The Stronach Group | Horse Racing Free Tips

Proposed Legislation Suggests Extra Six Months Of Racing at Golden Gate

If Golden Gate Fields is not licensed to operate beyond July 1 next year, proceeds from simulcast wagering in the north are funneled south when there is no racing in the northern half of the state, according to proposed legislation introduced in Sacramento.

The rule of thumb is that proceeds from wagers made in the “northern zone” stay in Northern California to pay for purses and operational expenses, while the proceeds from wagers made in the “southern zone” stay in Southern California for the same purposes.

According to California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF) executive director, Larry Swartzlander, the legislation was drafted by CARF in agreement with The Stronach Group (TSG), on the proviso that Golden Gate Fields remains open for racing an extra six months.

TSG announced in July that it was closing the Bay Area facility at the end of December with the goal of increasing field size and adding another day of racing a week at Santa Anita.

“Our one concern from stakeholders was: Does The Stronach Group renege on us here, and doesn't extend [racing at Golden Gate Fields],” said Swartzlander, who said that CARF had tried to stipulate in the bill that Golden Gate fields remains open through June 2024.

“We wanted to put that in legislation–we wanted to–but we simply couldn't do it,” said Swartzlander, before adding that “everyone's pretty adamant that they will extend racing through June.”

TDN reached out to TSG Saturday morning with various questions, including whether the company indeed intended to extend racing an extra six months at Golden Gate Fields if the legislation is passed. TSG has not yet responded. The story will be updated accordingly.

“Consensus approval within the California racing industry to introduce this legislative amendment is a major step forward. It provides the flexibility to create a path for a new racing and business model leading into 2025 that is fair and balanced for all California owners,” wrote Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) president and CEO, Bill Nader, in a statement.

The proposed legislation states that, “notwithstanding any other law, if the board does not license a thoroughbred race meet to be conducted by a racing association at a racetrack located in the cities of Berkeley and Albany after July 1, 2024, a thoroughbred racing association, or racing fair, in the southern or central zone licensed by the board to conduct a thoroughbred race meet or fair meet shall, during racing weeks not allocated by the board for a race meet in the northern zone, be deemed to be operating in the northern zone for the purpose of conducting all permissible forms of wagering in the northern zone pursuant to this chapter and making and receiving required distributions from those wagers in accordance with this chapter.”

The language is a proposed amendment to AB 1074, co-authored by Assemblymember Miguel Santiago (D-Los Angeles) and state Senator Bill Dodd, (D-Napa).

At last month's CHRB meeting, TSG representatives had floated the idea of keeping the facility open until mid-2024 on condition that the current system of divvying up the simulcasting proceeds is revised to benefit the tracks in Southern California, where TSG is consolidating its operations.

Until now, various stakeholders in Northern California–including representatives of CARF–had voiced reservations about altering the system by which simulcast wagering proceeds are allocated.

For the purposes of simulcasting proceeds, the state is broken into three main geographical zones–the “Southern,” “Central” and “Northern” zones.

Largely speaking, the south and central zones are rolled into one big “southern zone,” roughly spanning the northern tip of San Luis Obispo County down to the Mexico border. The “northern zone” consists of the remaining counties in the state.

The monies generated from simulcasting wagering are used for a variety of operational expenses besides purses, including payments to the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) and the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA), the backstretch retirement fund and workers' compensation.

Next year's racing calendar in Northern California is, of course, still to be decided. Swartzlander floated a plan that if Golden Gate Fields remains open until mid-2024, Santa Rosa would stage a Thoroughbred meet from mid-October–when the Fresno fair meet ends–until the end of the year.

The 2025 Northern California Thoroughbred racing calendar, Swartzlander added, could still hinge around a permanent base at Cal Expo. Such a plan would apparently require reaching an agreement with California's harness racing industry, which only last year extended its lease of operations of the Cal Expo Harness racetrack until May 2030.

Swartzlander also suggested the permanent bases of any extended 2025 Thoroughbred racing calendar in the north could be split between Cal Expo and Santa Rosa.

“Negotiations are continuing,” said Swartzlander. “We'll work with them [WatchandWager Cal Expo] to come up with a solution. Whether we end up with a 50-50 split between Cal Expo and Santa Rosa, or whether we end up relocating Harness to another track, there's several options.”

