wagering insecurity | Horse Racing Free Tips

Brothers: Time To Face What’s Right And What’s Wrong With Racing

It's time for racing to stop apologizing for who we are. Dating back to the rash of breakdowns that occurred in Southern California during the winter/spring of 2018 -19 that sent a ripple effect throughout the industry, we have all worn a cloak of contrite sheepishness adorned with remorse.

Santa Anita and the Stronach Group led the way on major industry reforms and the industry as a whole has come a long way in a short period of time. We are still far from perfect.

In this article I will acknowledge the ways in which horse racing has improved by the things we're doing right. I'll then look at a couple of things we could simply be doing much better: what's wrong.

In a subsequent commentary I'll dive into the abysmal—things we have a long history of doing wrong. And, hopefully, impress upon readers the importance of cooperation. Let's begin with what's right.

What's Right with Racing

Fatality Rates

Catastrophic breakdowns are down—way down. A quick look at the Equine Injury Database (EID) reveals that the risk of fatal injury declined 7.8% from 2019 to 2020 and that it has declined 29.5% overall since 2009. The 2020 rate of fatal injury is the lowest number since the EID started collecting data in 2009. That's a pretty big deal.

Statistical Summary from 2009 to 2020 (Thoroughbred Flat Racing Only)

These stats indicate that in 2020, 99.86% of racing starts at the racetracks participating in the EID were completed without a fatality. In other words, a catastrophic breakdown happened 0.14% of the time—less than a quarter of 1%. That they are truly a rare occurrence, is one of the things that makes them so difficult to completely eliminate.

When something happens frequently the events surrounding each occurrence can be studied and measured in great detail. But because catastrophic breakdowns are actually rare events, it makes it more difficult to study them in great numbers and form reliable conclusions about their causality. And even so, horse racing has managed to reduce these occurrences by nearly 30% in 11 years. The veterinarians, researchers, horse trainers, track maintenance crews, and anyone else who had a hand in this massive reduction deserve congratulations.

We are not done and zero is our goal. While no equine discipline has yet to be able to achieve zero, we are aiming high to hit our mark. Ten years of data show that not only are we aware, not only are we trying, but we are actually finding success and doing a really, really good job at it.

The formation of the Horse Racing and Safety Authority (HISA) is another step in this positive direction. There are pros and cons, supporters and detractors, and there are sure to be ups and downs. But horse racing obviously needed a hand in getting its act together and the HISA has the potential to offer much more good than bad.

Aftercare

This is the only topic that will appear in both the “what's right” and “what's wrong” sections. (Full disclosure, I'm on the board of directors for the Thoroughbred Aftercare Alliance (TAA) and have been on the advisory board since its inception in 2012, so I have witnessed their exponential growth and impact over the past nine years.)

The development of the Thoroughbred Aftercare Alliance (TAA) in 2012. Before the TAA there was no accreditation for aftercare facilities and there was little or no sharing of information and resources between these aftercare organizations. Transparency was hit or miss for potential buyers and adopters, and there was no required standard of care for individual organizations to maintain. Thanks to the work of the TAA, Thoroughbred racing now has a group of accredited aftercare organizations working together to support retired Thoroughbreds. The TAA now facilitates a monthly meeting where TAA accredited organizations get together on a largely attended Zoom call to share ideas and help each other, offering a constructive forum for each organization and for aftercare development.
The evolution of a first exit from racing. Thanks to placement programs in California, New York, South Florida, and Maryland, there is a direct path for horses leaving the track to enter into a TAA accredited aftercare organization, and due to the success of this program, it continues to expand and influence. For example, while Pennsylvania has a program that does not work directly with the TAA, there are 1,200 Pennsylvania horses that have to date, gone to TAA accredited organizations.
The New York Racing Association (NYRA) 1.5% Aftercare Assessment in claiming races that is due at the time of the claim, with 40% going to the TAA and 60% going to the New York Thoroughbred Horseman's Association (NYTHA) OTTB program Take the Lead.
Inventory and tracking. Historically, where a horse ended up was anyone's guess. With an active post-racing sales scene (this is where show and pleasure trainers put a little training into an OTTB and then move it on – otherwise known as “flipping”) a horse may have changed ownership several times over the course of a couple years. As a part of the TAA program, the reporting of Thoroughbred Inventory to the TAA has allowed the TAA to trace more than 13,000 Thoroughbreds so far. These horses are given more oversight and future security than any horse ever offered in private sale.
The visibility and development of new careers for Thoroughbreds. We have long known Thoroughbreds could be good sport horses in disciplines such as eventing and show jumping but it turns out that, owing to their versatility and huge hearts, they can excel in everything from trail riding to various English disciplines such as dressage, western disciplines such as barrel racing, equine assisted therapy programs, and everything in between.

