For Delloye, it's a homecoming, as he served for 10 years as their managing director before leaving to fill the same role at France-Galop in 2016. As Delloye got started again at Arqana, we sat down with him to learn what it was like to be back in Normandy, and what differences the buying and selling public could expect to see this year and beyond.

TDN: First, what's it like to be back?

OD: I'm very happy to be back–both back here and in the sales business and connecting with the community of buyers and vendors alike. And I'm really looking forward to the next sale and of course, the August yearling sale, which is, and has always been, the highlight of the of the year.

TDN: What was the thing you missed the most about this job when you were at France-Galop?

OD: Definitely it was going to farms, inspecting yearlings in spring, meeting with vendors and breeders and driving back to the office thinking that you may have seen the future stars of the sale.

TDN: And what is it about France-Galop that you'll miss the most now that you're back at Arqana?

OD: It's all about people. So probably the great people I have had the chance to work with and who tolerated me for about eight years. Luckily, now that I'm back, I'm finding a great team here as well.

TDN: What is your ideal work-life balance?

OD: It's a very difficult question. I would say it's close to ideal when both your colleagues and clients on one side and your family and friends on the other side feel that you give them enough time and attention. That's when you're close to perfection. But it never happens.

TDN: What changes at Arqana can we expect this year and beyond?

OD: It's a little bit early to ask me that question. I'm just coming back now. But I am coming back at a time when the company is enjoying quite a great success, so there's no need for a big revolution in the very short term. Probably the first changes that will be implemented will be purely internal, in order to make the organization ever more efficient and enable the team to have a greater focus on the horses and the clients. I'm sure there are some areas in which we can improve upon the way we operate, in the processes that are in place, so that really people can focus on their main job and on our clients.

TDN: I see there is some work going on here.

OD: Yes. The first thing, which is good news for all the people attending the sales, is there will be a brand new WiFi system as of the breeze-up sale. Over the next few weeks, another thing we are undergoing is that we are renovating the main yard at Arqana in the sales complex. We are actually currently raising the roofs (on the stalls) of the main yard to just provide some more comfort to horses staying in these boxes during the sales. We will do that in three phases and the first phase will be completed by the summer.

TDN: How did your experience at France-Galop change or broaden your view of the overall industry?

OD: I was born in the horse world as my father was a trainer and then was more involved in the institution and the ruling of racing. And then I went to work for Arqana for 10 years. Going to France-Galop was definitely the right place to go to deal with all aspects of the industry, with France-Galop being the racing authority and the operator of the major racing in France as well. So dealing with gambling with the PMU, dealing with the ministries in charge of supervising racing, dealing with anti-doping control, dealing with riding schools, but also how to run big, big events, like we do at France-Galop with the Qatar Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe, Prix Diane Longines and so on. So it was just a perfect place to learn so many things. And, during all those years, I also had the chance to be involved in the IFHA, working alongside with Louis Romanet first and then Winfriend Engelbrecht-Bresges and its leadership team. So it really opened new doors to me as well, being exposed to other racing jurisdictions and understanding the big issues that racing can face on a global scale.

TDN: What did you learn there that you can apply here?

OD: Event organization is something that I probably learned quite a lot about working at France-Galop. But above all, I would say that at France-Galop, because of all it has to run with a fairly limited number of employees-there are only 350 people working full-time. It operates five racecourses, three training centres, and is a racing authority in France. It has to be a pretty well-organized company. So I'm sure that in trying to replicate a bit of that know-how in terms of process and organization in a much smaller company like Arqana, I can help it be even faster and move more quickly and be more efficient.

TDN: Your successor-and predecessor–Eric Hoyeau–was known to take to the microphone. Do you have any intention of doing the same?

OD: You mean at the rostrum? No plan at all. I did ask myself this question years ago when I first worked with Arqana. Now, I'm not sure I have the right talent for the job. And I see my role as just making sure that we have the best people everywhere in the place, to offer the best possible service. So we'll try to, enhance the quality of our auctioneers, to better serve our clients. But, I'm not necessarily one of them.

TDN: Paris or Deauville?

OD: I couldn't answer. It's like choosing between my my sons or my my daughters.

TDN: Le Drakkar, or Le Buddha Bar?

OD: Le Drakkar. Definitely.

TDN: Bike ride in the Bois de Boulogne, or jogging on Les Planches?

OD: Jogging on Les Planches. But also a little further, because it's too short.

TDN: Traffic jam on the Peripherique or tractors blocking the A13?

OD: Traffic jam on the Peripherique. There is always an exit nearby to escape from it.

TDN: Is there anyone in the French government you feel you resemble?

OD: I've often heard people say I look a little bit like Emmanuel Macron. And I've always answered that my wife is much younger.

The post TDN’s Ten Questions for Olivier Delloye, Now Back at Arqana appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

How is it that the Breeders' Cup's momentum never seems to wane and what's ahead for racing's championship event? We posed those questions and more to Breeders' Cup President and CEO Drew Fleming.

TDN: The handle figures are particularly impressive as the Friday card yielded a record $66.1 million in handle and the Saturday card produced $122.9 million in handle, also a record. What has caused the growth in handle and what needs to be done to see that it continues to grow?

DF: We are very grateful to the horseplayers that have been supporting us and our Thoroughbred industry for a long time. At the Breeders' Cup, we take pride in the fact that we have the best horses in the world competing, which equates to really great betting races. Additionally, the Breeders' Cup, for many years, has been conducting its own global pool and we had 27 countries last year bet into the common pool. We had an additional six countries betting separately. One of the things that the company continues to invest in, not only in time but capital, is in the awareness of the Breeders' Cup as a whole. We felt we ran an effective awareness campaign last year, which caused an increased consumption of content as well as generating additional wagering dollars.

TDN: As they are proud of saying, Lexington is the horse capital of the world. There are racing fans all over the country, but it's just different in Lexington. How does that factor into the success of the 2022 Breeders' Cup?

DF: The moment you get off the plane in Lexington, Kentucky, horse racing is in the air. You go to a restaurant, a bar, a coffee shop, people are talking breeding, training, owning race horses. It's a way of life. The city was so welcoming. Unfortunately, in 2020 we weren't able to have fans due to the pandemic. We told the city we would be back as soon as we could. We were able to come two years later and deliver on that promise and they could not have been more thankful. The hospitality was everywhere. People were thrilled to have fans back and were also very thrilled to have the World Championships back in Lexington and to be able to showcase our industry.

TDN: The 2020 numbers aren't applicable because of the pandemic. Before that, the last Breeders' Cup at Keeneland was in 2015. The economic impact numbers from 2015 to 2022 increased by 27.8%. What was different about 2022 versus 2015 that the number increased the way that it did?

DF: A couple of things played a role. The brand and the demand for the Breeders' Cup continues to grow. Last year, we had people from all 50 states purchase tickets as well as 18 countries. Because the brand continues to grow we continue to see investment not only in the Breeders' Cup but in the surrounding areas when we are there.

TDN: It's not just Lexington. The entire state of Kentucky is horse-crazy and Louisville is also a great racing town. We haven't seen the Breeders' Cup at Churchill Downs since 2018 and it is not scheduled for there either this year or next. Is there any reason for that and what is the status of the event returning to Churchill Downs?

DF: Churchill is a great partner and we enjoy working with them and had a very successful Breeders' Cup there in 2018. Normally, we don't talk about future host sites until we have made a host site announcement. With the impact and the success of the past few times we have been in Kentucky, I anticipate that shortly in the future we will be back in Kentucky.

TDN: You had a superstar in the Breeders' Cup this year in Flightline. What impact did he have and can you address both the business aspects of the event and the excitement level that he brought to the event. Fifty years from now, people will still be talking about his win in the Classic.

DF: NBC compared Flightline's performance to Secretariat. Any time you have a horse like that there will be increased interest, not only for the Breeders' Cup but for the sport as a whole. It was amazing to see him deliver in the horse capital of the world. Being a hometown boy, seeing him come around the turn and the energy he generated was just amazing. It's something I will remember for the rest of my life. One thing about the Breeders' Cup that we are so proud of is that we know we're going to have the best horses in the world competing. In 2015, we had American Pharoah, who was the first 'grand slam' winner. That was also amazing. You feel humbled to be a part of that. As far as a monetary impact, that's hard to quantify. But we knew with him there would be increased interest and that was evident when he came into the paddock. It was like the Beatles were coming on stage.

TDN: Flightline aside, what were some of your favorite moments from this Breeders' Cup?

DF: There was not a dry eye in the house when Cody's Wish won. That was such a tremendous and compelling story. It's great when racing can tell feel-good stories like that. It was also great just having the fans come back after we couldn't have fans in 2020.

The horses break from the gate in the Dirt Mile | Coady

TDN: The Breeders' Cup Festival has become a big part of the whole experience. It's not just two days anymore. You have several events leading up to race day. Can you tell us a little bit of the history of this and how much has the Festival helped when it comes to things like economic impact?

