The topic “Land For Sale. How Will Race Track Closures Impact the Industry's Long-Term Sustainability?” elicited some of the commonly debated plights facing the industry, such as the decline of the foal crop, the fierce competition for the thinning horse (and horse owner) population, how to shore up field sizes, and the emergence of so-called “super” trainers and multiple-owner partnerships.

The panelists largely agreed those practices are consolidating the remaining equine assets into the hands of too few entities, but each speaker had a slightly different take on how to best deal with those woes.

Bill Nader, the president and chief executive officer of the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), didn't shy from rhetorically asking what he termed as “the hard question” about racing in the state that he represents. California is facing outsized upheaval because of the planned 2024 closure of Golden Gate Fields, right on the heels of a 10-year span that also saw top in-state tracks Hollywood Park and Bay Meadows slide off the Thoroughbred grid.

“What's the best path forward, and can California support two circuits?” Nader postulated before following up with the TOC's perspective.

“We know we have the [Northern] fairs, that's a given,” Nader said. “And we have Southern California. But can we support two circuits, knowing what we know?” in terms of the above-referenced downward trends.

Nader continued: “One avenue would be to look at something new [as a flagship track] in the north. [Plus] there is no alternative [revenue stream from gaming to fund purses], which makes it really hard, because we're doing it the old-fashioned way, pari-mutuel wagering only, sort of one arm tied behind your back…

“If there's something in the north that we think is viable and can really form a good business case, that would be option one. If not, then we have to redirect to suitable opportunities in the south, and make use of our assets at our racetracks at not only Del Mar and Santa Anita, but also Los Alamitos.

“If the foal crop can rebound, and we can get some positive momentum, maybe we can stay a little bit close to even” in terms of nationwide track closures, Nader said.

“It's really important that California stay strong, that we keep supporting [it],” Nader said. “Our owners are big players at the Keeneland sale and many of the major yearling sales. [So] in terms of understanding the worth and the value of what everybody brings, less racing may not be the worst thing if we can improve the product and make it better for the people who bet on the races, because that triggers the handle, and that drives the engine.”

Nader explained that for Californians, it can be difficult to see other iconic, nationally important  tracks, like Belmont Park and Keeneland, planning substantial long-term facility upgrades while grand places like Santa Anita and Del Mar are more focused on the year-to-year survival of their underlying state circuit.

“That's great that they're leveraging that [financial] advantage to make their venues better, no problem with that,” Nader said. “But I want everybody to be reminded how important California is. California doesn't have those [secondary revenue] advantages…. In terms of expectation management, we're okay, but we still want to escalate to the next level…. I think for the rest of the country, everybody should recognize [how] important California is to the rest of the country: Racing, breeding, history, tradition.”

Smaller tracks weren't left out of the discussion. Phil Ziegler, the president of Emerald Downs in Washington, made the observation that all too often the big-name track closures get the headlines, while it is often the disappearance of the smaller venues, like county fair race meets, that quietly erode the sport from the bottom up.

Chris McErlean, the vice president of racing for Penn Entertainment, Inc., whose Thoroughbred track holdings include Penn National in Pennsylvania, spoke candidly about how well-intended racing executives in Penn's home region of the mid-Atlantic unintentionally contribute to the very problems they're trying to fix.

This includes, McErlean said, giving big-outfit trainers “unlimited” stall allotments or writing so many conditions that races either become hard to fill or go with too few entries to be appealing to bettors.

“We do that out of convenience, [and] that's kind of self-perpetuating. That's kind of what works, but it's probably not the right thing to do,” McErlean said.

McErlean talked about how difficult it can be for a racing executive to deny alleged “super” trainers stall space and dominance across race conditions knowing that if they clamp down, that trainer will just move on to the next track down the road that will be more accommodating.

“I think we've hurt ourselves that way, and it just becomes more difficult to bring that genie back into the bottle once you let it go,” McErlean said.

“I've been involved in the mid-Atlantic for maybe 25, 30 years,” McErlean  continued. “Tracks always work together very well there. But every year the discussion is, 'Let's coordinate race dates' or 'We need to coordinate race dates, it makes sense.' And it never happens. So, yeah, we're our own worst enemies.

“But at the end of the day, we run our individual businesses. We're not a league,” McErlean said. “We compete against each other [and] it's difficult to do those changes [because] we can step out and make the right choices, and then everybody else keeps doing what they're doing, and then we end up being the net loser. People want to cooperate. It's just very difficult to be able to actually pull the trigger…. In theory it sounds good. In practice, it's just much more difficult to execute.”

