TSG | Horse Racing Free Tips

For the Good of Racing, NYRA Needs to Bite the Bullet on the Belmont

There's no easy fix for the Triple Crown or one that satisfies all three tracks. But a fix is needed. With most trainers reluctant to run their horses back on just two weeks' rest, the GI Preakness S. is reeling. The connections of Rich Strike (Keen Ice), the

GI Kentucky Derby winner, committed what would have been considered blasphemy 20 years ago and skipped the Preakness to rest up for the GI Belmont S. This year, Derby winner Mage (Good Magic) was the only Derby starter to run back in the second leg of the Triple Crown, which had a field of just seven.

The Preakness has become a shell of its former self, which is a problem. The Triple Crown is not the Triple Crown unless all three races are top-class events featuring the best 3-year-olds in training.

It didn't make sense for The Stronach Group (TSG), which owns Pimlico, to keep sitting back and do nothing and let one of its most valuable assets grow more irrelevant by the year. Which is why it was no surprise when TSG floated out a trial balloon in the media last week, saying that it was serious about pushing back the date of the Preakness so that it would be run four week after the Kentucky Derby.

TSG's Aidan Butler said the move was being considered for safety reasons, that it wasn't in the best interests of the Triple Crown horses to have so little time between races. That was just spin. There's no evidence that racing horses on two weeks' rest is more dangerous than running them back in four weeks. The real reason is that the two-week gap all but guarantees a lot of good horses, and maybe even the Derby winner, will pass the Preakness, which isn't good for the race or business.

Moving the Preakness will help the Preakness, but doing so raises a new problem. The current spacing of the Triple Crown races-two weeks from the Derby to the Preakness and three weeks from the Preakness to the Belmont-works very nicely for the New York Racing Association and the Belmont Stakes. The Belmont field always gets six or seven top horses out of the Derby from trainers who wouldn't run them back in two weeks in the Preakness. That makes for a good race. It gets even better if the Derby winner wins the Preakness and heads to Long Island with a Triple Crown on the line. The chances of that happening is made easier when the competition in the Preakness is subpar. Then there's the Belmont Day card. Everything has fallen into place and the stakes-loaded Belmont day program is the best non-Breeders' Cup Day card run in the U.S. The handle is astronomical.

Moving the Belmont would also likely affect the graded races in the summer for the 3-year-olds, like Saratoga's GII Jim Dandy and the GI Travers S. With less time between the Belmont and those two races, two highlights of the Saratoga meet could be weakened.

It's easy to see why NYRA wants to keep the status quo, and that was the message the organization sent out within minutes of TSG saying that the Preakness could be on the move. “NYRA has concerns about fundamental changes to the structure of the Triple Crown. We have no plans to move the date of the Belmont Stakes,” said NYRA spokesperson Pat McKenna.

What was left unsaid is that NYRA has a weapon that TSG probably doesn't. NYRA has the assets to throw money into the Belmont. Make it a $5 million race, something I can't see TSG being able to match with the Preakness, which has a purse of $1.5 million. That sort of purse discrepancy would all but guarantee that the Belmont, and not the Preakness, would get all the big-name horses out of the Derby.

Which leaves us where?

If the Preakness is moved to four weeks after the Derby and the Belmont stays right where it is then we will have four weeks between the Derby and Preakness and one week between the Preakness and the Belmont. You would have to run in one race or the other but not both. No trainer would ever run his or her horse back on one weeks' rest if that were what was required between the Preakness and the Belmont. You probably wouldn't even get a Derby-Preakness winner to run back in a week with a possible Triple Crown on the line. The bottom line: this would be a disaster, the destruction of the Triple Crown.

This can't happen. The Triple Crown is racing's greatest asset and its demise would do irreparable harm to a sport that gets little attention from the public or the mainstream media outside of the Triple Crown. For that not to happen, something has to give. Yes, TSG could relent and recommit to the two-week break. But that leaves us right where we started, with a weak Preakness, which means a weakened Triple Crown.

The best thing for the Triple Crown, the best thing for horse racing, is for NYRA to fall in line, swallow a bitter pill, and push the Belmont back so that it is run four weeks after the Preakness. The four weeks-four weeks spacing would help reinvigorate the Triple Crown and save it from what is now floating out there, a possible Triple Crown schedule that no one should want.

In any other the sport, this would be handled by a commissioner's office, whose mission is to make decisions that benefit the league and not necessarily individual teams. A racing czar would never let the Triple Crown hang on a thread like it is. But, of course, racing doesn't have a commissioner and never will. That's why tracks get away with acting in their best interests, the interests of the sport be damned.

It's not in NYRA's best interests to move the date of the Belmont. Everyone gets that. But, realistically, only NYRA fan fix this. It needs to step up and do the right thing for the Triple Crown, which will be better and stronger with the changes. Put the sport first.

