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.)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

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

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

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

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

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, along with increased transparency of the wagering business and its participants over time. 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.

PART 11 – RECOMMENDATIONS

North American racing has been here before…and failed.

In the aftermath of the Breeders' Cup Fix Six in 2002, the opportunity to improve customer confidence was within the industry's grasp. Nothing materialized.

As this series has outlined, the challenges in 2021 and beyond are different. Should we meet the challenge and make wagering and racing integrity the lodestar of American racing, all well-intentioned stakeholders will benefit.

The establishment of the Horseracing Integrity & Safety Authority (HISA) presents an extraordinary opportunity to blaze a new path for the industry, presenting a sport where all participants can be far more confident in its outcomes than they are now.

RECOMMENDATION 1: HISA MUST LEAD ON MATTERS PERTAINING TO WAGERING OVERSIGHT

Most involved in the American racing industry correctly believe HISA will involve track safety and anti-doping control programs. Those views are correct.

But HISA's role should be more than just establishing such important programs.

According to Section 1205 (a) (2) of the final legislation passed and signed into law, HISA shall “…exercise independent and exclusive national authority over the safety, welfare, and integrity of covered horses, covered persons, and covered horseraces…”

The mechanism of federal authority to permit HISA's creation IS wagering on horse racing:

“The term 'covered horserace' means any horserace involving covered horses that has a substantial relation to interstate commerce, including any Thoroughbred horserace that is subject of interstate off-track or advance deposit wagers…the term 'interstate off-track wager' has the meaning given such term in section 3 of the Interstate Horseracing Act of 1978.”

HISA has been endowed with the power to raise standards and protect wagering customers. This new authority should become a horseplayer's best friend while bolstering the confidence of all stakeholders.

HISA will operate under the aegis of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) whose mission is:

“Protecting consumers and competition by preventing anticompetitive, deceptive, and unfair business practices through law enforcement, advocacy, and education without unduly burdening legitimate business activity.”

HISA will provide the mechanism to improve the policing of racing. Monitoring wagering can be a big step towards that. HISA has the power to lift the standards of racing in America and protect its wagering customers.

It should do so.

RECOMMENDATION 2: ADOPT MODERN, TRANSPARENT BEST PRACTICES ACROSS THE SPORT

One key observation is necessary before highlighting four modern, transparent best practices below, all of which should be adopted in North American racing: these are not the only measures to add, but should be a starting point.

It will take a long time for North American standards to be lifted to join the ranks of the rest of the developed racing world. That's OK.

These efforts cannot bring us from a hypothetical “0 to 100” overnight. Start slow, build capabilities, engage stakeholders and show progress.

Customer confidence is good for business.

A) ALL TESTING RESULTS SHOULD BE PUBLICIZED AND MODERN METHODS EMBRACED

Doping control and wagering integrity go hand-in-hand. The insight of Professor Jack Anderson, cited earlier in this series, is clear:

“Doping in a sport such as racing is often intertwined with gambling interests.”

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.

Positive findings should be identified publicly as soon as possible after results are received and the connections receive notice, followed by an explanation of steps going forward with relevant updates provided. An initial report should include the substance(s) involved, particularly if it involves a legitimate medication.

This is standard practice in many other racing jurisdictions and benefits all participants. The appendix at the end of this installment includes a re-publishing of the entirety of the press releases from the Hong Kong Jockey Club stewards on the case, from a winner at Happy Valley in June 2017. Here is a link to the first public release of news on the finding.

The absence of confirmed details from the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission about Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit's positive post-race test and the failure to explain clearly the steps in the process after a positive test exemplifies the weakness of the current system, not just in Kentucky, but every jurisdiction in North America.

USADA

The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) will replace the current “patchwork quilt” of state-by-state approaches as the enforcement agent of the HISA anti-doping program.

USADA's Chief Executive Officer Travis Tygart, in a February 2021 interview with the Thoroughbred Daily News, assessed the woeful state of racing's overall testing uniformity, and lack of transparency.

“I really started looking at the policies around anti-doping and medication control within the [racing] industry and they were just completely antiquated…they were years behind what the human world, as well as the equine and Thoroughbred horse racing industries around the world had done as far as uniform policies.

“Other places don't have 38 different racing jurisdictions run by the states, with frequently conflicted people that have an interest in the outcome without transparency, without good quality testing, without laboratory accreditation that is uniform. It actually reminded me of, and I drew the comparison to, what the Olympic world looked like prior to us coming into existence.

“So, having a uniform policy, where you can have confidence that when a horse runs in California, it's going to be running under the same rules and allowances and free of drugs as in Kentucky and in New York too, is going to be a game changer I think, right out of the gate.”