The California legislature goes into recess on Sept. 14. October 14 is the last day for California Governor Gavin Newsom to sign or veto bills passed by the legislature on or before Sept. 14.

The post Proposed Legislation Suggests Extra Six Months Of Racing at Golden Gate appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Stronach Group Outlines Plans for Southern California

Two weeks after an initial company announcement on the closure of Golden Gate Fields at the end of the year, The Stronach Group (TSG) issued details Friday on their plans for consolidating racing operations at its Southern California racing and training facilities, Santa Anita and San Luis Rey Downs.

The plan–shared via Zoom during a press briefing lasting about 30 minutes–appeared large on big-ticket promises though short on specifics in other key areas, including the broader industry impacts from the closure of Golden Gate Fields.

The following details were divulged in the form of a press release:

Over $1 million to support the relocation of horses, trainers, jockeys, backstretch employees and caregivers from Golden Gate Fields to Santa Anita Park as part of the consolidation of racing in Southern California, and to support the California breeding program.
A $4.5 million, brand-new all-weather synthetic track that will replace the existing training track at Santa Anita Park. This change will not only allow for the seamless transition of horses used to running on the synthetic track at Golden Gate Fields but will serve to improve the overall safety environment at Santa Anita Park.
A commitment to fund a portion of 2024 heath care premiums for Golden Gate Field employees.
The creation of a job board accessible to backside employees to support the transition to Santa Anita Park.
An investment of $500,000+ (over two years) toward building a state-of-the-art equine pool for hydrotherapy and horse exerciser, accessible to trainers at Santa Anita Park, that will help horses more easily recover from injury.
$23.2 million toward a backside barn improvement program.
In addition to returning a fourth day of weekly racing to Santa Anita Park resulting in 26 extra race days, 1/ST RACING will invest $2.5 million into building a turf chute at the track.

During the course of the press conference, CEO of 1/ST Racing and Gaming Aidan Butler and Craig Fravel, executive vice-chairman of 1/ST Racing and Gaming, expanded upon some of these details.

The biggest ticket item concerns the $23 million toward backstretch improvements. “The initial piece of work is to replace every single roof and outer extremity of the barns,” said Butler.

“This is a huge undertaking. We have 2,000 stalls on the backside of Santa Anita. To quickly carve into that answer, there's not a lot of room at Santa Anita to add extra stalls. But the job when completed should have a very modern-looking and -feeling backside.

“The larger plan which we'll touch upon at a different time is that we have future proofed what would happen if we needed more stalls. Some would argue that's a great problem to have. We do have quite a few answers for that, but nothing that would be wise to announce today,” said Butler.

When asked to expand upon what he meant by cutting edge, Butler described it as an overarching theme, meaning “we're going to try to be best in class and cutting edge in everything we do.”

TSG aims to begin work on the synthetic replacement to the training track at the end of the fall meet in November. “The hope…would be to get this ready and operational by opening day,” said Butler.

The new one-turn turf chute at Santa Anita would start in the north parking lot, said Butler, who explained that the idea sprung from the growing inventory of turf horses in Southern California.

“We appreciate and understand that the ecosystem currently in California is quite turf heavy from a racehorse perspective, so, adding new turf options and turf distances and starts is going to be hugely beneficial,” said Butler.

As to the economics behind these proposals, Fravel appeared to leave the door open to the possibility that proceeds from simulcasting handle in Northern California could be diverted south.

“We will be meeting with other stakeholders and looking at gaps in the calendar and looking at how we can reconfigure the economics of California racing,” said Fravel.

In its initial statement, TSG explained that a key “goal” of the consolidation was to increase field sizes at Santa Anita and add “another day of racing to the weekly racing calendar at Santa Anita Park, come January 2024.”

When asked how long Santa Anita could remain financially viable if that extra day of racing doesn't materialize, both Fravel and Butler described the proposed investments as spurs of economic activity.

“I think with an influx of horses from the north, along with the positive impact these changes would have, we have a very realistic chance of making that happen,” said Fravel, who said contingency plans were in place in case the four-day race week didn't materialize, but declined to say what they were.

In answer to concerns that the horses in Northern California will become swamped in the Southern California circuit at the entry box, Butler discussed bringing staff from Golden Gate Fields to help smooth the acclimatization process.

“I think the intent over time is that it will become one population,” said Butler. “We've had some experience in other parts of the country where we can, during bigger meets, run higher quality from a purse perspective, and then middle tier racing on the same card.”

