will inflict direct economic harm on each category of Plaintiff. Beyond that, the Plaintiff States are entitled to special solicitude, and HISA's rules inflict injuries on the States' sovereign, quasi-sovereign, and pecuniary interests.”

The plaintiffs' brief continued: “On the merits, multiple independent and valid grounds support the preliminary injunction. The HISA rules unlawfully dispensed with the requisite notice-and-comment period. Defendants' failure to provide for adequate notice and comment was not harmless given the significant changes these rules bring about for Plaintiffs, their members, and their citizens who raised substantive concerns that the FTC failed to take into account when it rubberstamped HISA's proffered rules…

“Beyond that, the district court correctly identified substantive flaws with each challenged series of rules–ways that HISA's rules clearly exceed its statutory authority–further amplifying the harms that warrant injunctive relief.

“Finally, the equitable factors support the preliminary injunction because the States cannot recoup their economic losses through an ordinary damages action [and] the public interest lies in ensuring that a private corporation is not unlawfully wielding federal power to implement a regulatory framework unauthorized by federal law.”

Not so, claimed the defendants in their Aug. 23 reply brief.

“Plaintiffs' response falls woefully short of justifying the district court's blunderbuss remedy–a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of all regulations promulgated under HISA at the time Plaintiffs brought this suit,” the defendants stated.

The defendants continued: “For each and every issue, Plaintiffs fail to so much as address critical defects highlighted by Defendants–presumably because they have no meritorious response. Plaintiffs do not even try to meet their burden to show actual and imminent harm for every rule they seek to enjoin, including the three specific rules that both sets of Defendants explained do not present any controversy.

“On the merits, Plaintiffs gloss over the gaping holes in the district court's plainly erroneous notice-and-comment analysis [and] lob a litany of misleading assertions on the assessment methodology…. Plaintiffs offer no meaningful response to the serious countervailing harms the order inflicts on Defendants and the public interest.

“These fatal flaws, independently or taken together, compel reversal of the extraordinary preliminary injunction in its entirety,” the defendants' brief summed up.

The post In Advance of HISA Appeals, Court Date, Two Sides Hone Arguments appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Verified by MonsterInsights