Craig Fravel, the executive vice chairman of 1/ST Racing and Gaming, whose portfolio of tracks includes Santa Anita, Gulfstream Park, and the to-be-closed Golden Gate, underscored a focus-on-owners mantra.

“We do have to make sure that owners are sustained in a more profound manner, that they're engaged, and that they have, you know, a fighting chance to make some money,” Fravel said. “It's a game of hope. We don't want to fool them into thinking that this is a [can't-miss] investment in Microsoft in 1978. But we do want to give them hope, and we want to make sure they're well-treated…

“If we're going to try to change things, we're going to have to try things,” Fravel said. “We're going to have to do things that are new and different and sometimes make us uncomfortable.”

The post U of A Symposium: Trying to Find a Way Forward Amid Track Closures appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

On Wednesday, Pat Cummings, the TIF's executive director, told an audience at the Global Symposium on Racing hosted by the University of Arizona Race Track Industry Program in Tucson that this incident was one of more than 60 purported pool manipulations he has documented at North American racetracks since the spring.

“The reason we wrote about that particular incident was because it was easily the biggest of more than five dozen incidents that we've tracked in the last six or seven months affecting, really, a significant number of racetracks, most of whom don't seem to know any of this is going on,” Cummings said.

And in the cases where regulators and racetrack operators do acknowledge that pool manipulation exists, Cummings said, they often believe the practice is victimless, without harm to the sport, or beyond their power to change.

All of those ideas are incorrect, Cummings said in a panel discussion titled “Illegal Betting's Threat to the Racing Industry.”

“I've approached regulators across America with this,” Cummings said. “And they say, 'Well, it is handle, right?' I mean, the tracks want this money…”

Cummings trailed off midsentence, giving the impression that industry bigwigs often shrug when faced with evidence of pool manipulation (Gulfstream, however, did discontinue quinella wagering days after becoming aware of the Nov. 11 pool irregularities).     A recent report titled “The State of Illegal Betting,” compiled earlier this year by the Asian Racing Federation, exposed the proliferation of unlicensed and unregulated online horse racing and sports wagering companies. The report found the global demand for online wagering is increasing faster than industry's ability to react. The suspicious betting patterns detected by the TIF in American pools may have a connection to non-pari-mutuel bookmaking.

Wednesday's panel, which also included global perspectives from Matt Fowler, the London-based director of integrity for the International Betting Integrity Association, and Martin Purbrick, the chairman of the Asian Racing Federation's Council on Anti-Illegal Betting and Related Financial Crime, outlined some major threats and discussed what actions could be taken going forward.

But it was the presentation by Cummings–who isn't even a regulator or investigator, but is more akin to an ombudsman for U.S. wagering–that hit closest to home for most stateside racing stakeholders.

Cummings said the first fundamental step is to recognize that pool manipulation is never going to be eradicated entirely. It's not even explicitly illegal. A good chunk of it, he said, occurs with the aid of the “vast” gray-market global bet-booking business whose handle is “far in excess of the legal market, and it has infiltrated American racing. There is absolutely no question.”

Cummings gave an overview of how a manipulator might work, using show pools as an example. (If you want to read a more in-depth TIF writeup on the process, click here.)

A manipulator might bet $2,000 to show on a horse or horses who look certain to finish in the money at a track where the fields are uncompetitive and/or short and the show pools are miniscule. But instead of betting that money in the pools, he instead spreads it across a number of different offshore bookmakers in smaller increments. These are bets he intends to win, and it's important to note that the offshore outlets don't often “lay off” this money into the mutuel pools.

In the same race, the manipulator then bets, say, $4,500 into the show pool on one of the longest shots on the board, and this money does go through the mutuels, making a horse who is unlikely to hit the board based on past performances the overwhelming favorite in that pool. This bet he intends to lose–it's a business cost whose sole function is to abnormally drive up the show prices on the more likely horse(s) to hit the board that he backed with the offshore bookies who pay the on-track prices.

If the race unfolds as the manipulator envisioned it will, the hapless heavy show favorite runs out of the money, while the more talented horse(s) he backed via bookmakers cruises home in the top three, triggering something like a $21.00 show payoff.

“So they sacrificed $4,500 to win maybe $21,000,” Cummings said. “The manipulator is spreading his or her risk, likely across multiple accounts, because the offshore operator may not pay them. That's just part of the risk.”

Cummings continued: “I don't see a lot of [bettors] talking about this or noticing it. And the reason is, if you bet an even-money shot to show thinking you were going to get $2.20, and [instead] got $21.20, who's complaining?”

That's an obvious example that should stand out, Cummings said. But this pattern occurs with more subtlety using smaller dollar amounts, he explained, like when a manipulator might be content not to make a single big score, but instead routinely inflate 1-to-5 shots in the show pool so they pay off like a 4-5 shot would.