The paddock at Santa Anita | Benoit

Butler added: “There is another Thursday. Really the intent is to not completely load that day up with horses from Golden Gate, but to mix them across the whole four days' racing.”

In tune with Butler's comments, Fravel discussed the possibility for the “creative” carding of races with an expanded horse population.

“We fully expect that we'll be able to write condition books, racing conditions, be creative in terms of making sure that, not only the current population at Golden Gate has a place to run, but also that we'll be able to support additional racing hopefully at Los Alamitos,” Fravel said.

In terms of a totally reconstituted Southern California racing product, Butler raised the possibility of additional 'Ship & Win' incentives.

“There are lots of plans in the works to not only attract international runners, but keep up the good work that's been done,” said Butler.

As for the Golden Gate diaspora, the number of trainers and horses that can be accommodated at Santa Anita and San Luis Rey Downs is limited, admitted Butler–a restriction dictated by limited stall space in Southern California, he added.

“We're going to give every trainer and every horse as much as we can to get down here,” said Butler, pointing to the proposed industry support fund.

“Not only a stipend per horse that comes down, but also stipends for jockeys to try to integrate down in the south. There is a separate piece that covers the trainers themselves, humans as they're moving around, and their employees,” Butler added.

After the meeting concluded, TDN asked if the relocation funds would also be used to help those trainers, backstretch staff and horses who are unable to relocate south to Santa Anita or San Luis Rey Downs.

“Yes, if there is any left,” wrote a TSG spokesperson.

One enormous question stemming from TSG's plans is how the closure of Golden Gate Fields will impact the state breeding industry, which has been contracting for years.

As a sign of just how integral Cal-breds remain to the state racing product, however, during Santa Anita's recently concluded six-month meet, Cal-breds made up about 37% of all individual starts, according to DRF chart data. Cal-bred races constituted more than 20% of the overall races.

At Golden Gate Fields, Cal-breds made up nearly 70% of all starts last year, according to DRF chart data–a number that had grown from 60% of all starts at the track in 2013.

TSG has proposed hosting the annual Cal-bred sale at Santa Anita. When asked if TSG has run the numbers on the impacts on the state breeding industry from the closure of Golden Gate fields, Fravel admitted the company had not made such calculations, but pointed toward the additional funds earmarked for the breeding industry.

“We have had breeders who have said to us they're very encouraged with the prospects for Santa Anita, and increased purse money that should be available to them,” said Fravel.

“We're going to sit down with the leadership of the CTBA [California Thoroughbred Breeders Association]. They have some ideas in terms of how they can promote additional breeding, and support the existing program,” Fravel added.

In Friday's press releases, TSG wove in remarks from the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) and from prominent California breeder Terry Lovingier.

“While we continue to work diligently on what the north might look like in 2024, today's announcement answers important short-term questions about the future of California racing and Santa Anita Park,” said Bill Nader, TOC president and CEO. “This represents both an investment and a commitment by Belinda Stronach and her team to not only stabilize but likely improve California racing for stakeholders, horsemen/women, backstretch workers and the betting public. These initiatives will provide a much better environment for our horses and make our overall racing stronger for the immediate future.”

“With these renovations and the commitment to California-bred racing, I see the opportunities for Cal-breds greatly increasing and providing more value for those horses because of it. I'm going to breed more mares to take advantage of it. This is going to benefit the entire industry in the state,” said Lovingier.

“We're a racing company,” said Fravel during Friday's press conference. “We love racing, and we want it to succeed. Hopefully the breeders will share that optimism with us.”

“We are confident that this comprehensive package of important measures will not only bolster the racing, training, owner and fan experience at Santa Anita Park, 'The Great Race Place', but also support Northern California stakeholders through a challenging transition period, and lead the way with state and industrywide changes that will result in a healthier, competitive and sustainable future for Thoroughbred racing in Southern California,” said Belinda Stronach, TSG chairwoman, CEO and president.

On Thursday, news broke that Stronach has been in talks over the last year to become an investor in the Sacramento Republic Football Club.

The post Stronach Group Outlines Plans for Southern California appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Senator Feinstein Pens Letter to Stronach Group About Golden Gate Closure

California Senator Dianne Feinstein issued a letter Wednesday to The Stronach Group (TSG), which owns Golden Gate Fields, requesting answers to the reasons behind the planned closure of the track at the end of the year, and the impacts from the company's decision on other industry sectors.