USADA publishes a history of athlete tests to provide full transparency, to the public and also fellow competitors. Its website explains the approach:

“By publishing our Athlete Testing History, any athlete or member of the public can see how many tests USADA has conducted for specific U.S. athletes, and in different sports, over the course of a specific time period. Instead of wondering if their competitors or role models are being tested, people can track testing data and see how USADA is working to uphold clean sport.”

The USADA portal is searchable by year, quarter, sport and name, showing the total tests administered, while maintaining a separate ledger of all sanctioned athletes with full details of the investigations.

The greater use of active investigations to supplement testing will boost confidence. Adopting intelligence-based investigations would do the same.

TIF pondered the possibilities just days after the indictments of Jason Servis and Jorge Navarro were revealed.

This discussion was front and center a month prior to that at the 2020 Asian Racing Conference when Brett Clothier, Head of the Athletics Integrity Unit, outlined that organization's efforts in world track and field, where algorithms are used to “analyze unusual performance trajectories or spikes in performance…to enable better targeting of athletes” for testing.

Clothier added:

“It's very hard to catch determined, well-resourced cheats with testing processes that are essentially random.”

Adopting modern methods, combined with transparency which has become standard in other areas of human athletics and a growing number of racing jurisdictions, will bring American racing forward, building confidence.

B) DETAILED STEWARDS' REPORTS SHOULD BE MANDATED

The world offers many compelling models of stewards' reports to emulate, as we outlined in our August 2019 paper. Stewards' reports in most North American jurisdictions fall far short of what is needed and many don't bother at all.

The goal of such reporting is simple – instill confidence in racing's participants, especially horseplayers.

When bettors are left bewildered by rides or horse performances, and no explanations are ever provided by those whose job it is to oversee the races – the stewards – confidence is shattered, conspiracy theories run amok and the business is tainted by unaddressed conjecture.

One incident from a race at Gulfstream Park on March 27, 2021 drew thousands of views from frustrated horseplayers in search of an explanation that was not forthcoming. The incident was highlighted later on a national broadcast when the horse returned in its next start too, though without any formal explanations from officials.

Stewards should review races from a central location, close to ground-level, with easy, face-to-face access to jockeys and trainers (or their representatives, assistants, etc), to enable direct questioning before and after races regarding any number of incidents, publishing easy-to-find post-race reports to explain findings for the day.

A Spanish-language interpreter should be used to facilitate the process when needed.

While many stewards around the world view races from an elevated position, they return to a more accessible location and nearly all meet face-to-face to question jockeys and trainers throughout the race day. Findings are published at the end of the day.

These reports should include key details provided to the stewards from regulatory veterinarians. Observations of bleeding, lameness, thrown shoes, reasons for scratches and voided claims must be published. Strange or unexplainable performances should get attention from the stewards and be shared with the public.

American racing cannot jump to the future and join the rest of the world with Lasix-free racing without the adoption of other key global standards of reporting which are commonplace.

It may be hay, oats and water before a race, but after a race, the public must be made aware of key observations from regulatory veterinarians whose roles are crucial for both equine welfare AND protection of the wagering public.

This level of transparency is standard in other major racing jurisdictions. North America should be no different. Anyone suggesting otherwise should be asked why.

Examples below, one from the British Horseracing Authority and one from the National Horseracing Authority of Southern Africa (South Africa) reflect the reports published from separate races in 2021, with details from regulatory veterinary officials.

Lingfield Park – Great Britain – March 6, 2021

Greyville Racecourse – South Africa – May 5, 2021 – Race 4

BREEZY GUST

A race at Pimlico on last week's Preakness undercard highlights the failings of the present system.

Breezy Gust was the 5-1 third choice in that day's Grade 3 Maryland Sprint Stakes, his first start in graded stakes company.

Claimed for $25,000 in October 2020, Breezy Gust had about three months off before returning for new trainer Daniel Velazquez to win three consecutive races by a combined 18.25 lengths with a monumental improvement in his Beyer Speed Figures and practically every other measure used to assess performance.

The gelding has a propensity to lead his races early, or at least be forwardly placed. Those tactics were executed in each of his four starts for Velazquez, whose horses were winning at a 24% clip in 2021 to that point.

Breezy Gust was judged the best turned out for his race last Saturday. That would be the only recognition he received. The chart comment from the Maryland Sprint Stakes notes the following.

“BREEZY GUST, pinched back leaving the starting gate, was pulled up near the half mile pole and walked off.”

A view of various replays of the race showed a slight brush at the start, but Breezy Gust was seemingly uninterested in running – the exact opposite of what he has shown in recent races, exhibiting no early speed.

No official record of the state veterinarian's findings, or an explanation provided to the stewards by the jockey, were provided to the public after the race.

Other jurisdictions do it differently.