And occasionally, the horse who was supposed to be a dud wins or hits the board, Cummings said. That's when bettors do speak up and complain about the pools not being on the level, because the big long shot they legitimately bet in the mutuels returns a vastly underlaid show payout.

That can lead to image and integrity problems, Cummings said.

“You do not want a bad name associated with your product. And every time someone manipulates your pool, if it's noticed, it's bad for your product,” Cummings said.

Beyond creating bad perceptions, Cummings said, rampant pool rigging could also encourage manipulators to get a bit bolder with their actions, perhaps by spending a bit extra to bribe participants to ensure desired outcomes in races.

“If someone's willing to bet $4,500 to show in a race where the winning jockey is earning $900, what's an extra $500 to make sure they don't run in the money?” Cummings said. “Or an extra $500 to the trainer to tell the jockey to maybe be a little slow out of the gate today.”

Cummings stressed that to his knowledge, there is no current evidence that pool manipulators are reaching out to arrange fixed races.

“That's a good thing–for now. But it's out there. And it happens. And there is no reason that others might not try to copy this,” Cummings said.

Cummings explained that he's a proponent of the “best defense is a good offense” strategy to try to keep pool manipulation at bay. The industry can do this, he said, by recognizing that our pari-mutuel system is ripe for being controlled in the manner he described, and by increasing stewards' awareness and oversight so there is a better focus on pool-watching.

A fixed-odds system might be a better long-term solution. But that style of betting is not completely immune from manipulation, either, Cummings said.

Reinventing our wagering menus could be an option, Cummings said, with an eye on pruning off the low-volume pools.

“Should a track that has offered win, place and show betting for the last 60 years continue to do so when the place and the show pools only average $1,200?” he postulated.

In that case, maybe the solution is to get rid of the place and/or show pools.

The proliferation of rolling horizontal wagers on practically every race card on the continent is also a hazard waiting to happen, Cummings said, because those bets, too, draw very little mutuels action and have low base-bet increments.

“We have to rethink the way we're doing this, because every small pool is a way to manipulate the outcome, to corrupt a participant, to help exact these sorts of outcomes,” Cummings said.

Cummings said he has spoken with various groups of officials and regulators over the past year about the problem of pool manipulation.

Their reactions?

“Interested, but [there was] very little they thought they could do about this,” Cummings said.

“This falls back on track operators. It falls back on horsemen's groups,” Cummings said, pointing out that the idea of looking the other way when pool manipulation occurs is not justifiable simply because it increases handle and thus fuels purses.

“If you don't recognize it, [or] if you bury your head and say, 'I don't want to hear about it–not interested,' it's going to keep happening,” Cummings said.

The post Sixty Incidents of Pool Manipulation. The Industry Shrugs appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

But even though they acknowledged a transition from pari-mutuels would likely take several years and that fixed odds and pari-mutuels could coexist in some hybrid future form, now is the time to start taking baby steps in that direction, largely because America's layers of gambling regulation and a current takeout system that hovers at around 20% payment for providing content aren't quite what global sportsbooks are used to dealing with.

Nor are customers familiar with or eager to try and figure out the complexities of the pari-mutuel system, in which odds fluctuate during the event and you have to wait several minutes after the race has been run to figure out your winnings.

“Horse racing has to understand that you're in direct competition now with sports wagering.”

Matt Cosgriff, the director of retail wagering and customer analysis for BetMGM. “And this sports wagering is using fixed odds. That's what the new-age gambler is using. And the pari-mutuel product itself isn't being well received by the newer age.”

Bettors want to be able to have trust in pricing, Cosgriff said.

And, he added, they want to be able to create their own bets, like making a three-way parlay wager involving two horse races and the featured football game.

“That's how the modern gambler is now working,” Cosgriff said. “And horse racing can't afford to sit back and just let the old system run itself into the ground.”

One interesting aspect that came up several times during this panel discussion was how lucrative a product the sportsbook operators perceive U.S. racing to be in a fixed-odds form.

Richard Ames, the chief executive officer for SIS Content Services, Inc., said part of the appeal is raw volume: The sheer number of races going off every day, year-round, at just about three minutes apart when scaled across the nation.

Paul Hannon, the senior vice president of corporate development at PointsBet, said racing should embrace what bookmakers might call being a type of “filler product,” because there is tremendous value in providing a “next to jump” betting market that can function as a collective, constant presence while other sports matches are being played out over the course of hours.

“It's attractive to sportsbook operators as a product because it is always-on content,” Hannon said. “And the availability of content is really important for any sportsbook that is generating engagement on their products…. As long as the underlying economics make sense, it is a very investible product.”