What's Wrong

Wagering Insecurity

Pat Cummings from the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation (RacingThinkTank.com) did such a masterful job of writing about what's wrong with racing—and, importantly, how to fix it—that, rather than opine with my own thoughts, I will refer you to his “Wagering Insecurity” series here.

Cummings covers everything from the problems surrounding illicit drug use, wagering insecurity, an eroding fan base, grey and illegal betting markets, and more.

In addition to identifying the challenges, Cummings also makes recommendations of how the industry can improve. Two of my favorites:

Recommendation #1: The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority may be our only hope—if they are willing to take up the challenge. Of course, we're already tasking them with the formation of uniform medication rules, uniform riding crop rules and infallible drug testing.

Recommendation #2: Reporting all test results—as in all test results. As things are now, aside from the general assumption that the winner will report to the detention barn for a post race test, we have no idea which horses have been tested—pre or post race. Here's the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation's recommendation:

“Every pre-race, post-race or out-of-competition sample should be reported publicly, soon after it is processed. The results should be reported regardless of the finding – most will be negative.”

I like it.

[Story Continues Below]

I also love the recommendation for steward transparency and face-to-face discussions with jockeys and trainers. One of the stewards' reports used in the article showed that a horse racing at Lingfield Park in Great Britain had visibly bled and lost a shoe. U.S. bettors never get that type of information.

Another stewards' report from Hong Kong — on a horse named Golden Mission who turned in a very disappointing effort as the favorite — shows how much information is being given to the public elsewhere, and shows us, sadly, how little we're getting in America. The Hong Kong stewards' report was 135 words long. A US version, which really only comes from the Equibase chart callers, would simply say, “pulled up and walked off”.

Aftercare

I have long believed that the Jockey Club should charge $1,000 to register a foal with something like $800 of it going directly into aftercare. No, this will not solve the problem of funding aftercare but it may discourage people from breeding and registering Thoroughbreds who are unlikely, at best, to be productive at the racetrack. Right now the Jockey Club charges $225 to register a foal with $25 of this going to aftercare, and while I applaud their participation, I believe they can do more.

The Jockey Club seems to be concerned that if they charge a higher fee for aftercare at the point of registration, then the breeder/owner will believe they've paid into aftercare and they no longer need to contribute. This is a valid point. The latest research from the TAA indicates that, on average, it costs about $644/month to care for an off track Thoroughbred so the $800 in their bank account will not even cover two months room and board. Which is why everyone who participates in Thoroughbred horse racing must understand that funding aftercare is not a donation, it's our obligation.

Referring back to the NYRA 1.5% Aftercare Assessment fee that is charged for each horse purchased through the claim box, why is NYRA the only group of tracks doing this? Every racetrack in the United States and Canada should be doing the same thing. Buyers and sellers are assessed at auction. Breeders are assessed through the mare fee they pay to the Jockey Club (that goes to the TAA). But the people who are playing the game predominantly through claiming are paying nothing. Meanwhile it is the claiming horses who most often end up in need of an aftercare solution.

Aftercare also has a public relations problem. Many people think the problem is solved. It is not.

We talk about this a lot at the TAA. In the words of Stacie Clark, TAA Operations Consultant: “I now believe no amount of advertising or article writing seems to push the awareness button. In order for aftercare to succeed (and in turn help our industry and the image of our sport) we need commitment to awareness. In short, the discussion of aftercare has to matter more to the industry at large. It has to matter to everyone and it does not. There is a willful misconception that, because some aftercare is going on, it is enough. People are generally happy to want to believe that the horses leaving racing are going to be ok: out of sight out of mind.”

Again, the good news is that if the industry works together, we can solve these problems. In the next installment I'll get into the need for industry-wide cooperation.

Donna Barton Brothers is a retired jockey, award-winning sports analyst, author, and chief operating officer for Starlight and StarLadies Racing. She serves on the executive board of the TAA and TIF, and is on the advisory boards of Boys & Girls Haven and the University of Kentucky Research Department's Jockey and Equestrian Initiative.

The post Brothers: Time To Face What’s Right And What’s Wrong With Racing appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

TIF: Wagering Insecurity, Part 12–Pravda

This is Part 12 of the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation's (TIF) series “Wagering Insecurity.”