Just a few hours after Breezy Gust's unexplained performance, Golden Mission was sent postward as the 2-1 favorite in the first race at Sha Tin in Hong Kong. Under leading jockey Joao Moreira, the gelding was under pressure early in the race and faded substantially to finish 11^th of 12, beaten nearly 15 lengths.

The stewards sought to inform the public about the performance. The post-race report included just about everything a horseplayer, or any other interested party, might want to know about Golden Mission's disappointing run.

“Despite being ridden along for some distance in the early stages, GOLDEN MISSION (J Moreira) was slow to muster speed and travelled wide and without cover until approaching the 600 Metres and in the Straight gave ground.

“After the race, J Moreira stated that GOLDEN MISSION did not travel strongly at any stage of the race and felt “flat”. A veterinary inspection of GOLDEN MISSION immediately following the race including an endoscopic examination showed a substantial amount of blood in the horse's trachea.

“The performance of GOLDEN MISSION, favourite for today's race and which finished towards the rear of the field, was considered unacceptable. Before being allowed to race again, GOLDEN MISSION will be required to perform to the satisfaction of the Stewards in a barrier trial and be subjected to an official veterinary examination.

A post-race sample was also collected from Golden Mission. Findings will be reported to the public when available, likely to be by the next race day on Wednesday, May 19.

North American jurisdictions may never rise to the level of Great Britain, South Africa or Hong Kong. But they need to try. “Pulled up and walked off” does not cut it.

C) INTEGRITY PLATFORMS AND BET MONITORING CAPABILITIES SHOULD BE CREATED.

The Asian Racing Federation's Council on Anti-Illegal Betting and Related Financial Crime (ARFCAIB) identifies several “good practices” in monitoring betting, all of which should be adopted.

“Critical components of a dedicated betting integrity team are a structured approach and a specialized central monitoring team, made up of experienced industry professionals who proactively assess and analyze betting information. These teams should comprise personnel with specialist skills such as form experts, race readers and statisticians, all with extensive betting knowledge and expertise and an understanding of the intelligence process.

“Direct communication between the sport and the betting industry supports the flow of relevant information to the analysts. In-house betting expertise strengthens the productivity of these relationships and avoids the misinterpretation of betting information. Regular communication between analysts and betting operators strengthens trust and understanding, which increases the flow of information to the sport.

“Betting experts may be required to provide expert witness statements forming part of the evidence in sports disciplinary hearings (i.e. against a jockey charged with corruption offenses). The betting analysis can make up a key part of the evidence in sports disciplinary hearings and therefore expert evidence is often required to explain findings.”

As outlined in Part 10 of this series, an awareness of the grey and illegal markets where betting occurs is also needed. Worldwide wagering on your races requires worldwide awareness of the threats racing faces.

Fixed odds betting on U.S. racing for domestic customers, should it occur, will introduce a different mix of betting businesses to the sport. Commercial bookmakers need to uncover betting malfeasance. There is no benefit to burying it.

In December 2020, Australian firm The BetMakers purchased the global tote business of Sportech, one of three tote companies providing services for North American racing. The BetMakers already provides integrity services for Racing Victoria, the regulators of racing in that Australian state, through their Racing Victoria Integrity Platform (RVIP).

RVIP is in use across Victoria's more than 500 annual race meetings, monitoring betting and serving as a portal for centralized reports for use by racing integrity officials.

According to this press release in 2019, RVIP capabilities include:

–          Real-time tracking of data, such as price movements and associated betting patterns,

–          A host engine that ingests ratings and performance indicators created by the racing authority and BetMakers, and matches these with actual performances,

–          An alerts system to flag inconsistencies,

–          Database and library functionality that stores and recalls any integrity comments associated with individual horses, trainers, jockeys, owners and wagering movements,

–          Video analysis and management portal for tracking past performances, and

–          Links to betting patterns and comments for recording and recall capabilities.

North American racing needs this kind of platform.

As a new service provider in the American space, The BetMakers may have a significant role to play. Their first foray into American racing has been in partnership with Monmouth Park to bring fixed odds betting on racing to New Jersey customers.

D) INTEGRITY IMPROVEMENTS FROM OTHER PROFESSIONAL SPORTS SHOULD BE ADAPTED TO RACING

Professional sports leagues, including the National Basketball Association (NBA) and National Football League (NFL) have been expanding their public interactions regarding officiating of games in a world where legal wagering is driving additional revenue streams. Leagues provide access to game officials for media members, publish head-office reviews of in-game incidents and their officiating, and have even admitted mistakes in past rules applications. The use of replay to adjust key officiating decisions, yielding more correct outcomes, has greatly increased.

In March, the National Hockey League (NHL) fired a long-time referee after a microphone caught him admitting he felt the need to, essentially, fabricate a penalty on one team. The Athletic's Sean Gentille called on the NHL to adopt a more transparent approach to officiating like the NBA.