Hannon might have even made the boldest challenge uttered during Day One of the symposium presentations by telling the racing industry it is in a position to become the dominant summertime betting option in the country.

“In the U.S. in particular, one thing that I think is not highlighted as much as it should be is the idea of seasonality, and the fact that in the summer months, sports books are looking for content to be able to market,” Hannon said.

“In my opinion, horse racing should absolutely be the number on bet-on sport during the summer, ahead of baseball, ahead of tennis, et cetera. I think that absolutely should be the goal for the entire industry, to make sure that happens in the coming years, coming decade,” Hannon said.

Pari-mutuels and fixed odds can live side-by-side, Hannon explained. But, he added, “I think horse racing doesn't reach its full potential over the long term unless fixed-odds racing does become the new standard.”

Asked to compare pros and cons, Hannon continued: “The con, as I see it, is that it's going to be uncomfortable. It's going to take a little bit of risk-on appetite [on the part of] the major U.S. powers in horse racing. And that's going to come with an element of uncertainty…. But I guess what I'd say [is because of bold entrepreneurship decisions made by current U.S. sportsbooks], that's how modern-day, U.S. sports betting exists now. And that's what horse racing is going to have to look at far as fixed-odds goes.”

Andrew Moore, the vice president of racing for FanDuel, admitted that getting the proper balance of fixed-odds and pari-mutuel betting is going to take some time. But the payoff will likely be worth it, he added.

“With a fixed-odds product, obviously there's variability of margin. There's been some argument that books will not be able to make adequate margin [if U.S. racing content providers insist on getting paid takeout-era rates for their fixed-odds products], and I don't agree with that point, because I've seen us do very well on margin in Australia, and the U.K., and Ireland [with] double-digit margins on horse racing,” Moore said.

But, Moore acknowledged, “There is that sort of 'cannibalization' factor,” in which racing's stakeholders fear that fixed odds will totally gut the mutuel pools, or that fixed odds works, “but not maybe to the degree that people hoped,” he said.

“It does have to work for everyone. It does have to work for the content provider and the customer, Moore said.

But, Moore continued at a different point, the long-term industry-wide investment should be worth it.

“The economics per dollar unit probably wouldn't be the same as a tote bet,” Moore conceded. “But we would all tell you that-and it's proven out in other markets-that fixed odds would be exponentially bigger than tote. So the net revenue's coming to you at the end of the day even though your margin-per-dollar would not be the same.”

Christian Stuart, chief executive officer for North America for BetMakers Technology Group, pointed out that American racing has an opportunity to improve the sport via purse increases while both helping sportsbooks flourish and giving the customer a better overall experience.

“This whole ecosystem is ripe for creative innovation right now,” Stuart said.

The post Sportsbook Panel Featured at Global Symposium on Racing appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Yet Simon Fraser, the senior vice president in charge OF international simulcast signal distribution for 1/ST Content, made his case effectively by drawing upon his experiences in managing the content rights, data, odds and signals on behalf of a broad portfolio of global partners who work with the world's leading fixed-odds, spread-betting and commingled wagering companies.

“One of the points that I've learned over the years is that racing is an inherently local sport. It isn't a global sport. It's a very local sport,” Fraser said.

As example, he pointed out that racetrackers worldwide, “all speak a version of the same language, and we all can understand each other when we talk.”

But when a bettor from one part of the planet opens up a racing publication or looks at past-performance data from another corner of the globe, it can be very difficult for them to interpret the information with enough familiarity to confidently place a wager.

Other local/global differences exist. Think fixed odds-versus-mutuels, dirt-versus-turf, jumps-versus- flats. Now toss into the mix different rules and officiating styles, plus the inherent disorientation of working across multiple time zones.

“To take advantage of the fact that people really do like racing, and they like to bet on racing internationally, you have to react to what the local market needs,” Fraser said. “First of all, the local product has to be right. If the local product isn't right, then it doesn't matter what happens internationally. And all of the revenue that you're really going to make to make the local product right comes from the local market. Anything international is just the cherry on top.

“Now, when you do the local product right, you can take it to countries and you can adapt it, and you can work with local partners and local betting companies and local journalists to turn that product into a suitable product for that market.”

Fraser gave the specific example of selling North America simulcast signals to Turkey, where the only wager routinely attractive to players in that market is a Pick Six. That means his focus on providing content to that market revolves around providing six strongly bettable races.

“But that work for Turkey doesn't translate to Italy,” Fraser explained. “It doesn't translate to Australia. It's very specific for that market, and you have to do everything differently for each market.”