DF: In addition to having the two best days of racing, the Breeders' Cup is a celebration of equestrian life. Like most major sporting events across the globe, it's important to have a festival component so that fans can come and see what a beautiful area the event is taking place in, be welcomed, have great hospitality and celebrate the equestrian lifestyle. We want them to walk away and say, 'Wow, not only was that two great days of racing, but it was a wonderful vacation, a wonderful experience and I want to come back.' In any of the cities that we are in, we work with the locals to develop that festival and to highlight key aspects of the region to our visiting guests.

TDN: NYRA is trying to get a loan from the state so that it can refurbish Belmont Park. You are on the record saying that if this gets done the Breeders' Cup would love to come back there. Your thoughts on a return to New York?

DF: We're incredibly supportive of NYRA and we will support any redevelopment at Belmont. We have a great relationship with the executive team at NYRA. I am having dinner Wednesday night in New York with (NYRA CEO) David O'Rourke. We wrote him a letter several months ago with the title, 'If you build it we will come.' The Breeders' Cup sticks to its word.

TDN: The Breeders' Cup has not been to Belmont since 2005, understandable because the current track is not a good fit when it comes to hosting an event like this. How much has the Breeders' Cup missed New York?

DF: We very much miss New York. There's so much energy up there and they are large investors in the game. We look forward to coming back. If they build it we will be there.

TDN: What can you tell us so far about what's in store for this year's Breeders' Cup at Santa Anita when it comes to new initiatives and things you can do to maintain the momentum?

DF: One of the challenging but also fun things when it comes to working for a company like the Breeders' Cup is that we are always innovating. We are continuing to move the ball forward on technological advancements in viewing and look forward to working with NBC, FanDuel and some other partners to continue to make sure that those who are watching have many different angles and experiences when it comes to watching the sport. Along with having great views of the San Gabriel mountains, we want to make sure that they have a world-class time when it comes to hospitality. We will continue to work to advance the culinary offerings and will have some exciting things to announce in the near future. We will also have some new ticket packages that we are putting the final touches on to make sure, again, that everyone has the best experience possible.

TDN: You brought up FanDuel. It's obvious that racing needs to find a way to attract the sports bettor and we need to have the FanDuels of the world offering betting on the Breeders' Cup and all racing on their sports betting platforms. Where do things stand when it comes to getting the sports bettors to follow and bet on the Breeders' Cup?

DF: Hats off to FanDuel for advancing the technology so there can be an aggregated wallet experience for the sports bettor. It's a tremendous marketing opportunity for our sport to be on the same bookshelf as the NFL, the NBA and MLB. Horse racing will be able to be cross-marketed from a wagering standpoint to those who are already wagering on other sports. This is one of the largest marketing opportunities we have had in a long time.

The post Q & A With Breeders’ Cup President and CEO Drew Fleming appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Brian Sheerin: The first thing that pops up when you log on to your website is a quote from Timeform, which describes you as, 'A conjurer of a trainer. One who can transform an apparently moderate animal into a frequent winner.' Another compliment that could be paid to you is that few trainers would contemplate trying to improve one that you trained.

Stuart Williams: To be honest, there are not many who have done better when they have left. There are plenty who have won races but they don't usually improve so it's something I'm proud of. We try to get the best out of every horse we have.

BS: What is the secret to rejuvenating and doing so well with the already-tried horses who make up the lion's share of your stable?

SW: We try to train each horse individually. It's easier to do that when you have a smaller yard like ours which is never home to more than 50 horses at any given time. It's easier for us to train them individually and we try to work out what suits each horse individually and make it work best in our routine. It's one of those things where I have gone down this route because I had to in order to survive. We started training with one horse. We've never had a big influx of yearlings so we've been forced to stock our stable with the older horses and the used horses at the sales. We've tried to do the best we can with each horse. It's all about trying to work out what makes each horse tick and trying to make them as happy as possible. If you can get them fit and healthy, they will produce it on the racetrack.

BS: So was it a case of needs must or was it a conscious decision to try and target the middle-tier horses at the sales in the hope of improving them?

SW: A bit of both, really. It has changed a lot in that the foreign market has become so strong and now the used horses are very hard to buy at the sales. In reality, 80% of the horses-in-training are rated below 80, so that's the standard of the breed and it has been that way for about 40 years. If we are looking at 80% of the horse population being rated less than 80 and everyone, including myself, wanting to operate in the top 20%, that's hard to do when you can only afford to buy a few yearlings every year. You are not going to beat the odds very often and get many of those yearlings rated above 80 if you are only buying a handful of them. If you want to be able to run at the big meetings and to compete for decent prize-money, you can go to the horses-in-training sales. Ten years ago, we could go and buy a 4-year-old and upwards rated 80 for 20 or 30 grand. If we could just improve it a little bit, we had a horse rated 90 who had a chance of winning a decent pot on a Saturday afternoon.

BS: What impact has the strength of the sales had on your business? It's obviously been a good avenue to trade horses for some people but the flip side of that is recruiting fresh talent has become arduous.

SW: The market has changed. We have a different funding system in Britain where they are basically relying on eight or more runners in all of these races and it's turning into quite a big problem because the fixture list has grown exponentially since the introduction of these all-weather tracks, and the horses who filled that programme are now being sold. It is not just the top horses, either, as it is the second- and even third-tier horses who are being sold abroad. If you looked at the horses-in-training sales from last year, you'd be amazed by how many horses were sold to continue their careers abroad.

BS: What is life at the coalface as a trainer in Britain like right now?

SW: To be honest, I think it's very difficult. It has never been a lucrative business, apart from if you are operating at the very top, and it's the same for the jockeys. The top 15 to 20 jockeys are making a good living whereas the rest of them are just about breaking even. It's the same for the trainers. It amazes me how many trainers manage to survive. It's a great lifestyle but it's very hard work and you put everything into it. I love it and I don't know how to do anything else. But it's becoming even more difficult to survive now than it was 15 or 20 years ago.

BS: In the face of that, I see you said you are expanding and are looking for more staff on Twitter.

SW: Everyone is short of staff. Any yard in Newmarket, there's a vacancy. John Gosden, Godolphin, everyone. We've changed our working practices to try and improve the work-life balance. None of my staff do a complete full week any week. We try to balance that against the fact that we need to look after these horses 24/7.

BS: Is that your biggest headache as a trainer, the recruiting and retaining of staff?

SW: Staff is a huge problem for everyone. I've been in Newmarket for a long time. When they had the stable lads strike, the wages doubled overnight, which resulted in a huge influx of Irish people coming over to work in England. Very few Irish people work in England now. There's more money, less racing and less hours by working in Ireland. The jockeys come over, and Ross Coakley and Oisin Orr are a good example of very good jockeys who haven't quite made it at the top tier of Irish racing doing very well over here, but very few staff come to work in England. In the 1980s, we'd a huge influx of females getting into the sport and, while they still come, it's not in the same numbers. In 2004 we'd a huge influx of Asian workers but now they can't come anymore. We have an indigenous population who are encouraged to stay on at school until at least 19 or 20 years of age and not many have ever ridden ponies as kids. Most of them are too big to ride Flat horses as well. There's a perfect storm developing where there aren't the people there to do the job.

BS: Obviously there's going to be turnover in the training ranks, as there is with any profession, but I know you were sad to see Chris Wall call time on his career.

SW: We're going down the route of the super trainer where everyone wants to have their horse with William Haggas, John Gosden, Roger Varian or the new kid on the block. Really good trainers like Chris, who is a smashing fella, saw his numbers dwindle down through the years. It's hard to see the logic behind any owner, who may have two or three horses, sending them to a big stable. You are going to be such a small fish in a big pond. When my owners want to ring up and find out about one of their horses, they ring me, they don't ring one of the assistants, the head lad or an agent. I think that should count for something. You have people like Rae Guest, George Margarson, Chris Wall, who wouldn't have had big strings, but proved that they are perfectly capable of training group horses once they have the right ammunition.

BS: How do you go about leveling the playing field?

SW: They brought in the one meeting a day rule for jockeys. Some of them like it and others don't but, for safety reasons, I think that was a good idea. A lot of the time, we have Lingfield on a Friday afternoon and Wolverhampton later that evening. It was a mad rush to get up the M6 on a Friday afternoon but everyone was doing it. If you could bring in something to help trainers in a similar way, I don't think that would be a bad thing. I'm not sure how feasible this would be but perhaps limiting trainers to a certain number would be a start. Two years ago, for example, the Gosdens had 253 horses in the horses-in-training book and that excluded 2-year-olds. They've 191 boxes at Clarehavan so you know that all of those horses are not stabled there. A lot of the horses are based at pre-training facilities and come in when they are ready. If you were the BHA, you could possibly say that, 'we are licensing you to train from this many boxes,' plus a few in and out of training. If you wanted to train 500 horses, which some do, you'd need close to 500 boxes. That would make it slightly more difficult.

BS: The role of the satellite trainer has never been as important to the super powers.

SW: And they require staff as well. The pre-training yards have got the staff and they don't have the overheads or the restrictions or the BHA inspecting their yards. It's a lot cheaper for them to run their business. I was talking to Malcolm Bastard about this recently, as one of my owners has a couple of horses down there with him, and he would make far more in a year pre-training than I would make as a trainer.

BS: A lot of guys' backs are against the wall and would say that, outside the top bracket, it's impossible to make a living as a trainer if you are not a trader. So what is it that entices so many people to soldier on?