NYRA and the Pick-5 Fiasco
Bettors had every right to complain last week when the Sunday late Pick 5 at Saratoga was turned upside down by a decision to take three races in the segment off of the turf. As the horses were being loaded into the starting gate for the sixth race, the first in the Pick 5 segment, it was announced that the races were being moved to the main track. That was the result of Ever Summer (Summer Front)breaking down in the fourth race, which was run on the turf, which resulted in the horse having to be euthanized. The jockeys went to NYRA and expressed concerns about the condition of the turf course, so NYRA played it safe and took the rest of the day's race off of the grass.

For safety reasons, that was probably the right call, but it left a bitter taste in the mouth's of many a bettor. They had little chance to adjust their plays and/or cancel their bets. The Pick 5 turned into a daily double, one that paid $25.

TO NYRA's credit, CEO and President Dave O'Rourke came out publicly later in the week, apologized and said that NYRA “dropped the ball.” As a concession to the bettors, NYRA seeded Saturday's Late Pick 5 with $100,000. Tracks executives usually run and hide when something goes wrong like this. That O'Rourke was accessible and accountable was admirable.

It should also be noted that he was left to apologize for some things that were not NYRA's fault. Yes, NYRA should have gotten the word out more quickly regarding the surface changes. But it had no control over some other issues. It wanted the Pick 5 to be canceled, which absolutely would have been the right call, and asked the stewards to allow them to refund all Pick 5 wagers. But state racing regulations don't allow for that to happen. Instead, the off-the-turf races were considered “all” races when it came to the Pick 5. NYRA also asked the stewards to delay the sixth race for a few minutes, which would have given players a chance to regroup and, if they wanted to, cancel their tickets. The stewards again said no.

The rules need to be changed so that a horizontal wager can be canceled whenever a situation likes this comes up. And, if it will help matters, there's no reason why a race can't be delayed to help the player adjust their bets.

The post For the Good of Racing, NYRA Needs to Bite the Bullet on the Belmont 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

Hollendorfer Writs Denied in CHRB Case

The Superior Court of San Diego judge hearing the case between trainer Jerry Hollendorfer and the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) has denied both writs of mandate filed by the trainer.

The two writs constituted a twisty legal knot essentially surrounding which entity–the tracks or the agency regulating California's racing industry–had the ultimate jurisdiction to bar the trainer from licensed premises in the state, a hearing for which was held on Oct. 8.

According to Hollendorfer's attorney, Drew Couto, both decisions are appealable, “and those decisions are under consideration.”

The TDN reached out to the CHRB for comment and will update as necessary.

This whole legal saga began when The Stronach Group (TSG) barred Hollendorfer from its facilities after six of the trainer's horses were catastrophically injured between December 2018 and June 2019 at Golden Gate Fields and Santa Anita, a time when the latter track experienced a well-publicized spike in equine fatalities during an unusually wet spell.

This past July, Hollendorfer reached a settlement with TSG-controlled subsidiary owners of Santa Anita Park and Golden Gate Fields, the details of which have not been publicly disclosed.

Hollendorfer has not raced or trained at TSG-owned facilities since that June 2019 exclusion.

The first of the two writs concerned the race meet agreement (RMA) inked between the tracks and the California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT).

Hollendorfer had claimed that the CHRB “abused its discretion” by voting to deem the RMA in place when the trainer was initially barred from Santa Anita “expired” and “incapable of repetition” when it came to Hollendorfer's later actions through the CTT–namely, when Del Mar attempted to bar Hollendorfer from its grounds in the summer of 2019, and again later that fall when the trainer tried to enter horses at Santa Anita.

In a minute order dated Nov. 22, judge Ronald Frazier denied this first writ on grounds that Hollendorfer “lacks standing” to bring the petition.

“Any complaint alleging a violation of an RMA may only be filed by one of the contracting entities – that is, the horsemen's organization (here, CTT) or the racing association (here, LATC and PRA),” wrote Frazier.

In the second writ, Hollendorfer argued that the CHRB through its board of stewards wields the ultimate right to refuse a trainer's entries, and not the individual racing association. As such, he sought to “compel” the CHRB “to perform its mandatory ministerial” duties in deciding through a hearing whether the trainer should be able to race at Santa Anita and Golden Gate.

Frazier wrote that the court has “reviewed the lodged records and considered the arguments of counsel, and finds Petitioner has not sufficiently demonstrated a hearing was required pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 19573.”

In pre-hearing briefs, Hollendorfer also questioned the impartiality of the CHRB in adjudicating his case, citing email communications and deposition testimony from former board members that appeared to betray favorable attitudes towards TSG's actions against the trainer.

Frazier pushed back against those claims, writing that “regardless of the existence or non-existence of the alleged biases and conflicts of interest, Petitioner has failed to demonstrate they influenced or impacted Respondent's investigations in any way.”

Hollendorfer's case against the Del Mar Thoroughbred Club is ongoing.

The post Hollendorfer Writs Denied in CHRB Case appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post