Bill Nader, currently the president and chief executive officer for the Thoroughbred Owners of California, drew upon his decades of executive-level experience with the New York Racing Association and the Hong Kong Jockey Club to remind his U.S.-based audience that global participation is a two-way street.

“Not just America trying to find out what it can gain from venturing outside the country, but also horses coming in and running in our races, and trying to capitalize, from their own way, on global participation,” Nader said.

As a prime example, Nader cited the recent rise in international prominence for Japan-based Thoroughbreds. He, too, tied in that global shift to what's happening locally in Japan.

“You don't really see the top Japanese horses running in the [GI] Breeders' Cup Turf, because at that time of the year they have their own races. But in the dirt program, they don't. So where will they go? They'll go to where dirt racing is at the center of the global universe, America, and target [Grade I] races like the [G] Kentucky Derby, the [GI] Belmont Stakes, and the Breeders' Cup,” Nader said. “In Japan, there's only one Grade I race on dirt. And I think that's their next chapter, and they'll develop more with their dirt program in the next five to 10 years.”

Maybe not so much in sprint races, Nader postulated. But because Japan's bloodstock program is adept at cultivating runners that excel between nine and 12 furlongs, their horses as a whole tend to be, “stronger in more [of] the staying races,” he said.

“You've seen the broodmares that they continue to buy, especially here in America. They're just getting stronger and stronger. But I do think that eventually, they'll come for us on the dirt. And when they do, it's a good thing.”

Why good for American entities?

“Because if a Japanese horse is running in those races, all of Japan is watching. The benefit of that is incredible,” Nader said, in terms of long-term, trickle-down economics.

At one point, Fraser was asked what a typical, mid-level American racetrack can do to stand out to international bettors.

“One thing to remember is internationally, people don't necessarily know what is a mid-range [American] track [or] what is a top track. I know that might come as a surprise,” he said.

“Some of what you would think of as mid-range tracks are very popular internationally because they run on the right days. They run on days when there is not much going on. So if you are in the winter on the East Coast, there's not a lot of evening racing happening in France, or the U.K., or in Ireland during the winter. So those tracks that run Tuesday are pretty prominent tracks [overseas]. Whereas some of the bigger tracks that all run on Saturday and are crowding against each other don't get much share or voice.”

Data compatibility across different cultures is a topic that has percolated at racing's international conferences since the advent of global simulcasting. Tuesday's panel discussion re-examined the issue.

Dean McKenzie, the managing director for McKenzie Sport International, Ltd. in New Zealand, noted that bettors in other parts of the world are baffled when they encounter an American equipment change listed simply as blinkers on or off. They're used to being able to find out exactly what type of blinkers are being used among the many variations. And if a trainer decides to tell his rider to switch running-style tactics, in many foreign jurisdictions that gets communicated to the public via stewards.

Nader noted that gamblers in other parts of the world are used to judging a horse's fitness based on its body weight, which is a standard and widely available stat outside of the U.S. but practically unheard of here except for a couple of brief experiments at various tracks.

Tallulah Wilson, the head of international partnerships for UK Tote, pointed out that global rules conflicts, such as a horse running for “purse money only” in a big race like the Breeders' Cup, can create significant confusion. (Such a concept is unheard of outside the U.S.)

But, Wilson added, stakeholders have to overcome these sorts of challenges.

“You have to adapt for the benefit of your customers,” she said.

When Fraser chimed in on the topic of what U.S. content providers need to do right to be more  internationally appealing, he pinpointed two nagging issues that the American racing industry has long debated but just can't seem to get right: offering decent field sizes and adhering to published post times.

“Eight-plus runners, and [going] off on time is crucial,” Fraser said.

Although the tie-in went unspoken by anyone on the panel, that final comment from Fraser dovetailed neatly with his initial point about racing entities needing to optimize local practices before trying to scale up to the global level.

The post Symposium Panel: Act Locally Before Thinking Globally appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

“I want you to think about what this sort of change is going to mean for the industry,” Lazarus said. “It's going to look and feel different, and it's going to allow us to say to those that are our detractors, to those that doubt horse racing is clean, 'Look, we now have a rigorous, comprehensive program that is uniform; where laboratories are harmonized.'”

Lazarus made her remarks as part of the kickoff to the 2022 Global Symposium on Racing hosted by the University of Arizona Race Track Industry Program in Tucson, Arizona. She briefly acknowledged, but did not dwell upon, the looming legal fight that HISA faces that could derail its very existence.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Nov. 18 ruled that HISA is unconstitutional, and the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court will hear oral arguments Dec. 7 in a similar case that also seeks to reverse a lower court's decision to dismiss a constitutional challenge.