SW: Listen, I enjoy it. I enjoy being with the horses and talking with the owner and going racing. I left school when I was 14 and have never known anything else. I've always wanted to be in racing and, I've been doing it so long, I probably wouldn't be able to do anything else! It's difficult and the first thing we do every year is try and make sure we don't go out of business.

BS: What measures do you take to ensure that doesn't happen?

SW: We don't go on fantastically-expensive holidays and we don't have a lavish lifestyle. We make sure we break even on the training fees and try to vet all of the owners who come to us in order to make sure we are not left with any bad debts. We've been very lucky in that regard and most of the people pay on time. We put a lot of work into that on a daily basis and the last thing you want is someone not paying at the end of the month. We also try to be as cute as we can with the placement of horses in order to win as much prize-money as we can for the owners and ourselves.

BS: We could be here all night talking about prize-money. It's obviously quite bad in Britain, as it is in Ireland, compared to all of the other major racing jurisdictions. You associate your stable as being well able to land a gamble. Has that propped up the business in light of the terrible prize-money?

SW: When we first started training, it did. It's not part of the business anymore because it's almost impossible to get any kind of money on these days. When I first started training, we built landing touches on horses into the business plan if we could hopefully identify a few horses who we felt could win and then we'd back them accordingly on the right days. But now we just try and place the horses where they have their best possible chance to win. It annoys me a little bit that people brand me as a gambling trainer. If you land a gamble, you get praised on one side for knowing the time of day but it's a black mark on the other side because some owners won't want to go to you because they'll think all you want to do is try and land gambles all of the time. That's not the case at all. We do the best we can with each individual horse.

BS: As you said in the Racing Post the other day, it has become a lot harder to get big money on. You also spoke about the impact the affordability checks are having on the industry.

SW: I think we need a radical change. Our two main income streams are from the owners and the punters. At the moment in Britain, our owners are recovering between six and eight pence in the pound on average. The money spent by punters comes back through the levy and the media rights and comes back into racing through different avenues. In the gross profits era that we're in at the moment, we need punters to lose. So, your owners are losing 92 to 94 pence in the pound and your second biggest customer is the punter and you want him to lose as well. That's a crazy way to run a business. It's just bonkers.

We need to somehow get nearer to the Australian model. It's more accessible now than it's ever been because the big bookmakers are mostly owned by American companies that are casino-based. They are the same people who own the big bookmakers in Australia. If we could convince the government that we are fighting this overseas drain with both hands tied behind our back right now, because of the funding system, we could hopefully get them to legislate in favour of an Australian-based system. I think it would be hugely beneficial to us and might also bring the on-course market back to life because there'd be bigger bets struck on the track.

That's one thing that is unique about British and Irish racing, is the bookmakers on the racecourse shouting the odds. It's part of the experience and is an exciting place to be. You go racing in France, the prize-money is better but there's four men and a dog sitting there watching the smaller meetings with no atmosphere at all. If we get the product, the prize-money and the competition right, then get people betting on it, then it all snowballs into a higher level altogether.

BS: You've spent time all over the world. Did you ever flirt with the idea of basing yourself somewhere other than Britain?

SW: I always think to myself that I should have stayed in Australia! I might retire out there one day. I was with Bart Cummings out there and I can remember going to Brisbane for the Carnival and basing one of our horses there with a small trainer who had a row of eight boxes behind his house in a suburb of Brisbane about a mile from the track. We used to walk the horses to the track every day and just work them like that. Well, that wouldn't be a bad retirement, having three or four horses in the back garden. He used to take them to the track and pay a work rider to ride them for him. That would appeal to me when I get too old to do it here! One day.

BS: Hopefully that won't come anytime soon as you've proved yourself to be one of the shrewdest operators in Britain down through the years. But if I was to ask you what provided you with your biggest kick in the game, what would you say?

SW: We had a horse when we first started training, Concer Un (GB) (Lord Bud {GB}), who was owned by a farmer who couldn't get 500 pounds for him at the sales. He was out of a mare who won once from as many starts, in a bumper, and William Haggas had trained it. Concer Un won a hatful of races for us, including a big handicap at the Ebor meeting at York, where he broke the track record and beat a horse who went on to finish second at the Breeders' Cup. To do that with a horse who couldn't get sold in the ring for 500 pounds provided us with a great buzz. We won 10 handicaps in the same season with Sendintank (GB) (Halling) and he won four handicaps in the same week in two separate weeks. That was pretty good as well.

BS: Finally, what does 2023 look like for you?

SW: We've got some nice horses and have picked up some new owners. George Gil is one of them, and he runs Opulence Thoroughbreds. He asked if I'd buy him some yearlings a couple of years ago and some of those look quite promising. We bought 14 in total in 2021. I trained seven of those and Roger Varian trained the rest. They didn't buy as many last year and they went to a few different trainers but the syndicate is growing and is modeled on Middleham Park. They've been fairly successful and, luckily, a few of the horses look quite promising so it's all quite positive.

The post ‘The First Thing We Do Every Year Is Make Sure We Don’t Go Out Of Business’ appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

In part one of this two-part Q&A, HISA CEO Lisa Lazarus discussed the reasons behind DFSI's selection, details about the newly announced Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU) and broad updates on the Anti-Doping and Medication Control (ADMC) program in general.

In part two, Lazarus discusses the working relationship between DFSI and the Authority–the non-profit umbrella established by HISA to oversee the broad program–as well as practical concerns about implementation of the safety program on July 1.

The following has been edited for brevity and for clarity.

TDN: What will the working relationship between the Authority and DFSI–what is essentially a service agency–look like? Will they be working primarily at the behest of the Authority or will they be an entirely separate, autonomous agency?

Lazarus: Entirely separate. Once we sign off and give them the contract, we don't have any influence.

Our only authority, so to speak, is over the rule-making process and over, of course, selecting the agency. So, if we feel the agency is not doing their job, we have the right to make changes. But ultimately, running the day-to-day business of the unit is going to be their responsibility and the responsibility of the advisory council.

TDN: At the recent Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI) conference, journalist Tim Livingston made remarks about lax drug-testing protocols in sports like the NFL and the NBA. He said, “I think you guys have to be careful because a lot of these guys who architect these doping programs are doing so with the leagues,” and then he made the comment that they're not particularly thorough and aren't designed to catch cheats.

DFSI has worked with both the NFL and the NBA. Do these comments concern you?

Lazarus: They don't at all. I think they're completely untrue and actually quite shocking.

I worked at the NFL for 10 years, so I know very well how the NFL runs its drug program. To say that it's not intended to catch [cheats] while people are caught all the time, I don't really understand that perspective. I mean, I would disagree wholeheartedly.

I know people involved in every sports league in the U.S. I think the one difference is that the drug programs are collectively bargained between the leagues and the unions. So, there's obviously a representative of the athletes that has the chance to make sure that there's due process. There are protections–that's expected. That's what makes a program good. I mean, the program has to have integrity and fairness. But DFSI for me has the highest level of integrity. They also do work for USADA [U.S. Anti-Doping Agency] from time to time. So, they really have a stellar reputation.

I think the comments that were made are really unfounded and I don't know where they come from. My understanding was that his talk and experience wasn't in anti-doping, it was [to do with] a referee scandal.

Sarah Andrew

TDN: But in terms of transparency of results, transparency of who's getting tested, the sharing of results, this is a different ball game to what DFSI has had to largely handle with some of those other human leagues, right? This is a different beast for DFSI, no?

Lazarus: Yes, it is an entirely different beast. And that's why we've created this Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit.

The way that I look at it is, DFSI is sort of the anchor tenant, because testing is the most work-intensive component of the unit. But ultimately, what they're doing is working with the advisory council to oversee experts that we're going to hire in all of these different pillars. So yes, it is an entirely different beast than what they're used to, but that's why the structure reflects that difference.

TDN: Stepping back, July 1 is looming large, and so far only three states–California, Kentucky and Minnesota–have agreed to shoulder the costs of the track safety component of HISA. What if all or nearly all of the other states decide not…

Lazarus: And Colorado. But I don't know if that's public.

TDN: But what if all, or nearly all, of the other states decide not to join them? In that worst-case scenario…

Lazarus: It's not a worst-case scenario. It's not a question of whether or not the costs get paid, it's a question of who's responsible.

The constitution doesn't allow us to force the state to do anything, so, if the states choose not to pay, what happens is that cost gets transferred to the racetracks on a per-start, strength-of-purse basis. The race tracks then take on that responsibility and they have to come up with a formula to spread that cost amongst the covered persons and to determine who pays how much.

If it's not paid, obviously we're going to work with the tracks to make it as easy as we can for them, but ultimately, the stick that we have in the Act is that they can lose their signal for pari-mutuel wagering.

Horsephotos

TDN: There's an important personnel component to this as well, right? Let's take regulatory vets. There's already a real shortage of qualified veterinarians available to do the regulatory work. If a substantial number of states opt to leave that part of the equation to HISA come July 1, do you have a contingency plan to make sure there is a nationwide team of vets who can do the pre-race examinations, all that necessary work?