“If they want an example, they can look at the NBA. Shielding refs – coddling refs, in fact – only creates space for conspiracy theories. Which, as we've learned, are sometimes true. Come up with an NHL version of the [NBA's final] two-minute report. Make officials explain themselves when the situation calls for it. Hold them accountable in a real, public way. If you're trying to fix anything, say so. Virtually every other big-time sport does this…

“The elephant in the room…is gambling.”

Some professional leagues, pro teams, collegiate conferences, universities, regulators, betting operators and technology providers are working with private integrity assurance firms, like U.S. Integrity, to provide services to monitor everything from betting markets to social media and irregular officiating.

As for American racing? Well, no, but it isn't because groups like U.S. Integrity weren't trying.

The growing firm met with one major American racing operator in 2017. U.S. Integrity's Chief Executive Officer Matthew Holt shared the experience with TIF.

“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. There was no desire to connect pari-mutuel systems to any sort of integrity provider.”        

Holt made it clear if the racing industry has interest, U.S. Integrity remains available.

In Australia, sports and racing actually work together in developing a modern approach to bet monitoring.

In 2018, Racing Victoria and the Australian Football League (AFL) formed a joint venture – Sports Wagering Integrity Monitoring Ltd (SWIM) – to introduce transaction-level bet monitoring platforms across the sporting landscape. The launch of SWIM was a response to the Wood Review, a nationwide study (a full copy can be reviewed here) of Australia's sports integrity arrangements commissioned by then Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull.

The goal, of course, is to ensure a level playing field, both during the game or race for participants and in the betting markets on such events, maintaining confidence of all internal (teams, coaches, players, owners, management) and external (bettors and fans) stakeholders.

STEWART'S RULE

No group of well-intentioned racing stakeholders should be against any of the recommendations offered above. HISA provides an opportunity to accomplish far more than what has been done with a woefully-inadequate state-by-state approach. Racing in America in the 2020s has a regulatory structure more akin to the sport as it was in the 1970s.

That has to change and HISA enables such change.

Change, of course, frightens many long-time racing participants. There will be increased costs, new procedures and added scrutiny. Communication will be key.

It is easy to fret over how much transparency is enough, but North American racing desperately needs it while upgrading our provision of racing oversight in every facet. A delicate balance is required to satisfy integrity assurance and boost public confidence while not jeopardizing ongoing investigations or revealing specific trade practices.

As former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart famously expressed in a 1964 opinion related to a case about obscene material: “I know it when I see it.”

What exists in North American racing at present is not only not “it,” but is far from the standards of transparency that are needed to operate a professional sport to meet the expectations of modern betting customers in 2021. The recommendations offered in this series would yield substantial, desperately needed changes to the operation of American racing, but they are hardly ground-breaking – almost all of them are in place in major international racing jurisdictions.

With practical examples from abroad for the North American racing industry to follow, change may be within a more reasonable reach than many might realize.

NOTE

On March 15, 2021, the National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association and 11 of its smaller state affiliates sued members of the nominating committee of HISA and the Commissioners of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in an attempt to stop HISA's launch.

On April 26, 2021, the states of Oklahoma and West Virginia, their racing commissions, three Oklahoma racetracks, United States Trotting Association and others, filed a separate suit.

The outcomes of both suits are pending.

Coming Thursday, May 20:  Part 12 – Pravda

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

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

The post Wagering Insecurity: Thoroughbred Idea Foundation Issues Recommendations appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

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.

Suspicious betting alerts were generated across five races at one U.S. track in the fourth quarter of 2020.

It was the first time the International Betting Integrity Association (IBIA) registered such alerts on American racing.

The betting they monitor is through licensed European-based betting operators, many of whom are offering bets on American racing at fixed odds. Up until at least the start of the “Wagering Insecurity” series, no U.S. regulators had an information-sharing relationship with the IBIA.

Worldwide wagering requires worldwide monitoring.

While American customers cannot yet legally partake in such wagers outside a few races booked by Nevada casinos, the practice is soon to come to New Jersey residents and it has been a growing business overseas.

One bookmaker estimates the total handle on U.S. racing at fixed odds for European customers in 2020 at more than $1 billion.

No matter where the wagering takes place, regulators and stewards must be attentive to the potential integrity threats facing the sport.

For the complete article, click here.

The post TIF: Wagering Insecurity, Part 9–Alerts appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

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, along with increased transparency of the wagering business and its participants over time. 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.

PART 9 – ALERTS

Foreign bookmakers accepting bets on American racing have recently identified suspicious betting on U.S. races themselves.

According to the International Betting Integrity Association (IBIA), a consortium of mostly European-based bookmakers, 270 suspicious alerts were generated across all sports by their monitoring platform in 2020.