Although petitions for legal stays, rehearings, or potential actions by Congress are all in play for the near future, HISA is otherwise operating in business-as-usual mode until an expected Jan. 10 mandate gets issued by the Fifth Circuit to enforce its order. So in that spirit, Lazarus kept her Dec. 6 remarks forward-focused.

“One of two things are going to happen,” Lazarus said. “Either we're going to be able to show, and I think we will, that the vast majority of racehorses are competing clean. And if we have [drug] positives, we'll be able to show that we're now taking significant action, that we're now on our own initiative cleaning things up. So this, to me, is a game-changer.”

Lazarus said she would like industry stakeholders to think of HISA as a “stabilizer.” She gave the analogy of a stable stock market, in which that stability allows growth to occur.

Lazarus also mentioned a couple of ways in which she didn't want stakeholders to think of HISA: Not, she said, as an entity “making rules that complicate people's lives. Not to being sort of a top-down regulator. But genuinely helping to grow the industry through creating uniformity; through creating this protective sheath around issues of integrity and safety.”

Wrapping up, Lazarus underscored the need for unity.

“We need to be united as an industry. We can fight, and scream, and yell, and debate and malign behind closed doors. But to the outside public, to the external threats, we need to speak in one voice,” Lazarus said.

“This is our moment in time. This moment is very unlikely ever to replicate itself,” Lazarus said. “We can't lose this moment in time.”

The post HISA CEO at Symposium: ‘To External Threats, We Need to Speak in One Voice’ appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

The award is named in honor of Pete Pedersen, the nationally recognized California steward and accomplished journalist who set a standard of excellence.

Herbuveaux, accredited by ROAP in 1993, served as a racing official in New Mexico, Louisiana, Idaho, Arizona, Canada, Washington and California. He has also held the position of racing secretary, announcer and director of racing. He served as a steward in California at a number of tracks, including Santa Anita and Del Mar.

Parker, who will be awarded the honor posthumously, was the first African American to serve as a steward in U.S. racing history. Beginning in 1986, he was a steward in Michigan, in addition to all three Ohio tracks. The former exercise rider and jockey agent also holds the distinction of being the second Black racing official in the country while at Fairmount Park and Cahokia Downs.

The award for Parker will be presented to his son, DeShawn, at a later date in a separate ceremony in Ohio.

The Pete Pedersen Award special selection committee is composed of five members: Hall of Fame jockey Pat Day; former The Jockey Club steward and NYRA track veterinarian Dr. Ted Hill; Dan Metzger, TOBA president; Scott Wells, president of Remington Park and Lone Star Park; and former leading trainer and ROAP accredited steward Hal Wiggins.

The post Herbuveaux, Parker Named ’21 Pete Pedersen Award Winners appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

“I am thrilled to take the reins of this organization at this critical time in our industry's history,” said Dr. Durenberger. “The implementation of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act will bring challenges and opportunities to our membership and we remain committed to upholding the integrity of horse racing at all levels and for all breeds.”

The post ROAP Board Elects Officers for 2022-23 appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Nevertheless, overall specifics were pretty light on the ground–frustratingly so, for many–with an overarching message that the various medication and safety programs are very much a work in progress.

Looming over proceedings was yesterday's news that Kentucky Derby winner, Medina Spirit (Protonico), suffered an apparent sudden cardiac death after a scheduled workout at Santa Anita.

Indeed, Charles Scheeler, chairman of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority–the broad non-profit umbrella established by HISA and commonly referred to as just the “Authority”–kicked the presentations off by warning that the sport is viewed by many to be in an “existential crisis.”

Highlighting how the U.S. has the worst catastrophic musculoskeletal injury rate among five major global racing jurisdictions–comprising the UK, Hong Kong, Australia/New Zealand and Canada–Scheeler called this a key metric for HISA.

“We have to understand that we've deferred maintenance here,” Scheeler said, of the industry's broad approach to equine health and safety.
Arguably the most salient tidbit Scheeler shared–at least in regards to a practical implementation of HISA—was that individual states will continue to conduct race-day testing and sample collection, if indeed HISA goes into effect on July 1 next year. Initially, the United States Anti-Doping and Agency (USADA) will manage the out-of-competition testing program, according to Scheeler.

However, when the 2023 season rolls around, USADA will then assume responsibility for both race-day testing and the out-of-competition testing program.

Scheeler explained that this staggered implementation allows for a number of key adjustments (which were laid out in a subsequent press release and posted again here):

• A less disruptive transition to race-day testing from the middle of the racing season to the beginning of a new season
• State Racing Commissions to synchronize budget cycles more easily
• Laboratories more time to adapt to new standard
• Greater opportunities for additional education on the new procedures and protocols for covered persons
• More thorough testing and implementation of needed new technology solutions

And who adjudicates any medication violations during this time? Because of staggered implementation, individual states will continue to adjudicate the post-race samples they're charged with collecting, Scheeler explained.