Lazarus: You're mixing up two concepts here. There are two components with every state. One is the money assessment. The other is the voluntary agreement. While only a few states have agreed to opt into the money [assessment], we have about 80% of the states agreeing to enter into a voluntary agreement.

For a very high level of success with voluntary agreements, I'm hoping it's going to be about 90%. But we're at about 80% now. And what that means is that we're agreeing with the states…to use their state stewards to enforce the HISA rules. Otherwise, what's going to happen is that HISA is going to have to come in and hire a steward to sit alongside the state steward.

We do have plans in place for those states where we have to do that. But a few racetracks have [also] come to us and said, 'Even though our state doesn't want to enter the agreement, can we work out a deal with you, because we have these staff, we want to be able to use them?' And we've been able to work with them.

We're in the process of getting together a stewarding panel that we can ship out to different racetracks if we need to, as well as regulatory vets, which you are right, there's definitely a shortage of. We're looking at ways that we can essentially plug those shortages if we have to. But we're really hopeful and optimistic that most states are going to reach that voluntary agreement with us.

TDN: As many as 80% to 90% of states have already signed the voluntary agreement?

Lazarus: No, I'm sorry, I should have said that about 80% have said that, because we still have a few more weeks. So, the deadline for opting in [about the] money was about May 1. The deadline for the voluntary agreement is toward the end of May. We've reached agreements with a number of them, but very close to reaching agreement with the majority.

To be fair, what I'm basing that number on are the ones that we're speaking to, working through logistics, coming to an arrangement. It's my belief and understanding that with those states, it obviously shows they want to make it work. We just have a couple more weeks to kind of wrap it all up.

TDN: You do have a contingency plan to make sure that the necessary personnel will be in place for those 10%, 15%, 20% of jurisdictions that don't sign that voluntary agreement?

Lazarus: Correct.

Coady

TDN: There is a considerable amount of concern–both from people stridently against HISA and those who are wholly supportive of it–that come July 1, we won't be ready for launch. What does the industry need to do to make sure this plane lands smoothly?

Lazarus: A couple things. One is everyone needs to go on to hisaus.org and register. We will soon be launching a campaign to remind everyone that they need to do that by July 1.

The second is racetracks need to get more involved and engage with us more–and most are–but especially in those jurisdictions where the racing commissions are not working with us, particularly the states that are suing us or are less likely to work with us. In those states, that's where the racetracks need to get involved because the burden is going to fall on them, not to pay for everything, but to be the sort of [fee] collector or the place where the information is going to be disseminated.

And [lastly], do what you can to kind of help get the message out to those that maybe are less likely to be on their laptops reading about developments. The industry belongs to all of us and this is a heavy lift. Congress gave us very aggressive timelines and we're going to be ready on July 1, but you're right, we're definitely going to need help and support to make this work.

TDN: There's a lot of really busy people in this sport who just don't have the time to go onto a website and try to find information that may not always be easily accessible. Do you think your outreach could be better?

Lazarus: Yeah, for sure. And we're working on that now and there'll be a lot more outreach between now and July 1.

I cannot tell you how many groups I've spoken to and how many appearances I've made on board calls, on Zoom calls, etcetera. I do that day and night. So, I hope I've reached a lot of people that way. And I think I have.

We've created materials for jockeys that are kind of a cheat sheet guide for them, what they need to do. We've disseminated those. We have one for the trainers that's coming up very soon and we also have a social media campaign that's about to launch. So, I'm hoping that's going to do as good a job as we can expect. We still have a couple months to get the word out, and I think we're going to get there. It's moving quickly, but we're going to get there.

The post Q&A with HISA’s Lisa Lazarus: Part Two appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

DFSI has helped administer drug testing programs to a slew of human sports organizations, like the National Football League, NCAA, National Basketball Association, Ladies Professional Golf Association, the PGA Tour, NASCAR and Major League Baseball.

Last week's announcement included a new wrinkle in the enforcement side of the ADMC program: DFSI will establish the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU), led by a five-member advisory council.

To discuss DFSI's newly minted role within HISA, the evolving shape of the ADMC program and implementation of the safety program on July 1, TDN spoke with HISA CEO Lisa Lazarus. The following has been edited for brevity and for clarity.

TDN: Why did you choose DFSI as the enforcement agency over some of the other possible organizations touted?

Lazarus: The first and most compelling reason is that they have a tremendous amount of experience in drug testing and test planning. As you would know by now, they handle all of the drug testing for the NFL, for the NBA, for Major League Baseball, NCAA, PGA Tour, NASCAR. They really have a wide range of experience, and they've operated in some really very challenging circumstances.

There's going to be a heavy lift, right, to get this all done by Jan. 1. [But] the amount of testing in horse racing is going to be at around the level of what [DFSI are] doing right now, if you add all their testing together. They do more human testing than any other agency in the U.S.

Sarah Andrew

The reason why I was also really impressed with them and convinced that they could make it happen is that around the time that COVID began–and a lot of these testing agencies realized that without sport they'd be really challenged, sort of economically–was [DFSI] quickly dovetailed to COVID testing. They very quickly launched a very good and effective COVID testing program that helped bring a lot of the major sports back into operation. What they were able to show us about how they made that happen in a relatively short timeframe, how successful it was, was one of the things that convinced us that they'd be up for the job.

The other thing was the value proposition. Ultimately, it's the industry that's funding HISA, and so, we want to be sure that whatever money we're spending, we're spending efficiently and wisely. That there's a good value proposition there. We felt that they did. And they also embraced the concept that we had to create this Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit, which I modeled after very successful international units, like the Athletics Integrity Unit, Tennis Integrity Unit. It's been the new wave in the last five or so years, and I really love the idea of trying to make that happen for horse racing. They've shared that vision and we're happy to get behind it and support it.

TDN: The Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit–this five-member advisory council–what is their role exactly?

Lazarus: So, the way that it's working is that HISA has entered into a contract with the Center for Drug Free Sport, and the Center for Drug Free Sport is creating this Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit. There are a couple reasons why we're doing it this way.

One is the horse racing testing business essentially is so big that it really requires, we believe, its own separate entity and its own sort of separate business model. Also, DFSI did not have sufficient existing expertise in some of the areas that we required to run the program effectively…

TDN: Which areas are those?

Lazarus: Those would be prosecutions, like result management–they didn't have an existing legal staff to carry those prosecutions out. Just take a step back for one second. It's very unusual for the testing agency to also do the prosecutions–[DFSI are] not doing that for other clients. That's something we have to build separately. We [also] wanted to put a lot of resources into investigations and they didn't have sufficient in-house resources for investigations.

So, by building this integrity unit, it's allowing us to hire and bring people in that have expertise in those areas.

TDN: You've said the new unit will require 32 employees to do everything from lab accreditation to results reporting, investigation and education. So, those 32 employees will fall under the remit of the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit?

Lazarus: Correct. While some of those employees are existing Center for Drug Free Sport employees that will move over, it's going to be a separate unit that operates on its own. The advisory council is essentially like a smaller board that has the expertise in each of these different pillars to help guide the full-time employees.

TDN: But ultimately it's DFSI who will sign off on whatever the advisory council suggests?

Lazarus: Yes.

Sarah Andrew

TDN:  How far along are you in getting that 32-strong workforce together?

Lazarus: I would say we have about half of the key people and I expect in a couple weeks from now, we'll have all of the top people identified and agreements reached with them.

To hire the more junior workers below might take a little bit more time, but we don't expect those to be as difficult to fill–[those are] people that you need to execute the testing, some regional directors and all that. That might take us another few weeks after those two weeks, but I'm confident we're going to have everyone in place by the end of the summer.

TDN: Do you have an idea of cost?

Lazarus: If you saw the budget that was made public, you would see that there's about $5 million to $6 million in anti-doping startup costs for 2022, which also includes some tech costs, because there's various apps, things that we're going to need to build. For 2023, we don't have those costs yet because part of what we want the advisory council to help us decide is the optimum level of tests.

There are three categories of tests in horse racing. We have your out of competition, you have your TCO2 for milk shaking, and then you have regular race-day testing. We have some research and some ideas of what those numbers are optimally, but that's part of what the advisory council is going to help us decide. It'll also involve some determination around what's the right amount of money to spend on investigations. That's part of their role.

TDN: With less than two months to submit the ADMC rules to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), specifically, what parts of the materials that U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) has put together will DFSI use?

Lazarus: Something like 90%. I mean there's only 5%, 10% where we're actually going through to make sure that we haven't missed anything, that everything is fit for purpose.

TDN: Will DFSI take a binary approach to regulating medications like USADA outlined with primary and secondary substances? Or will it look more like the Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI) model rules' alphanumeric system?

Lazarus: It'll be 100% only based on the [World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)] code system, right? You saw the drafted rules and proposed rules that were based on a WADA code philosophy structure but were modified to be sensible for horses. So, that's essentially what it's going to look like. It will not be the ARCI model rules. There are some things in the ARCI model rules that are working really well, that we're going to borrow and integrate, but the system itself is going to be a WADA-based system, philosophically.

TDN: How far along are you in putting together the regulated therapeutics list?

Lazarus: That is something we hope to have together by the end of the summer. That's not something that's going to be subject to review.