Five of the IBIA's alerts were generated on U.S. racing, all in the fourth quarter of 2020, the first time the group has identified any suspicious betting activity on North American races.

The IBIA told TIF that five races from one American track were the source of the alerts, all of which had one consistent characteristic among them. As for the specific details, no more information could be shared due to data protection requirements.

The suspicious activity originated with customers outside of America whose bets were regulated by a well-respected, international gambling regulator. The suspicious activity was reported to this regulator at the time of the relevant races.

However, the IBIA does not have information-sharing relationships with any North American racing jurisdictions, and up until now, their betting operators had not generated any alerts on U.S. racing.

IBIA Director of Integrity Matt Fowler offers more detail.

“If there were agreements, or memoranda of understanding between IBIA and American state racing regulators in place, we definitely would be reporting it directly to them. We do have relationships with other American sports authorities, so it would not be unusual for us to reach out to an American entity and provide information.”

There is no reason to wait until the recommendation phase of this series – such agreements or MOUs should be struck as soon as possible.

Prior to publishing this series, TIF connected one major state regulatory agency to IBIA and has learned other groups have reached out since the summary of “Wagering Insecurity” was published with these details.

The IBIA's 2020 annual report showed 12 suspicious betting alerts were generated from American tennis matches, up from eight in 2019 and 3 in 2018. Prior to 2020, tennis had been the only sport to generate suspicious alerts from American events available for betting across the IBIA's membership.

The IBIA noted that unusual betting patterns alone do not generate suspicious betting alerts. Fowler continued:

“There are many factors that go into declaring a suspicious alert. This goes well beyond just an unusual betting pattern or unexpected price movement. There is a process in place to getting to the 270 alerts we issued in 2020, which is much less than the total number of incidents which were reviewed. We take very seriously the business of declaring an alert.”

BOOMING BUSINESS

International customers are legally betting North American racing at fixed odds through licensed bookmakers.

They are betting a lot of money.

XB-Net, owned by 1/ST (formerly The Stronach Group), “is the exclusive provider of international wagering” on more than 70 North American tracks at fixed odds to foreign customers. It sells North American track signals to international sites, along with a variety of services to bookmakers, including data.

Under the radar, American racing is doing big business with mostly European customers to enable fixed odds betting. A representative of one major European bookmaker told TIF that the annual market for U.S. racing at fixed odds to only European customers, almost exclusively enabled by the XB-Net sale of signals, is more than $1.4 billion, or the equivalent of nearly 13 percent of all pari-mutuel wagering on U.S. races in 2020.

Another bookmaker told TIF that at the height of the pandemic-related shutdowns, European bookmakers were handling the equivalent of between $690,000 and $1.38 million per race at Will Rogers Downs in Oklahoma, far outpacing the pari-mutuel totals recorded from America's own domestic customers on those races in what was, undoubtedly, an unusual period.

But over the long term, the foreign fixed-odds business on American racing continues to grow.

One track executive, who requested anonymity, told TIF that his track had experienced a 500% increase in revenue from these international fixed odds agreements over the last six years.

Lay betting on American racing – that is betting on a horse to lose – is also available via exchanges like Betfair.

Across races three through five at Aqueduct on Thursday, February 25, 2021, the pari-mutuel win pools totaled a combined $343,344. But those with access to the European-based Betfair exchange were trading the race too, with more than a combined $70,000 matched, roughly 20% of the pari-mutuel win pool on the races.

As referenced in previous installments, the monitoring of wagering in foreign jurisdictions has traditionally identified suspicious activity on such exchanges. If North America is doing this, they are doing so without any public acknowledgement.

MONITORING ALL WAGERING MARKETS

In Hong Kong, although its own business is exclusively pari-mutuel, the choice is clear: it needs to monitor all betting markets where its racing is offered. Measures to monitor legal, gray and illegal markets were key in their 2018 actions against jockey Nash Rawiller, leading to a 15-month ban and his expulsion from riding there.

The South China Morning Post captured the insight of HKJC Chief Executive Officer Winfried Engelbrecht-Bresges in the aftermath of the Rawiller ban.

“The Jockey Club has developed technology to gather data for illegal gambling sites and employs a stipendiary steward whose job is to watch for suspicious betting patterns. People should know we have an extremely vigorous system and that we can uncover things that perhaps others can't…

“We monitor markets, both legal and illegal, in Hong Kong and around the world, and we have a dedicated team that does that. We can use the data we find to be more specific in investigations and we identified this as a significant case. The analysis we do of markets, both legal and those overseas, helped us identify a pattern. We had sufficient evidence we could start the investigation.”