If USADA encounters a violation of the out-of-competition testing program, “they will prosecute that according to the rules they have promulgated,” Scheeler said.

Scheeler also used his presentation to emphasize some of HISA's main selling points, such as a centralized database which identifies trends to reduce fatalities and catch cheats, as well as a “powerful, rigorous investigations program.”

And what about cost? Here, Scheeler didn't have an answer, explaining that the Authority was still working on that, though emphasizing an oft-repeated expectation that HISA will eventually produce economies of scale.

HISA Anti-Doping and Medication Control Committee

While this constituted the third HISA-related panel of the morning, it had arguably the most practical relevance for the industry, comprising, as it did, information on the everyday drug-testing and enforcement program proposed under HISA.

The panel was led by Jim Gates, director of the Anti-Doping and Medication Control standing committee. Adolpho Birch, committee chair, Scott Stanley, another committee member, along with USADA's Tessa Muir and Jeff Cook, all joined via Zoom.

The bulk of the first half of the presentation constituted a rundown of information that has been made public for a while, including the proposed results management process and an overview of the possible sanctions. Arguably the most salient information came via the public question period, towards the end, even though much sought after specifics were generally left dangling.

Under the new rules, a positive finding might not necessarily be publicly disclosed after the relevant parties have been notified, but when the violation has been confirmed via a B sample analysis. The panelists explained that the trainer and/or the agency have the discretion to disclose the finding before confirmation B sample analysis–especially in circumstances like an upcoming big race–but that the idea is to protect undue reputational damage.

Another key new ingredient to the way medication violations will be handled is the possibility of a sanction for a horse who tests positive–a seismic shift away from the current system.

Under the proposed guidelines, a horse will be automatically disqualified in the event of a race-day violation. But a horse also faces the possibility of a maximum 14-month sanction, depending on the substance and what is described as the “method.”

When asked about the philosophy behind these kinds of sanctions, Gates explained that “in most cases, when a horse is suspended, it is to give time for any medication to clear their system so that they would not have a competitive advantage going forward.”

It should also be noted that a horse can also face a sanction in the event of whereabouts violation. This is the intended system that horses can be tested anywhere and at any time with no advance notice from the moment they fall under the purview of the program until the moment they are permanently retired from racing.

A horse falls under HISA's auspices at one of four moments: the date of their first timed and reported workout at a track, the date of their first timed and reported workout at a training facility, the date of their first race entry, or the date of their first nomination to a race.

Under the new rules, a whereabouts violation could lead to a 12-month sanction for the respective horse. Just don't expect to see this whereabouts program go into effect immediately, with USADA warning that the practical working logistics need to be hashed out and phased in.

Another key bone of contention among industry stakeholders has been the lack, thus far, of a publicly available therapeutic substance list–in other words, those medications that would largely fall under the “secondary substances” umbrella.

Muir explained that the list is still being worked out. She added, however, that it will use a hybrid model of thresholds and screening limits. Read here for a more detailed explainer of what that difference means. Screening limits, Muir said, will be especially applicable for those substances commonly found in a horse's environment, and therefore a genuine threat of inadvertent contamination.

The panelists also explained that the committee was using as a key reference point the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities' (IFHA) thresholds for therapeutic substances. The IFHA's screening limits for urine can be found here. For blood, it's here.

In other talking points, the panelists explained the reasons behind deviating from the current multiple medication penalty system towards a much more punitive one. The change “allows for more stringent sanctions for those who commit more egregious violations or more frequent violations,” said Cook.

Cook also explained that the new system provides “more discretion to provide proportional sanctions based on the degree of fault of those involved.” Fines are permitted, for example, but not specified because “we want the fine to be meaningful to deter behavior,” Cook explained.

The panelists confirmed that veterinarians could face charges for certain offenses, though failed to provide any specifics.

Similarly, when asked exactly how the National Stewards Panel would work, the panel explained the goal was to employ the most qualified individual available but added scant other details.

Interestingly, when it comes to the education component, the panel explained that the general plan was to have an easy-to-use education module in English and Spanish to be taken by every “covered person.” But once again, it's unclear when that would be implemented and what the education module would specifically entail.

The draft Anti-Doping and Medication Control rules are expected to be submitted to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) later this month.

HISA Racetrack Safety Committee

The second HISA-related presentation was a Q&A between Sue Stover, chair of the Racetrack Safety standing committee and the one who took the hot seat, with Ann McGovern, the committee's director, asking the questions.