TDN: Not?

Lazarus: I'm sorry, we're not going to be ready to release that list when we release the [ADMC] rules for public comment. But everything [ultimately] has to be approved by the FTC. I didn't mean to suggest that wasn't the case.

Coglianese

TDN: Some industry stakeholders have voiced concern about transparency aspects of the USADA materials. For example, “A” sample results aren't necessarily going to be made public until the “B” samples are returned. Is that something DFSI will address?

Lazarus: Yes, that's something that we're still discussing. We recognize how important transparency is. I come from the International Equestrian Federation and their system is to publish as soon as the A sample results are available. They're published unless it involves a minority, so a child, basically. That's a system I personally favor, but we're still evaluating what the right system [is] going to be for this program.

TDN: What laboratories will be used come Jan. 1? Will DFSI bring in its own set of labs?

Lazarus: No. So, the way the system is built is to allow for some fluidity so that we don't have any problem to be up and running January 1st. The law actually provides that any lab accredited by the RMTC [Racing Medication & Testing Consortium] will have a one-year provisional accreditation while we start accrediting the labs. There are nine labs that are currently accredited by the RMTC.

TDN: Does the variance in testing capability between those batch of labs pose any legal liability under this uniform banner?

Lazarus: You raise a really good question. That's something that is going to be a part of the program, which is the harmonization piece. We're going to require the labs to be harmonized, so that they [ultimately] reach agreement where screening limits are consistent from lab to lab once they're reaccredited. It would not be a success if labs had different levels of positive test assessments. If the levels or the testing had any discrepancies, that wouldn't be optimal, obviously, so that's something that we're going to work very hard at achieving.

TDN: How quickly are you hoping that harmonization process to occur?

Lazarus: Obviously as soon as possible. That's not my area of expertise. We have Dr. Larry Bowers [former chief science officer at USADA], who's going to be our resource in that regard. I don't know off my head, but obviously we're hoping to work toward it quite quickly. And we also hope that with a smaller number of labs that are accredited, that will be something achievable [without] a whole lot of difficulty or challenge.

TDN: You had talked before, prior to DFSI coming on board, about the whereabouts program being phased in over time. Is that still the case?

Lazarus: Yes, we're looking at the optimal whereabouts program. It's something that we hope we'll be able to get off the ground fairly quickly. The question is: Given that most horses are stabled at the race tracks, what does a whereabout system really need to be?

A horse that needs to be available for testing [within] several hours notice, we need to know where the horse is. But we've realized, and as we've thought through this, that for the vast majority of horses, we already have that information. So, it's going to take us a little bit of time to figure out what the best program is, but we do expect to have one within the first couple years.

Coady

TDN: 5 Stones intelligence (5Si) is going to be bought on board as an investigative body. What layers of transparency will surround the investigative work that 5 Stones does to make sure that that work will hold up legal scrutiny?

Lazarus: The first thing I'll say is that the reason why we thought it just made a lot of sense to involve 5 Stones–and they were eager to be supportive–is that there already are entities like The Jockey Club [and] The Meadowlands that have spent considerable amount of funds to have 5 Stones investigate actors in racing. So why wouldn't we want to take the benefit of their knowledge, their research, their information base to help us?

From my standpoint, with regards to the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit, our job is not to prosecute actors, or to make sure things stand up in court. The way that we'll use the investigative resource is to try to help us figure out who the cheaters are and what they're using and when to test them and for what. And that's how we'll mostly use the investigative resource.

Obviously, if they're used for prosecutions, I think they're fairly capable and also experienced at making sure that evidence is strong. But for us, it's really about getting the information that allows us to test in a way that's really efficient.

If you test humans, horses, anyone without that investigative resource, you usually have about 1% to 2% hit rate in terms of positive tests. When you use investigative resources, that goes up to 15% to 20%. So, it's a huge difference.

TDN: It's been discussed how a centralized database could be used to identify outliers, potential cheats and whatnot, as well as to help with the safety side of things. How far along is that database from being fully built and operational?

Lazarus: In one way we're far along and one way we're not far along at all.

We've already started the process of registering horses, so the database is live, it's available. If you go to our website, you could register yourself and your horses. But we don't have a huge body of data yet because the registration processes just started in the last couple of weeks.

However, come July 1, if you want to participate in the covered horse race, which is in any horse racing jurisdiction that exports their signal, then you'll have to register with us. So, we expect, in a few months, to have a very considerable database. Then we'll let the veterinary experts help us figure out how to use it in a way that's going to help horses, help keep everyone safe.

TDN: Do you have a rough date with which you'd like to see something really substantive up, a close approximation of an ideal end goal for this database?

Lazarus: I think a year from July 1 [2022]–which is our deadline [for implementation]–we'll be in a position to really have the data that we need to perform the sort of analysis that we think will make a difference. Two or three years down the line, it'll be even better.

Note: Part two of this Q&A will encompass the working relationship between the Authority and DFSI, media criticisms of the new enforcement agency and potential problems when HISA launches in less than two months. 

The post Q&A with HISA’s Lisa Lazarus: Part One appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

JR: How did the idea of Buckland Sales come about?

ZM: The idea came organically between myself and Millennium Farms back in the fall [of] 2015. I was doing a lot of different things on the farm, which I am fond of, but I wanted to devote my entire focus to the sales.

That's where my passion truly lies and where my skillset and personality fit best. I wanted to focus all my time and energy on what I love.

JR: Has Buckland developed and evolved the way you and Ro envisioned?

ZM: Yes. From the beginning we wanted it to grow, but we wanted to be strategic about the growth so it never evolved faster than we could manage well. The growth has been very solid going into our sixth year. Ideally, I'd like to be big enough to hold our own and represent the sport's top prospects, yet small enough that we are always able to give each customer and horse the personalized experience Buckland was created to offer.

Consigning horses is ultra-competitive. There are a lot of truly good consignors out there that I respect and admire. My goal is for others to hold us in that same esteem.

JR: What does it mean to have Ro entrust Buckland to you?

ZM: I'm very appreciative of what Ro was able to contribute as a business partner. He has been a successful entrepreneur in several industries and the lessons he taught me will serve me well throughout my life.

In any industry, but especially with horses, it's not just a business. It's personal. It's about having relationships built on respect, skill and communication. It's about being as good as you can possibly be at what you've chosen to do, and it's about how you approach and work through challenges…finding the opportunity in adversity.

As appreciative as I am to Ro for all he's contributed to Buckland and taught me personally, I'm even more appreciative of his friendship. He knows I will be pinging him for advice and I look forward to celebrating both of our successes and milestones as time goes on.

JR: After the market has such a strong resurgence in 2021 after 2020, what are your predictions for the consignment market in the coming year?

ZM: If the last couple years have taught us anything, it's to take nothing for granted.

I think we were all very appreciative of the vibrant market in 2021. I feel the trends should continue. The horse business and the people in it are very resilient. Hopefully the market stays resilient as well.

JR: Based on what you saw from their first yearlings last year, which freshman sires do you think will make headlines this year?

ZM: Bolt d'Oro–I really loved the physicals on his yearlings last year. They were strong and athletic.

JR: If you could make one simple change to the industry, what would it be?

ZM: More uniformity. I think this could be applied to various sectors in different ways, but at the core, I think the more we can strive toward uniformity, the better, stronger and more appealing to outside participants we will be.

JR: What advice would you give to someone looking for a consignor for their bloodstock?

ZM: Get a consignor who can give you and your horse(s) personal attention. Dig deeper than looking at websites or what they say on social media. Have the conversations and ask the right questions to find someone who genuinely cares about your results and that you can trust.

JR: Did you have any New Year's resolutions for 2022?

ZM: Lose 20 pounds. Check back with me at the yearling sales for a progress report.

JR: Who's your early Derby pick for this year?

ZM: Pappacap (Gun Runner). He traveled around, danced every dance and proved that he's very game.

The post Q&A with Zach Madden of Buckland Sales appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The day after Arthur officially stepped down, he conducted a Q&A with the TDN, the first part of which can be seen here. In it, he discussed his tenure as California racing's chief veterinarian, the impending implementation of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA), and the recent controversy stirred up by a Washington Post report into his investigation into a series of sudden deaths among Bob Baffert trainees between 2011 and 2013.

The following is the concluding half of the interview. It has been edited only very lightly for grammatical and clarification purposes.

TDN: Another Washington Post story from earlier this week details a 23-page California deputy attorney general analysis of the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB)'s handling of the Justify case in which it states, “The court could find the CHRB abused its discretion and acted in a manner that was arbitrary, capricious, or entirely lacking in evidentiary fact.” Now, you've repeatedly said that the only part of the CHRB's handling of the case that concerned you was the secrecy aspect. If you could go back and redo that whole case, would you do anything differently?

RA: First of all, the case was handled at the recommendation of staff counsel in Sacramento, after consulting with attorneys in the business consumer services and housing agency which oversees the CHRB and with the attorney general's office. That is what was proposed. I certainly agreed with that, in accordance with California law. The dismissal of those cases was done entirely in accordance with regulations and California law.