Since TSG announced on July 15 with a short statement light on detail the closure of Golden Gate Fields–a momentous decision that figures to upend a way of life for many in California–the company has remained publicly mum when pressed about the decision.

“I appreciate the steps The Stronach Group has taken in recent years to address equine safety and welfare concerns at your tracks and for your ongoing operation of Santa Anita Park. Nevertheless, your decision to close Golden Gate Fields will affect many California residents and merits further explanation,” wrote Feinstein, in a letter posted on the senator's website. The Los Angeles Times first reported the missive.

In the letter, Feinstein details the following questions that she enjoins the company to answer:

What is your rationale for closing Golden Gate Fields and why did you choose December 2023 as the closure date?
Will you help employees of Golden Gate Fields find other work in the horseracing industry or elsewhere? If so, which employees and how? Will you offer them positions at the other racetracks you operate?
What are the plans for the land?
How will the closure impact the other track you operate at Santa Anita Park?

“Golden Gate Fields has hosted horse racing since 1941 and is the last remaining full-time horse racing track in Northern California. As you have noted, your decision will have profound impacts on the livelihoods of the permanent and race-day employees at Golden Gate Fields as well as regional horse owners, trainers, jockeys, and stable personnel that consider it their home track,” Feinstein wrote.

Feinstein's letter follows TDN's own efforts to elicit answers from TSG about the closure of Golden Gate.

Between July 16 and July 24, TDN submitted each day to TSG a series of questions covering a variety of issues. TSG responded only once. “For now, the [Sunday] statement is going to be our comment around the story. We look forward to being in touch in the future about our plans,” wrote Stefan Friedman, a TSG spokesperson.

In light of the ongoing information blackout, the TDN published those questions on Monday in an open letter to the company, asking when stakeholders can expect the details they need to make tough long-term business decisions.

Feinstein has inserted herself before in this manner into California racing industry matters.

In late 2021 after the sudden death of GI Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit (Protonico), Feinstein called on the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) to conduct a “thorough, transparent and independent investigation.”

The post Senator Feinstein Pens Letter to Stronach Group About Golden Gate Closure appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Greg Ferraro Q&A, Part II: HISA Rollout “Inconsistent and Uneven”

After Sunday's announcement that The Stronach Group (TSG) will close at the end of the year its flagship Northern California racetrack, Golden Gate Fields, the company at the helm of the sale has gone silent, ignoring all of TDN's requests for comment this week.

To bring much-needed illumination on this seismic decision, the TDN spoke Thursday morning with Greg Ferraro, the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) chairman.

Among several points raised, Ferraro shared his thoughts on the need for a fixed hub of racing in Northern California to secure the long-term viability of the state's racing industry, and for necessary renovations of Santa Anita's backstretch accommodation as a condition of licensure at the track.

Ferraro also expressed concern that TSG has not fully considered the potentially stark ramifications from Golden Gate's closure on the rest of the state's stakeholders, including the breeders, owners, trainers and other licensees.

“I have the feeling–I don't know–but I have the feeling since The Stronach Group hasn't put anything out there yet, that perhaps they don't have their plans fully developed,” Ferraro said.

Read part one of the interview here.

The CHRB chair, however, didn't just speak on Golden Gate Fields. Ferraro also shared his thoughts and concerns surrounding the ongoing rollout of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (HISA)'s Anti-Doping and Medication Control (ADMC) program.

Part two of this interview has been lightly edited for brevity and clarity.

TDN: Let's shift gears and move on to the ongoing rollout of HISA's Anti-Doping and Medication Control program. Very broadly, how would you assess the job they've done so far?

GF: I would say it's inconsistent and uneven.

Their rules are somewhat complicated for people. Sometimes they haven't made things completely clear. But their application of the rules and their disciplinary actions have been uneven and inconsistent.

What the basic plan is, is to make a major cultural change in the way racing operates. And in order to do that, you have to have some trust within the industry. I don't think their initial steps have built any sense of trust. So going forward, the industry's a little reticent, let's put it that way.

TDN: What specifics can you point to when you say, 'inconsistent and uneven'?

GF: The incident with the joint injections where some trainers were fine and others weren't. Some horses were disqualified and others weren't. They withheld the names of violating trainers for a long time. Nineteen trainers.