Faced with remarkable competitive pressure from the rise of legal sports betting, horse racing is at a crossroads. Confidence amongst horseplayers and horse owners is essential to the future sustainability of the sport. Efforts to improve the greater North American Thoroughbred industry will fall flat if its stakeholders fail to secure a foundation of integrity. Achieving this is growing increasingly difficult after the sport has neglected its core base–horseplayers–for decades.

“Wagering Insecurity” details some of that neglect, and the need to embrace serious reform. Fortunately, there are examples across the racing world to follow.

In one corner of racing's integrity infrastructure, one trillionth of a gram–a picogram–is regulated. In the other, jockeys and trainers go unquestioned about in-race decisions or tactics, state veterinarians are not required to report publicly about episodes of bleeding or lameness after races, provide detailed reasons for scratches and voided claims, thrown shoes, or other measures which are standard across the rest of the racing world.

The gap must be narrowed.

In the concluding installment of “Wagering Insecurity,” we offer four observations from the process of compiling this series. To read the complete article, click here.

The post TIF: Wagering Insecurity, Part 12–Pravda appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Wagering Insecurity: Avoiding Another ‘Medina Spirit Mess’

In one corner of racing's integrity infrastructure, one trillionth of a gram – a picogram – is regulated.

In the other, jockeys and trainers go unquestioned about in-race decisions or tactics, state veterinarians are not required to report publicly about episodes of bleeding or lameness after races, provide detailed reasons for scratches and voided claims, thrown shoes, or other measures which are standard across the rest of the racing world.

The gap must be narrowed.

In the concluding installment of “Wagering Insecurity,” we offer four observations from the process of compiling this series.

PART 12 – PRAVDA

In this final installment of “Wagering Insecurity,” we make four observations which have become clear. These are the product of input from many individuals, both named and anonymous, whose support throughout this series and whose assistance made it possible. .

The Thoroughbred Idea Foundation supports the growth of the North American Thoroughbred racing industry. We want more horseplayers and more horse owners. That sort of future is impossible without beginning the process of adopting the recommendations offered previously and considering the observations below.

OBSERVATION #1

Medication use has dominated public discourse on North American racing integrity over the last three decades. The history is long and contentious.

For context, the 2021 Kentucky Derby was the first run since 1985 where the entire field ran without Lasix. Five years after that, the topic was front and center on Derby Day as exemplified in this video below, of the 1990 Kentucky Derby broadcast, where Al Michaels and Dave Johnson spoke of a Jockey Club study about the potential impact of Lasix use.

Michaels said it would be a story to follow throughout the summer. Regardless of the study's specifics, it took more than three decades for action.

Anti-doping control programs are a necessary component of a broader suite of integrity measures. But balance is needed; progress must be shown in other areas of the integrity arena, too.

There are many factors which have contributed to North American racing's issues with doping, including a weak regulatory structure, a laissez-faire culture about drugs and a general failure to be active overseers of the sport, protecting the betting public.

One area where racing has gotten it right is in constantly improving thresholds of testing. A wealth of well-educated experts has ensured that as science and testing improve, racing's approach to testing evolves as well.

But the contrast with other forms of racing's integrity infrastructure should not be lost.

In one corner, one-trillionth of a gram can be measured. Penalties may be assessed becaue of that microscopic finding. In another corner, jockeys and trainers go unquestioned about in-race decisions or tactics, state veterinarians are not required to report publicly any episodes of bleeding or lameness noticed after a race or provide reasons for scratches and voided claims, thrown shoes, or other measures which are standard across the rest of the racing world.

That gap needs to be closed.

OBSERVATION #2

North American stewards fall short of those in the rest of the developed racing world. The blame resides with the regulators and track operators (yes, sometimes stewards are hired directly by the tracks) who have allowed these roles to degrade over time.

They have less training, are paid less and have not been given responsibilities commensurate with the worldwide expectations for such positions. As many veterans of the stewards' stand and other officials have retired, their replacements are often even less prepared.

A positive development in this space came in August 2019 when the Jockey Club and Racing Officials Accreditation Program announced the launch of a global exchange program which would give North American stewards the opportunity to learn and practice in other countries. The pandemic delayed implementation, but the program should be embraced as the world reopens.

The Horseracing Integrity & Safety Authority (HISA) presents a vehicle for uplifting these standards.