In contrast to Hong Kong, American racing lacks proper oversight of its wagering systems and has little transparency on incidents involving the integrity of racing through wagering.

How can American regulators police illegal markets if it has negligible control over the legal market?

The enormity of the challenge should not render it unconquerable.

Americans are betting through unregulated operators beyond its shores. While some of these platforms may be licensed by some jurisdiction, they are not legal for Americans to transfer and receive funds and they do not share information with regulators about incidents which may threaten the integrity of racing.

These sites exist not only because they enrich those who run them, but in some cases, for more nefarious reasons. Regardless, they offer customers opportunities to wager in relative anonymity beyond the reach of regulators.

Several prominent American horse owners have boasted about their play through such channels. Another illicit betting platform is using familiar, credentialed racing writers to create unique content in the hopes of attracting more Americans to wager.

At one point in time, there was hope that America could learn more about international markets which were betting on U.S. racing, some through legal arrangements and others illicitly.

In the National Thoroughbred Racing Association's 2005 publication of its strategic plan of work for the next five years (2006-2010), it detailed the need for the NTRA to work with the international racing community to understand the role of illicit betting operators, while also interacting with law enforcement to pursue avenues to curtail U.S. citizens betting on U.S. races outside the legal markets. Establishing relationships with licensed operators to share information was a goal.

After much research, TIF concludes this never materialized.

Coming Thursday, May 13: Part 10 – Grey

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

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

The post Wagering Insecurity: Suspicious Alerts appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

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.

The Viking Hoard case was clear.

The horse was doped to lose–by whom remains unclear. Betting operators in another country noticed unusual activity and alerted regulators. Bettors, and confidence, were damaged.

“Significant actual damage flowed from the neglect of the trainer. The damage was financial in the case of affected punters, and reputational in the case of the racing industry.”

From 2009 to 2018, the British Horseracing Authority (BHA) successfully prosecuted 82 individuals in betting corruption cases, including 12 jockeys. Bet monitoring and systems to flag suspicious bets have featured in many of them.

To what degree is North American racing wagering being monitored?

Australia, Great Britain and Hong Kong are taking this topic seriously.

They have dedicated betting analysis teams, supported by automated systems. They inform stewards of unusual betting patterns or outcomes and institute real time monitoring and share information with other licensed betting operators. These jurisdictions also share best practices with each other.

American oversight at such a level does not exist.

The opportunity for improvement in North America is significant. Until then, the damage imposed on customers will be far worse than nearly any other major racing jurisdiction, where such issues are taken seriously.

For the complete article, click here.

The post TIF: Wagering Insecurity, Part 8–Damage appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

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, along with increased transparency of the wagering business and its participants over time. 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.

PART 7 – Z

Transparent oversight of racing has been defunded over decades and customer protection remains weak. North American Thoroughbred racing in the 2020s is saddled with a regulatory infrastructure designed for a sport in the 1970s.

Racing has to change.

Ten years ago, Jockey Club research conducted by McKinsey showed that a minority of racing fans, just 46% of those surveyed, said that they would recommend the sport to others.

“Thoroughbred fans are almost twice as likely to recommend baseball (81%), football (73%), or basketball (77%) to others as they are to recommend Thoroughbred racing.”

There are many reasons for racing's waning appeal among its own fans but the gambling experience is certainly a key one. Simply getting more eyes on racing is not going to be enough to sustain interest amongst future generations.

While many of racing's existing American customers have long been accustomed to a sport with substandard, haphazard and insufficient oversight, the next generation might not be as forgiving. A 2019 piece by Julie Arbit, Global Senior Vice President, Insights at VICE Media Group, highlighted this burgeoning need among Generation Z, whose oldest members are now in their mid-20s.

“Gen Z is coming of age in a world of infinite choice, and this affects everything from how they define themselves to how they love and how they buy…

“If brands want consumers to be committed to them, brands need to be committed to consumers. What brands say and do should demonstrate this dedication — showing that the satisfaction and happiness of their customers is of utmost importance. Trust is also paramount in relationships, and brand relationships are no exception. Authenticity, transparency and two-way dialogue with consumers are essential.”

The topic has been raised in racing too.

Dr. Jennifer Durenberger, Jockey Club Steward at the New York Racing Association, has served as both a regulator and regulatory veterinarian, among many other roles across racing. In a 2019 presentation at the University of Arizona's Global Symposium on Racing, she highlighted the growing interest consumers are showing in the values of companies they patronize.

“Ethical consumerism is when a consumer consciously chooses or avoids a product, or an experience based on the perceived ethics of the processes that are used to produce them.

“…this is not just a Millennial or a Gen-X phenomenon…this is consumers who actively consider company values when making a purchase and remember these are purchases of inanimate objects.”