This was a statistics-heavy presentation, with Stover broadly connecting the dots between plans under HISA to start collecting relevant data in a uniform manner and what is already known about the underlying factors predisposing racehorses to catastrophic injuries.

From the industry's standpoint, arguably the most immediately pertinent information concerned racetrack accreditation standards under HISA. According to the panel, current National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA) accredited tracks will receive interim HISA accreditation that will last for three years, provided they comply with program requirements. Other non-NTRA accredited tracks will receive provisional accreditation lasting for one year.

The panelists provided a slide of some of the key ingredients of the accreditation program. The list included:

• Expanded veterinary oversight
• Void claim rule
• Transfer of claimed horses' medical records
• Surface maintenance and measurement standards
• Enhanced reporting standards
• Data reporting: medications, treatments, injuries and fatalities,
• Jockey concussions and medical care reporting

The panelists warned, however, that accreditation isn't automatic nor assured for any length of time once given.

According to McGovern, “there are processes out there to help the smaller racetracks to get accredited and to learn what to do to meet the standards that are outlined.”

Stover warned, however, that “if a track were to lose accreditation, they will lose the ability to conduct interstate wagering.”
Earlier in the panel presentation, Stover–a long-time UC Davis professor–guided the audience through her research into some of the main factors underlying catastrophic breakdowns in racehorses, such as:

• The mechanical loading and cyclical wear and tear on the fetlock joint
• The relative safety of different surfaces
• A horse's regulatory and medication history
• The significance of under-conditioning and over training

Stover then explained how a key component of HISA's data collection program would be focused on these factors, at the heart of which is this statistic: That 85% of catastrophic injuries in racehorses are associated with pre-existing conditions.

Stover also explained that horses returning from a layoff are at greater risk of injury, and that, under HISA, they would be looking for information that explains what constitutes a good or bad lay-up program.

As such, “We are also asking trainers when they do send a horse for a lay-up period that they submit the training and medical records of the horse for that lay-up time,” explained McGovern.

A member of the audience asked the panel if, ultimately, this kind of data collection would lead to a scenario whereby a trainer, attending veterinarian and owner would have minimal say in a horse's training and racing program.

“That is not the intent,” McGovern replied. “The intent is to give the trainers and the vet the information so they can make the decisions on how they train the horse and how they race their horse.”

The Racetrack Safety proposed rules have already been submitted to the FTC for review, though the public will have the opportunity to tweak the document further during the mandatory public comment period.

The post Symposium: HISA Panels Light on Specifics appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Dave Zenner is a freelance publicist, a racing official at Hawthorne, and was the stakes coordinator at Arlington Park. Tom LaMarra holds a diverse set of positions including Communications Director for the Maryland Thoroughbred Horseman's Association, and Coordinator for the Mid-Atlantic Thoroughbred Championships. NYRA's Ryan Martin is a racing communications specialist. The new slate of officers was installed immediately and will serve a two-year term.

LaMarra, Zenner, and Martin join TPA President Wendy Davis and Vice-Presidents Najja Thompson, Kevin Kerstein, and Clare Crawford, each of whom was elected last year to serve for 2021-22.

The post TPA Installs New Officers for 2022-23 appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

New research findings on contest player habits, case studies on the impact of contests at several racetracks, including Kentucky Downs and Hawthorne Race Course, and a perspective from a longtime contest player highlight the upcoming National Horseplayers Championship (NHC) Contest Workshop this coming Monday, Dec. 6. The workshop, which will be held in the Catalina Ballroom – Salon L, will begin at 3:00 p.m. MST, and is part of the 47th annual University of Arizona Global Symposium on Racing. Any registered symposium attendee will receive a $500 discount on the purchase of an NHC berth to be awarded at their organization's contest during the 2022 NHC Tour season.

The complete agenda for the workshop is as follows:

• National Horseplayers Championship (NHC) Introduction and Survey Findings – Keith Chamblin, NTRA COO
• Contests Offer an Opportunity to Draw Eyes to Your Racetrack's Product – Ted Nicholson, Vice President of Racing, Kentucky Downs
• Caesars Entertainment Affiliation With the NHC – David Snock, Vice President of Western Operations, William Hill
• Why All Racetracks Should Consider Hosting Contests Steve Byk – Host of “At the Races with Steve Byk”
• Why Hawthorne Participates in the NHC – John Walsh, Assistant General Manager, Hawthorne Race Course
• Contests from a Players' Perspective – Hal Wafer, NHC Players' Committee Member and NHC Mentor
• Increasing Potential Prize Money Through Insured Bonuses – John Unick, International Office of America (IOA)

The post NTRA-NHC Contest Workshop to Be Held at Racing Symposium appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post