TIF founder Craig Bernick is hopeful HISA evolves to tackle these issues, and the opportunities raised in Part 11 of this series.

“This time, it actually feels different. HISA offers racing a unique opportunity because it has superseding power over existing industry organizations.

“Past efforts to reform our sport have failed because of two main reasons – either the groups or organizations involved were not empowered to effect change or those involved were too focused on their own bottom line or retaining some semblance of control.”

While many horse and racetrack owners may have enjoyed slot-supplemented revenues and purses over more than the last two decades, additional funding has not found its way to racing's integrity infrastructure and the neglect shows.

Several stewards and racing officials consulted during TIF's research for the “Wagering Insecurity” series, who all requested anonymity to speak forthrightly, shared examples of poor working conditions, obsolete technology and general concerns over their ability to do their job well at present.

Uplifting standards will not be cheap, but the cost of not improving will be far greater for everyone who makes their living in racing.

OBSERVATION #3

A troublesome factor which belies all of the detail shared in this series is the absence of a robust, independent racing media in North America.

While racing has several influential trade publications and broadcasts with some very talented, knowledgable staff which contribute significantly to the sport, mainstream, independent coverage is practically non-existent.

Steve Crist, former publisher of the Daily Racing Form, lamented the state of racing coverage in March 2021 remarks to TIF for this series.

“Anyone from the outside who has seen the evolution of coverage of the sport can say that the kind of journalism which existed, even 10 years ago, is just not being done.

“This is a huge issue. It's nearly impossible to hold anyone accountable for anything.”

Crist recalled a time when he was a young reporter for the New York Times in the early 1980s, covering the ongoing hearings and legal wranglings around race-fixing from the 1970s. The coverage was endless, Crist recalls.

“I was working for the Times and there were three other racing beat reporters from each of the tabloids doing the same. Everyone wanted to be first.”

His work included eye-popping ledes, like the following from a 1981 piece:

“A former New York-based trainer has identified Jacinto Vasquez, a leading rider who has twice won the Kentucky Derby, as the man who offered the jockey Mike Hole a $5,000 bribe to hold back a horse at Saratoga in 1974, according to a deposition given to the State Racing and Wagering Board.”

Adjusting for inflation, a $5,000 bribe in 1974 would be about $26,000 today, the equivalent jockey's cut for winning a race with a purse of more than $400,000.

Most public racing coverage is restrained because advertising dollars come from within the industry itself. Mainstream coverage, when it happens, is often fleeting.

Crist thinks this is dangerous for a sport whose foundation is grounded in wagering.

“A media outlet in racing should not be compared to a propaganda machine like Pravda from the old Soviet Union, but in at least one case, that's what we now have.”

The line between journalism and publicity has been increasingly blurred.

Industry publications are hard-pressed to hold tracks, tote companies, ADWs and other-related organizations accountable for the degradation of the sport's integrity infrastructure when those same entities are their primary source of income through advertising. Years ago when he was with the New York Times, Crist and his mainstream media colleagues were in those roles. Today, coverage is mostly limited to the trades.

Several racing writers and broadcasters questioned by TIF acknowledged these issues are ever-present in their daily work. They all asked to remain anonymous because of a fear of reprisal from their employers and contacts within the industry. Staffing within industry media has contracted substantially in recent years, reducing the opportunity for deep coverage. Those in place are doing the best they can with what they have, but it is a delicate balance. One said the situation has devolved to such a degree that they know instinctively what topics are off-limits.

Criticism about the industry's integrity failings and other myriad issues could come at significant cost to racing media.

Those with substantial investments in horses, farms, associated agribusiness and other economic drivers of the sport should recognize that racing media must be given the freedom to hold the business to a higher standard than at present.

In the long run, the truth benefits the greatest number of stakeholders.

OBSERVATION #4

The overall wagering space is changing rapidly. Fixed odds betting for racing in North America is a necessity for one key reason – all new betting customers expect to know what price they are getting on their bets. While pari-mutuel betting still has a future, particularly in exotic wagers, the tote monopoly which has existed for generations on U.S. racing is coming to an end, as it should.

The tote protocol in use now, relying on a decades-old approach known in the industry as ITSP, is likely on its way out. Global commingling is more important than ever and TIF has learned from several major players in the pari-mutuel wagering technology space that a much-revised modern system of bet processing and information sharing will be needed. Support for antiquated tote technology is fading fast.

Customers must still be protected in the interim, and whatever new systems are developed should have proper oversight measures at its core.