How can American racing hope to compete in the future for market share if newer potential customers are turned-off by the sport's poor standards of oversight? Sports betting customers in America generally have confidence in the betting systems and oversight of major sports for which wagering is accepted.

At the time of this publication, 26 states and the District of Columbia, accounting for more than 45% of America's population, reside in a state where sports betting is legal. Nearly all of those states are currently accepting bets at present while others will launch soon.

While American horse racing is a laggard, others in the racing world are staying relevant and accomplishing this far better.

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEWS LED TO UPGRADES

North America is an outlier when it comes to monitoring wagering and uncovering malfeasance.

Two other major racing jurisdictions – Australia and Great Britain – have aggressively promoted racing and wagering integrity during the same two decades (2002-present) while America has floundered on such issues.

The British Horseracing Authority (BHA) has been a leader in monitoring wagering as a key component of its integrity services. Australia, which operates a state-by-state regulatory system similar in basic structure to America, has created independent statutory authorities to enhance integrity across all facets of racing.

The British racing industry studied the matter across 2002-2003, published the Neville Review in 2008 which, among other things, “assessed the role and procedures racing and sports governing bodies should adopt when dealing with matters that may involve breaches of the criminal law as well as its own rules in relation to corruption connected to betting.” In 2016, it followed-up with the Brickell Review.

In the foreword of the Brickell Review, then BHA chief executive Nick Rust outlined quite clearly the importance of the topic to the sport's regulators.

“It should come as no surprise that one of my priorities is to continually improve our integrity work to make sure we have the confidence of participants and the racing and betting public.”

Confidence is good for business.

Australia's focus is similar, but approaches it differently.

Victoria is Australia's second largest state and its capital, Melbourne, is home to one of the great racing festivals, headlined by the Melbourne Cup.

In 2007, Victoria's Minister for Racing commissioned Judge G.D. Lewis to:

“…lead a process of consultation with racing industry Controlling Bodies and stakeholders, with the objective of identifying options to ensure that integrity assurance within the industry is of the highest standard.”

“For the purposes of this Review, “integrity services and systems” were deemed to include: overall stewardship and associated investigations, race-day operations, betting compliance and regulation, veterinary services, drug control, licensing and registration.”

The finished product, known as the Lewis Report, can be read in its entirety here.

American racing has not seen anything similar to the Neville Review, the Brickell Review the Lewis Report, or a 2018 Australian update, the Wood Review.

That is part of the problem, according to global sport and racing integrity expert, Professor Jack Anderson:

“Thoroughbred racing in the U.S. urgently needs the equivalent of a Lewis Report and one that would follow a similar methodology to the integrity reviews undertaken [by both the BHA and Victoria].”

Anderson says that such reviews offer an opportunity to reset expectations and prepare the industry for a major boost to integrity that is most needed. For him, two key principles emerged from these reports:

“The greatest threat to the integrity of racing in the U.S. and elsewhere (be it race rigging for gambling purposes, doping, animal welfare) often comes from poor but engrained practices and culture within the sport itself and not external threats.

“The first, and most prominent recommendation in the Brickell Report, is related to engagement with participants in the industry and the need to consult continuously with the sport's stakeholders to better ensure 'buy-in' from the sport for integrity initiatives.

“Rewarding good behavior in the industry, consulting them on education initiatives and better communication between regulators and the industry's participants perpetuates long term trust and confidence in the integrity of the industry as a whole.”

“Second, and similar to the Lewis report's recommendations in Australia, it is unlikely that any review of the thoroughbred industry in the United States would recommend either that the status quo in, or piecemeal reform to, current integrity services in the sport nationwide would be the way forward.

“Radical, comprehensive and, likely, federally mandated statutory reform is needed to better promote the integrity of thoroughbred racing in the U.S.”   

While it is unlikely that the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) will take-up wagering systems integrity, bet monitoring and understanding wagering's role in rules violations and potential criminal infractions is a basic practice around the world. Communication around such incidents is routine.

Measures of transparency from international racing regulators far exceed America's standards at present.

Coming Thursday, May 5: Part 8 – Damage

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

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

The post Wagering Insecurity: Gen Z’s ‘Ethical Consumerism’ appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post

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, along with increased transparency of the wagering business and its participants over time. 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.

PART 6 – PROOF

Past-posting is the act of placing a bet after a race has started because the wagering pools were not properly closed. Professional horseplayer Mike Maloney had suspected past-posting was happening with regularity and pleaded with a variety of officials for years to clamp down, but to no avail.

Paul Bowlinger, then Vice-President at the Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI), a trade group of racing commissions, recounted his 2007 observations of Maloney in a 2008 conference at the University of Arizona.