Then there's the inconsistency in the enforcement of this provisional suspension [in the event of a positive for a banned substance]. That's been quite a concern to trainers because a trainer could be put out of business with basically no warning, the way they are going about it.

From a California point of view, we're always quite concerned about due process. [Trainer Ray] Handal is a perfect example. They suspended him. Then, once they looked into it, they found out it was contamination in the feed. It's happened before. The mill runs the cattle feed before they run the horse feed, and the horse feed is contaminated.

So here, this guy is knocked out of business for [nearly] a week, traumatized financially and emotionally, and then it's reversed.

Instead, if they had they just notified the trainer, investigated for a few days and had a hearing before [potentially] suspending somebody, it seems to me that's a fairer way to go. I think most of the trainers in California are used to that kind of system, and that's their feeling as well.

TDN: What you're saying is the current system of an automatic provisional suspension after a positive for a banned substance needs to be eliminated or modified?

GF: Yes. Given the American jurisprudence system of innocence until proven guilty and due process, I think it needs to be reorganized.

TDN: You mentioned joint injections. In California prior to HISA, the intra-articular corticosteroid fetlock injection rule mandated a 30-day stand down period prior to racing, and all intra-articular corticosteroid joint injections had a 10-day stand down before workouts. HISA's intra-articular joint injection rule requires a 14-day stand down before racing and a seven-day stand down before workouts. Do these weaker intra-articular joint injection rules concern you?

GF: Yes, that's a concern to us. It's a step backwards for California. We noticed once we put that rule in place in California, we dropped the musculoskeletal breakdowns dramatically. So, we think it's important.

We tried to get HISA to go along with [California's rules], but they wouldn't. We're still in discussions with them about it. We've cooperated a lot with HISA and we've been supportive of them. And I don't want to come across as being negative of HISA. But for California, you know, it's a bit of a step backward. It's a big expense. And we're not getting that much out of it because we've been ahead of the game nationally for quite some time now.

The corticosteroid issue is something they need to take another look at. Corticosteroids are not bad per se. But corticosteroids and high-speed works combined are not good at all.

Take any athlete that goes into training. Over time, their joint health degenerates. It's just part of what happens. You wear the surfaces down. You can't really slow that [process] down, but you can certainly speed it up. And one way to speed it up is to inject joints [with corticosteroids] in close proximity to high-speed works.

And so, what we've done in California–and what HISA needs to do–is impress upon the trainers that they need to discontinue this attitude of injecting to run or to work and look at corticosteroids as something that they use as a medical treatment combined with rest and other rehabilitative procedures.

Long-term, intra-articular corticosteroids should be eliminated completely from racing.

Santa Anita | Benoit

TDN: What argument does HISA give in pushing back against adopting California's stricter rules?

GF: You have to realize that much of the rest of the country had [weaker] rules [than California]. And so they say, 'we're getting so much pushback from the rest of the country that we can't do it.'

But what we've argued is to let California have its stricter rules and use us as a model. Then, at some point in time, you can go back to the rest of the country and say, 'well, California's had this rule in place and look what it's done. It's been beneficial. Why don't we adopt it nationwide?'

California is the point of the spear in terms of dealing with the public and the liability of horse racing. I think they should use us as a sort of leader in animal welfare and jockey welfare.

TDN: Do you think HISA's approach on this issue runs counter to their stated mandate of animal welfare and safety?

GF: Correct. What it takes is somebody with enough backbone to stand up to the pushback.

I mean, we got pushback in California, too. But we did what we thought was right and it's proven to be beneficial. Now, the horsemen look at us and say, 'well, we didn't like it in the beginning, but we realize it was worth the sacrifice.'

TDN: Are you worried California, after a sharp downward trend in equine fatalities in recent years, might now see an uptick in fatalities and injuries as a result?

GF: Absolutely. That's what our worry is.

TDN: Wow. Because of this, has the CHRB thought about the possibility of California opting out of HISA–at least until these fixes have been secured?

GF: No, we wouldn't do that. We're supportive of HISA overall. We think the concept of a standard rule nationwide is beneficial to the industry overall. These are growing pains. I think we're better off to work within [HISA]. Us pulling out is just not an option.

The post Greg Ferraro Q&A, Part II: HISA Rollout “Inconsistent and Uneven” appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post