CONCLUSION

The “Wagering Insecurity” series is unlike anything we have researched and published at the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation. We hope lessons can be learned from it.

“TIF was created to improve the prospects of horse owners and horseplayers, whose participation fuels racing's sustainability,” said Bernick.

“We have focused on issues related to pricing, transparency, technology and access to data. Racing has huge obligations too – now more than ever: aftercare, backstretch programs, jockey health and equine research. The best way to meet these obligations and sustain the business is to grow revenue through wagering. Doing so will be impossible without the greater industry accepting the serious issues raised and recommendations provided by this series.”

Ensuring integrity in horse racing takes a team effort. It's hard work. And it requires drive and support from horse owners, breeders, racing fans and most especially, the customers who need the most significant protection – the horseplayers.

It will take significant capital from the greater industry, investing in the appropriate resources to build an acceptable standard of integrity oversight. That does not go unnoticed. Under no circumstances should the costs for such programs come from increasing takeout – the cost of betting. There would be no more counterproductive effort than that.

The long-term costs to racing and its stakeholders' investments, if we do not upgrade racing's integrity infrastructure, will be far more substantial than the short-term costs of filling those needs.

We must restore and build confidence in existing horseplayers and horse owners, which will help us attract future customers. Little that racing in North America is doing now will accomplish that, particularly given our general embrace of opaque practices.

Racing must be operated more sustainably than it is now and we need to adopt the measures recommended here, and others, to bring the industry forward.

The path to better securing racing's wagering business is challenging and getting there will require exposing some long-standing failings.

For sports and racing integrity expert Jack Anderson, there is no choice.

“In the immediate, U.S. racing needs to look within. It needs to consult and review its own stakeholders and undertake a clear-eyed, hard-headed analysis of the state of the sport.

“That process may be a painful one. It may shock the racing public. It may, in the short term, undermine the reputation of the sport even amongst the most sympathetic of its supporters in the wider American sporting public.”

These improvements are needed to make North American racing better, to sustain the interest of bettors and secure the substantial investments of owners and breeders, as well as the reach of racing's economic impact.

The role of the Horseracing Integrity & Safety Authority offers a tremendous opportunity for ALL parties in the sport going forward and should be leveraged in every capacity to yield much-needed, uniform control over the integrity of U.S. racing. As previously outlined, HISA is required to report to the Federal Trade Commission.

Outside the FTC's Washington D.C. headquarters are a pair of sculptures created by Michael Lantz in 1942 entitled “Man Controlling Trade.” Each sculpture depicts a man holding a horse.

Our collective opportunity for improvement is real. There are countless examples for North American racing to follow.

Miss a previous installment? Click on the links to read more.

Part 1 – Expectations

Part 2 – Intertwined

Part 3 – Volponi

Part 4 – Confidence

Part 5 – Bingo

Part 6 – Proof

Part 7 – Z

Part 8 – Damage

Part 9 – Alerts

Part 10 – Grey

Part 11 – Recommendations

Want to share your insights with TIF? Email us here.

The post Wagering Insecurity: Avoiding Another ‘Medina Spirit Mess’ appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

Wagering Insecurity, Part 11: Recommendations

The following is the 11th of a 12-part series on wagering insecurity in American racing from the think tank the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation.

A growing firm in the sports integrity business approached a major racing operator in 2017.

“They told us better integrity does not help us bring in more customers and their main focus right now is on growing the customer base.”

The reality is different in almost every other major racing jurisdiction. Integrity oversight is a necessity to ensure acceptance and participation. Customer and stakeholder confidence is paramount.

Last weekend at Pimlico, the disparity between America's existing, substandard practices and the rest of the developed racing world could not have been clearer. Two races, held within hours of each other, served to highlight the gap.

After 10 installments, the “Wagering Insecurity” series has reached its recommendations phase.

The passage of the omnibus spending bill which created the Horseracing Integrity & Safety Authority (HISA) was undoubtedly a massive step for American racing.

But just how big could it be? Is it clear how broad its possible powers over the sport could be, in a positive way for horseplayers and all well-intentioned stakeholders, upon full implementation?

HISA must lead on matters pertaining to wagering oversight while also adopting modern, transparent best practices that elevate American racing to join that of the rest of the developed racing world.

The recommendations across this series are hardly novel. Reinvention of the proverbial wheel is not required. That's a good thing!

Read Part 11 of “Wagering Insecurity.”

The post Wagering Insecurity, Part 11: Recommendations appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post