There is no question that the only person who questions it is obviously Darrell Vienna [attorney representing plaintiff Mick Ruis], who planted the story with the Washington Post. I told the reporter he was being played. But anyway, that's a different issue. The only issue as far as I was concerned was that it was unfair to disqualify this horse when we were going through a process simply because of bureaucratic inefficiency by the California Horse Racing Board. I won't get into the details about why that was the case, but if you go back and look at the regulatory structure or the regulatory processes in California or of the CHRB at that time, I think it's pretty easy to see.

Since then, just to be clear, there have been five scopolamine positives in California. Not one trainer was sanctioned. Not one horse was disqualified. That doesn't include almost a dozen other horses that had scopolamine in their samples below the international screen limit that we use in the laboratory. So, I really have no regrets over it. I have no apologies.

You're talking about information that was provided, most likely, by [CHRB] commissioner Oscar Gonzales, who used to work for Darrell Vienna, to Darrell Vienna to promote this story because it just lost in a court case in superior court. So, where this is going to go, I don't know. But we had a reporter that was played by a plaintiff's attorney as far as I'm concerned.

TDN: Are you saying that Commissioner Gonzales was the one who leaked the document?

RA: I don't know if Oscar was the one, but Oscar has certainly been the proponent of keeping the Justify issue alive. Actually, I filed a whistleblower complaint against Commissioner Gonzales for basically arguing the Justify case as if he was representing Ruis with talking points that were clearly provided by Darrell Vienna.

TDN: When did you file that?

RA: Over a year ago.

Horsephotos

TDN: Has anything happened?

RA: No, I haven't heard back and the state auditor's office told me not to expect to hear back. I'm sure Commissioner Gonzales knows that I filed a whistleblower complaint. I think I haven't hidden my disdain for Commissioner Gonzales for a long time.

There certainly have been attorneys that have tried to play commissioners over the years. And I think that we have an ambitious petty politician that wants to make a name for himself that allowed himself to be played. The Justify case was dismissed in accordance to state law, and it was not dismissed by Rick Arthur. It was not dismissed by [former CHRB executive director] Rick Baedeker. It was dismissed by the board, which is required by law. And that was done properly in accordance to law.

It is a done deal as far as I'm concerned, as much as people would like to keep it alive.

TDN: Now, you brought up the equine safety improvements that have occurred in California. We've made large demonstrable strides forward in that regard. But economically, the sport faces any number of serious challenges. What do you think it needs to do to ensure its longevity and sustainability?

RA: It's a real challenge to maintain the economic health of horse racing and make sure that we're doing everything right by the horse. They don't always go in the same direction. For example, we've raced almost 50% of our starts on the turf course here on a meet that is almost six months long. That really puts a lot of stress on the turf course. But that's where people like to run their horses. You have to have full fields.

We'd obviously like to have breaks so that the turf course could be in better condition. Maybe we need an additional turf course. I don't know exactly what it would be. But we do have to make it more economically viable for the owners, otherwise they're not going to [be able to afford] the PET or MRI [scans], all the other diagnostic techniques and examinations that we now require. So, somehow we have to improve the economics. But the key to sustainability is to make sure that we are taking care of the horse.

Sarah Andrew

TDN: Do you think any of these safety measures are overkill?

RA: I don't know if they're overkill. They're maybe a little bit further than we need to go. But I think we'll sort those out over time.

TDN: Which ones?

RA: For example, a 30-day stand down for fetlock injections with corticosteroids. Not unreasonable, but probably more than needs to be required.

[Note: Arthur subsequently clarified his remarks that his frustration is with what can be the “inability” to regulate in a “meaningful way,” and pointed out that most international racing authorities use at most a 14-day corticosteroid injection stand down.]

TDN: Do you think racing in California is in better shape now than when you first took your position?

RA: I think in terms of the regulations, I think we're in better shape now. I do think that we have lost some public support for horse racing that is going to be very hard to get back. I think we're always going to be under the gun. The animal rights activists are never going to be satisfied with horse racing, just like they aren't satisfied with any other animal use.

California's an odd state that way–most people don't know anything about horses. They don't know a lot about animals. There's not that rural background. Not very many people were raised on farms or around animals. So, there's really kind of a disconnect about how animals should be used in society, and that may not be sustainable for a long period of time.

I think the horse racing structure is in very good shape to go forward. But whether it will satisfy the public in California, I think is going to be hard to predict. I mean we've decreased fatalities, like I said, by 75%. Is that good enough? We will never have racing when there's zero fatalities, just like there will never be flying with zero crashes. I mean, that's just the reality of it.

Horsephotos

TDN: How real an existential threat do you think that is to California racing?

RA: I think it's a real existential threat to racing in California. The Santa Anita fiasco really exposed horse racing to people who weren't paying attention. The racing press understood that horses were injured in racing. The non-racing press really had no idea.

The type of questions that I had from reporters who had never covered racing before, never covered sport, were pretty astounding. I think a lot of people didn't realize that there are fatalities in horse racing. I think it came as a big surprise. And when you look at the numbers, it can be pretty frightening. I'm talking about nationally–there's a lot of horses in training.

TDN: How successful has the sport been thus far in challenging that narrative and what do we need to do better?

RA: I think we pride ourselves on the care we give our horses. There are certainly risks associated with it, just like there is with a lot of different production agriculture. But, I mean, [compare that] to the wild horses out in the fields, which have a life expectancy of about a third of what the horses that are managed have. I think sometimes people don't understand how well we take care of horses, and I think we have to present that message.

It used to be that people came around to the barns, look at the horses and pet them. A lot of people have never touched a horse, and I think if they get that interaction with the horse, that's something that we can sell.

To me, racing is a sport. Horses are athletes. I'm not involved in the gambling aspect of it myself. Gambling pays for the sport for the rest of us. Obviously it's a business. Gambling is key to it and getting horses and getting full field sizes or having the more races, the better the business model. But really to me, I think we have to sell the sport more than we do.

Horsephotos

TDN: What advice would you like to give to your successor, Dr. [Jeff] Blea?

RA: Well, I think Dr. Blea is well suited for this position. He's been in national leadership positions. He certainly is aware of controversy, which comes with this job. You can't avoid it if you're going to do the job right. I think the real issue is to do what you think is right and stand up for what you think is right.

TDN: And what's next for you?

RA: I'm still going to stay involved. I'm still involved in national and international organizations. I'll continue to do that. I've certainly had some opportunities that I'm mulling over in the future. But how hard I want to work? I really don't know.

I have some research projects that [are] still in the works. I'm involved with the Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation, RMTC [Racing Medication and Testing Consortium]–those sorts of things that I'm going to continue to do. And the Oak Creek Charitable Foundation as well. So, I'll keep involved in those.

The post Dr. Rick Arthur Q&A: Part Two appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

A long-time vocal champion, both in his home state and at the international level, of tightened welfare practices in the sport, Arthur has spearheaded a slew of precedent-setting medication and equine safety reforms in California.

During those 15 years, Arthur has been at the helm of the industry's veterinary ship while California has navigated a series of tumultuous storms, including a benighted venture to switch from dirt to synthetic racetrack surfaces during the first few years of his tenure, as well as the Santa Anita welfare crisis that erupted near the beginning of 2019. Known on occasion to be pugnacious and forthright, Arthur has also endured his fair share of criticism as California racing's chief equine veterinarian, most recently concerning the case surrounding Justify's scopolamine positive subsequent to the horse's GI Santa Anita Derby victory of 2018.

Bearer of many hats, Arthur is a former private veterinarian, Thoroughbred owner and breeder, and a member of The Jockey Club. He was also a past-president of the American Association of Equine Practitioners (AAEP) and was honored with the organization's President's Award in 2014. Dr. Jeff Blea, a SoCal-based private veterinarian with 28 years of experience and another former AAEP president, has filled Arthur's vacant seat.

The following is the opening half of a conversation Arthur conducted with the TDN on his first day off the job. It has been edited only very lightly for grammatical and clarification purposes.

TDN: After 15 years as California's equine medical director, what is your main takeaway from that period?

RA: My main takeaway is that horse racing has to pay attention to the horse and develop policies and programs and regulations that put the horse first.

TDN: And looking at the totality of what's happened during those 15 years, has California been successful at doing that?

RA: If you look at the numbers objectively, we've decreased fatalities almost 75% over that period. Some of it is [due to] decreased racing, but far and away, the majority is [due to] the policies and the regulations we put in place and [by] encouraging the culture change to put the horse first.

TDN: How would you characterize that “culture change” during your tenure?

RA: Up until the Santa Anita situation in 2019, I don't think a lot of horsemen really understood that society has changed and that it's necessary to make changes that put the horse first. And there certainly was a lot of push-back when you look at things like the fatality review program, when you look at voided claims, to the continuing education program, to put more science into the art of training. All those things we had tremendous push-back on really until the Santa Anita fiasco.

Horsephotos

TDN: You bring that up. So, the last two years has arguably been the most transformative period in California in terms of medication and safety reforms, many of which you'd been trying to push through prior. You've talked a lot about the cumbersome administrative law process, but why do you think it took something like the Santa Anita welfare crisis to bring about those modifications?

RA: It is very easy to stop regulations in the way that the California Horse Racing Board [CHRB] operated previously. And if you go back and look at all those initiatives that we started–continuing education for trainers, voiding claims, third party Lasix, post-mortem review programs, restricting intraarticular injections, even banning anabolic steroids back when I first started–there was always somebody who was opposing those changes. Even lowering toe grabs that were demonstrated to be associated with increased injury. There was always push-back at every step.

As I said, it's very easy to stop a regulation. Even though everybody thinks that it's easy to add regulations, it's actually just the opposite.

TDN: Immediately after the Santa Anita crisis, these changes arrived very suddenly, a mixture of in-house rules that dictated state policy and sweeping regulations that came thick and fast. Looking back, do you think it was done in a manner that was, in its entirety, fair to the horsemen and their livelihoods, and would you have done things differently given a second chance?

RA: Well remember that many of those were initiated by The Stronach Group.

TDN: That's what I meant by in-house rules…

RA: Some of them were a major change to trainers. In reality, I think some of them were a little bit stricter than they needed to be and done a little bit precipitously. But the fact is, it did open the door for many changes that have been shown to be quite effective.

TDN: Multi-factorial is the key term in any catastrophic injury and in the case of what happened at Santa Anita, official reports point to a variety of precipitating factors. What do you see is the main factor which made that particular Santa Anita winter/spring meet so deadly?

RA: Racing on a bad racetrack.

TDN: Can you elaborate on that?

RA: Look at the weather in the first two months of 2019–the previous year, 90% of the starts were on a fast track. In 2019 for the first two months, 60% of the race starts were on a fast track. We had so much rain during that period of time, there was really not an opportunity to refurbish the racetrack.

In early March, when they stopped racing, we had a dry period. They were able to bring in their previous track superintendent to rework the racetrack. And after that period of time, we really had a relatively safe racetrack. So, the real issue was continuing to race on a compromised racetrack. And it's not just the racetrack that's responsible for that, but horsemen that actually entered their horses and trained their horses on tracks that were not ideal.

TDN: Many see The Stronach Group's ban of Jerry Hollendorfer as an act of scapegoating. Do you think they [TSG] were right to ban him?

RA: I was not involved in that decision.

[Note: Arthur explained that he's involved in ongoing litigation between Hollendorfer and several entities in California, and was therefore unable to comment further]

Horsephotos

TDN: Now, the changes have been extensive over the last two years but we've a lot more on the horizon. In exactly a year's time, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act is expected to be implemented. How do you see it fitting into California's existing regulatory and safety and welfare infrastructure?

RA: It will be very, very difficult for the [HISA] safety program to come up with a program as extensive as California's and send it around the rest of the country. That suggests to me that California will still continue to have a stricter, or let's say a more robust, safety program than HISA is going to be able to develop.

How will that actually work? In my reading of the regulation, it's hard to understand because the funds for that safety program will no longer be available to the CHRB–those are some of the nebulous aspects of the HISA law as to exactly how those funds will be developed and how they'll be distributed.

For example, in California we have monitoring veterinarians as a matter of law. As of right now, those are provided by the track associations. That [would conceivably] be something the regulatory agency would oversee. But those individuals are supervised by law and by regulation and by the CHRB official veterinarians. So, how that all mixes together I think is going to be a real challenge for HISA to sort out.

TDN: Ultimately, do you see it as a plus or a minus to California racing?

RA: I suspect it's going to be a step back. I think eventually, long-term for national racing, I certainly understand the need for HISA. I think the national state-by-state regulation of racing and organizations like the ARCI have found themselves incapable of developing a national sport. NTRA was supposed to have a legal office that never came to be either. So, having one entity with control over all of racing, I certainly understand the need for it. And I think it's really, probably, the only way racing is going to survive long term.

TDN: Arguably, the biggest problem in drug testing in the future concerns the detection of genetically engineered products like EPO that mimic the body's own hormones and proteins. If USADA is HISA's drug enforcement agency, do you think they'll do a better job of policing these substances than the sport already does?

RA: It really depends. I certainly know that USADA and WADA [World Anti-Doping Agency] have capabilities in looking at gene doping. The IFHA [International Federation of Horseracing Authorities] has gene doping committees as well. In fact, there's liaison between WADA and the IFHA that I'm involved with. I do think that genetic testing, particularly gene doping, is going to be a real challenge, very expensive. So, I do think having a central entity is going to be critical to addressing that threat.

I don't think you could do it state by state, even though the best school, UC Davis, has some very, very talented people that understand genetics very well. But it's going to take it an international effort to address the risk of gene doping and gene manipulation.

TDN: So, what you're saying is USADA brings…

RA: …They bring international cooperation. It looks as if, even though USADA is different than WADA–certainly internationally–the racing industry is teaming with the FEI [The International Federation for Equestrian Sports], IFHA and WADA to try to pool our resources and understand the risks of how detection of gene doping and gene manipulation could affect horse racing going forward, and how to test for it.

Breeders' Cup/Eclipse Sportswire

TDN: Knowing what you know, how prolific is gene doping and gene manipulation in the sport?

RA: Right now, there is no evidence that it is being used. However, this is an area that has made leaps and bounds in advancement since we started the IFHA gene doping subcommittee five, six years ago. It's an entirely different environment today.

I do think there are potential risks in terms of getting genes or administering genes to horses. The real problem with gene doping is it's easy to get a gene in a horse, but it's not easy to get it to do what you want it to do. Well, that's true of even gene therapy and other uses of gene manipulation.

Having said that, I do think it's a bigger risk today than it was five years ago. And there is a lot of advancement in this area that caused us concern. But as of right now, I know of no instance internationally of gene doping being used in horse racing. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened. That doesn't mean it's not going on. We're looking for it.

TDN: In the last month, The Washington Post has come out with a couple of reports, in one of which it's alleged that trainer Bob Baffert used political coercion against you to influence the outcome of your investigation into the series of sudden deaths among his trainees between 2011 and 2013. In the final report, you concluded that although the blanket prescribing of thyroxine to all Baffert horses does appear unusual, “The fatalities remain unexplained and there is no evidence whatsoever CHRB rules or regulations have been violated or illicit activity played a part.”

You told the Post the two things–the political pressure and the report's findings–were unrelated. If you were to conduct the investigation today, would the findings and the outcome be any different?

RA: No. If you look in the necropsy reports that are up on the CHRB website, you'll see that there's all different sorts of explanations that are associated with some of the sudden deaths.

One of them was an anticoagulant rodenticide. We had a number of cases in California over the following years that were associated with anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning, including ponies, so it's not as if somebody was trying to drug a pony with rat poison. So, the real issue is that there were no violations of CHRB rules.

That does not mean that you condone the blanket administration of thyroxine. And certainly, if you look at my comments, either during the presentation at the CHRB meeting or in the report, Bob Baffert trains his horses hard. They were all on thyroxine. A number of them were on clenbuterol at the same time. And all of that, even though there's no violation of rules, really reflects on Bob Baffert's management of his stable.

If you look, there's actually a statistical analysis that shows this was not a random event, that there's something that was associated with those horses–whether it was Hollywood Park, whether it was Bob Baffert, whether it's the way the horses were managed, thyroxine, the entire program–there was something associated with those horses that put them at greater risk than the average horse. We just didn't know what it was.

TDN: Given the ethical framework that you abide by, how would you characterize the way Baffert managed his barn?

RA: The way the barn was managed was to win races–win big races with very expensive horses.

Horsephotos

TDN: Ethically–by your ethical framework.

RA: How would I best answer that question. It's not the way I like to see horses managed.

TDN: Since then, has the way in which he manages his barn improved?

RA: He actually quit using thyroxine before the report, after consulting with his own veterinarians about some of the things that were going on. I do think that they did change some management practices in the barn, but if you watch the way that Bob trains horses, he trains them very aggressively.

In fact, probably, and I've said this before, Bob Baffert really changed the way that horses are trained here. They're trained much harder than they were back 30 or 40 years ago when I started practicing. He works his horses very fast, very hard. And unfortunately, other trainers who try to emulate him don't have those million-dollar yearlings that can work 58 and change.

I think it used to be, everybody tried to emulate Charlie Whittingham, the way he trained, which was a more considered approach to training horses as compared to the Bob Baffert Quarter Horse style of training.

TDN: Do you think that change ultimately has been for the better or to the detriment of the Thoroughbred racehorse in California?

RA: I'm a big fan of Charlie Whittingham, Ron McAnally, Dick [Richard] Mandella. Those types of trainers.

Stay tuned for part two of this Q&A with Dr. Arthur.

The post Dr. Rick Arthur Q&A: Part One appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

In a nutshell, as compared to a comparable period in 2018, the number of races this year has declined 30%. Although the overall handle has declined 18.8%, purses have dropped more than 26%.

To discuss these findings, we spoke with Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) president and CEO Greg Avioli. Prior to joining TOC, Avioli served as president and CEO of The Stronach Group (TSG) and of Breeders’ Cup Limited. Prior to that, Avioli was the National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA)’s COO and general counsel, and is the founding president of the organization’s political action committee.

The following Q&A is from a longer, more discursive conversation. Any edits have been done in such a way as to streamline extraneous portions. The remaining text has been edited only very lightly for clarity.

DR: What are your main takeaways from the data?

GA: We’ve seen a fundamental shift in the economics of the industry in California.

DR: What are the most noteworthy changes you see?

GA: I think it jumps off the page at you: For the projections for the whole year, you’re looking at purses generated in California, excluding Breeders’ Cup, dropping from about [$87] million in 2018 to around [$64] million in 2020. That’s a [near] 30% decline.

I do not expect to see the on-track generated purse levels or the OTB-network generated levels come back to where they were pre-COVID. I believe this now has some permanence to it.

DR: During the initial months of the pandemic, racing was pretty much the only betting game in town. Has the reintroduction of other sports into the marketplace impacted handle on racing?

GA: Of course. If you just look at Golden Gate as an example, during the early days when Golden Gate was one of the few tracks running, they had record handle for them–as much as $4 to $5 million a day. Now that you have the return of most of the other major sports, it has returned to its traditional $1- to $2-million-a-day range. That’s the case, order of magnitude, with all of racing.

More recently, it was a bit of a shock to folks within the industry to see the [roughly] 50% reduction in total handle for both the Derby and the Preakness. If those had been run earlier in the year during COVID, I expect those declines wouldn’t have been so great.

The advent of sports wagering in the major population markets of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Illinois, coupled with the return of live sports, has definitely resulted in a decrease in the overall rate of ADW handle. But [ADWs are] still going to have a fantastic year.

DR: How do we fix the hit to purses, though? As Pat Cummings of the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation (TIF) has said, the splits on betting need to be reviewed. At the same time, he warns that a takeout hike would only “hasten racing’s handle decline.” Do you agree with him?

GA: I believe that both need to be reviewed. I don’t agree that you cannot review takeout in the context of looking at everything else. When you’re looking at almost [30%] reduction in purse generation in the largest racing market in California over 48 months, you owe it to my constituents, the owners, to look at “X.”

The whole point of this economic model is that it was derived 20 years ago for ADW. There’s no question it’s had its benefits for California. It’s also been extremely lucrative for the operators. So, we’re just looking at: What is the model that is sustainable going forward?

One thing the folks who operate the major ADWs in the state–TVG and TwinSpires and Xpressbet–these are business people, right? They understand business numbers. None of this is personal. Right? If we went to the ADWs and said, ‘Guys, we’re off [30%] of our revenues–of our income–essentially for two years, we need to change the model.’ Of course, everyone has to look at the model.

DR: This period has proven to be a windfall for the ADW companies like TwinSpires and Xpressbet who, at the same time, have seen operating expenses at their tracks slashed due to the reduction in racing. The TIF calculated that Churchill Downs’ online wagering profits rose 39% in the second quarter of this year, even without the Derby. How does this dynamic factor into things moving forward?

GA: Which dynamic are you referring to?

DR: Where’s the short-term financial incentive for companies like The Stronach Group (which owns Xpressbet) to bring patrons and bettors back to their brick-and-mortar facilities?

GA: I think that there are significant reasons. Look at Del Mar, for example. They have one of the most robust food and beverage operations in the whole country when it comes to racing. On-track wagering is the most lucrative form of wagering–of course you have incentives to bring fans back to your facilities.

The Stronach Group makes more money on a dollar wagered at Santa Anita than they do bet on Xpressbet. So, I disagree with that premise.

If your question is: How do we address the reality that Churchill Downs as a racetrack owns an ADW, as does The Stronach Group? I’m really not as focused on Churchill Downs as [I am on] The Stronach Group because they own two of the largest tracks in California.

DR: But that’s a different dynamic than Del Mar, though. Del Mar doesn’t own an ADW-The Stronach Group does.

GA: Correct. I’m not privy to–they’re a private company–all the books and records of The Stronach Group, but I know for a certainty that that entity is significantly better off if people are wagering at that racetrack–particularly at California where they have a relatively minor market share for ADW. I’d say [almost] 80% of [ADW wagering] in California is TwinSpires and TVG.

DR: So, where are you looking to make fixes?

GA: If you go back to what I said about purse generation projected about $85 million this year, what is coming out of that? There are two sides to the equation. One is how can we reduce expenses that are paid out of the purse account right now so it can go back to purses, right? And big expenses that we have right now for that would be the CHRB [California Horse Racing Board], whose budget will be over $18 million this year, with $9 million coming from purses.

That’s a budget that has increased on its own by 50% over the last five years from somewhere around $12 million. Even though the number of horses, the number of races, number of owners, number of trainers, everything that they regulate has declined 10 to 30%, their budget has gone up 50%.

We’ve made it very clear to them–to the board members and the legislators–that’s not good government. We need to work on that. There is some funding in the recent bill that’s just passed–the animal welfare bill in Sacramento [AB 1974]–that will allow some of the [state revenues from racing licensing and fines] that previously went to the general fund, to go to fund expenses at UC Davis that were previously paid for by the CHRB. So, it’s a first step in a long journey, but that’s about [$1.2] million a year that will unburden the horse industry right now.

We have the stabling and vanning fund that will be operating at almost a [$3.7]-million deficit this year, because it is primarily funded from wagering at the OTBs and the satellites, which have been largely dormant. We cannot continue to pay $5 million a year out of the purse account for stabling and vanning, particularly when we are funding a capacity of stalls of approximately 3,200 while dealing with horses in those stalls of approximately 2,400. We’ve got to restructure that program.

We have taken significant steps in the last 12 months to shore up and improve the safety of the backside for live racing and training, so that we can stabilize if not reduce the cost of workers’ compensation, which is another multi-million-dollar hit to the purse account.

We’re doing the things we can do on the big picture numbers and the expense side. Obviously, the way to grow a successful business is, long-term, not to cut costs but to increase revenues. So, on the revenue side, first and foremost, and this is a longer-term effort, but we have to increase our field size.

You’ve seen the decrease in the number of days of racing, and now that we are down to three days of racing [a week], we have to have stronger field sizes for those three days. And that’s a topic of conversation for another day: How do you go about doing that? But the days of providing free year-round training, and yet having horses participate as the trainer chooses without regard to the broader economics, that can’t continue.

DR: You mean there might be some kind of stabling fee imposed?

GA: One way or another, we have to come up with a shared vision between the racetracks and the trainers in order for the business to survive. There has to be a minimum number of horses participating on a regular basis in the state. Right now, we’re much more old school, where everyone does their own thing. I run when I feel as though my horse is ready to run–can’t rush them. If in fact I have a couple horses in training for a year that don’t make a start, but the industry is paying for [them], that’s a challenge to my business. That kind of stuff probably has to be addressed.

DR: That’s a tricky thing to address though. All we’ve got to do is look back at the Santa Anita welfare crisis–that was a big concern, trainers being compelled to run.

GA: There’s a big difference between a heavy handed–“you run or you’re gone”–and an educational process where everybody starts nodding their head and going, ‘I never realized.’ And if we collectively don’t do “X,” we’re not going to make it.

DR: At the end of the day, it’s the horsemen who are being crushed by the purse retention rates with ADWs. What should they be doing right now?

GA: The first is philosophical–we’re an ecosystem. There’s no way to significantly improve California racing as an industry and as a product if it’s not done together. Almost any party can block something. If the horsemen go to Sacramento and they want something and the tracks don’t, it’s not going to happen. Vice versa.

We have got to get leaders to emerge from all segments who can say, ‘What can we all do together?’ And really take the time to understand the complex economics. What can we do to fix this? Until there’s a commitment to work together and realize that things are going to have to change–already have changed–then we’re just wasting a lot of energy trying to convince people of your idea.

DR: The ADW contracts expire at the end of the year. What’s the status of the negotiations?

GA: The way the ADWs work in California is another most remarkably Byzantium deal that legislators set up in 2000. All those licenses are set to expire by December 31st. So, the requirement for accepting wagers after your license is granted is that you have to have what is known as a hub agreement with one of the following parties: either the TOC or with a Thoroughbred racetrack running at least five weeks. That would be Santa Anita, Golden Gate, Los Alamitos, [Del Mar].

There’s a statutory cap on the amount that [an ADW provider can receive from an ADW wager made by a California resident, which is 6.5%]. All the ADWs can go to The Stronach Group, Del Mar, Los Alamitos. If they go to one of the racetracks and they work out an agreement with them, it comes back to the TOC to approve it, and the only thing we can approve or disapprove under the law is the rate. And if we think the rate is inappropriate, we can propose a different rate. And if that rate isn’t agreed to, then there is a very short specific arbitration process.

DR: Have you made any projections on what those rates should be?

GA: You can do the math. ADW [handle] is going to be $800 million in California this year, and every point of fee paid to the ADWs is $8 million. So, add a 5% fee which has been a standard rate for the last decade out here on the larger ADWs, that is $40 million that they’re getting in terms of post revenues–out of ADW–that would otherwise be going to the purses and commissions. If there was 4%, then it would be $32 million. Three percent, $24 million. We have not determined what an appropriate rate is–all this is happening in real time right now with us analyzing these numbers [and making] projections into the future.

The post “This Now has Some Permanence”: TOC’s Greg Avioli on California Handle, Purses appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post