“He basically came and told this audience [one year earlier]…I past-posted and I did it to show the industry how easily and how frequently it can be done.' “

Mike Maloney is a member of the Thoroughbred Idea Foundation's Wagering and Integrity Issues Steering Committee and documented his experience uncovering past-posting opportunities in the 2000s at the end of his 2017 book “Betting With An Edge.” After engaging, or attempting to engage, with a plethora of track executives and even the NTRA, Maloney realized there was almost no traction to securing wagering systems.

He wrote:

“To make people in racing realize what's going on here, I don't just need proof…I need to drop a bomb. At Fair Grounds in 2007, I found one.”

After months of trying to understand the issue while betting the races, Maloney explained how he identified that betting pools were not closing appropriately. Tracks maintained little to no record of when races actually started and a series of issues with time syncs between tote betting machines and the host track made it increasingly challenging to prove when there was an actual problem.

What Maloney knew, for certain, is that if the mechanism to stop betting at the host track and all other simulcast and online sites was being used, it was not always functioning correctly.

Stewards at tracks are provided a mechanism to close the betting pools for a race under their supervision.

This mechanism, known as a “stop wagering device,” is supposed to lock all wagering on that race from on-site and at all other locations off-site, and online, where bets are accepted. Maloney noticed that the act of closing the pools was replicated in individual betting terminals with an audible notification to live tellers.

THE BEEP

With an established “office” for wagering at Keeneland, and with a semi-private teller to enter Maloney's bets, he began to notice the “beep.”

“The beep is just an alert to the teller. I began to listen for the beep. In the vast majority of races, it came at the proper time. The gates would open, within two seconds I would hear the beep, and I knew the race was properly closed.

“If I was betting that track, my tickets would stop coming out. But that's not how it was all the time, and I noticed that certain tracks were a lot worse than others.

“Fair Grounds was really bad about it. Golden Gate was really bad about it. Aqueduct was really bad about it. The Florida tracks had issues. As I watched this, I no longer suspected that past-posting was possible, I knew with certainty it could happen.”

To prove the point, Maloney bet on a race at Fair Grounds where wagering remained open during the race, well after the start.

“We were over 50 seconds into the race when I heard the beep and wagering finally closed.”

Following these startling revelations, Maloney thought an investigation would be forthcoming and wagering security bolstered.

“I got a visit from the TRPB…I was hoping I'd be able to help them investigate the incident, but that was naïve. They were more interested in investigating me.”

While Bowlinger simplified Maloney's actions in his 2008 remarks, Maloney clarified his intent in a 2021 interview for TIF.

“I certainly wasn't doing it for fun. Despite regular pleading with some officials, very few believed it was happening and said they did not have actual proof.

“So, I showed them the proof from my bets and all of the other legwork I did to expose this for them. I thought that would be enough for those in charge to realize that there was a real problem with the tote systems and that now it could get fixed.

“Instead, I was called before two Commission meetings to show cause as to why my racing license shouldn't be revoked.

“It seemed that more than anything, they wanted to intimidate me and interrogate me, almost like I was a criminal for revealing to them their own systems' failings.”

A June 2008 past-posting incident came to public attention after it was learned customers at Tampa Bay Downs were able to bet on a race at Philadelphia Park (now Parx) after the race was over, clearing more than $13,000 from $2,000 in bets made after the race.

The TRPB's Curtis Linnell told the Paulick Report at the time “it didn't look like it was widespread.”

Paulick wrote:

“This issue begs the question of who is minding the tote, a patchwork, less-than-state-of-the-art wagering network that handles the approximate $15-billion in bets each year and flows through racetracks, hubs, guest hubs, off-track betting sites, account wagering systems, and off-shore rebate shops?”

WHISTLEBLOWING

More than 18 months after Maloney's first proof and exposure of past-posting, and seven years since the Breeders' Cup Fix Six, Maloney was contacted by a tote employee “who didn't trust his company to report” such an incident properly.

The race in question was the Grade 3 Los Angeles Handicap at Hollywood Park on May 16, 2009.

“Rather than immediately report it myself and initiate the usual industry cover-up, I decided to wait and watch what the tracks and regulators would do…

“I was hoping the higher-ups at Hollywood Park would inform the betting public of the failure of the tote system. Then I hoped to see the California Horse Racing Board, since it regulates all wagering and racing in the state, issue a press release regarding a potential investigation.”

But there was no immediate reaction.

Maloney blogged about the incident, which was then picked-up by Paulick Report. Wagering on the race at 33 locations had not been closed properly, enabling patrons there to continue betting on the race even after the results were known.

Tote officials recognized the issue and did not honor winning bets placed at the 33 locations for the race, though they never raised the issue to the public, until Maloney blew the whistle.

“The Hollywood incident summed up the industry response to all of the tote problems.

“First, the industry doesn't want anyone to know about the issue, because it makes them look bad. Then, when they're called on it, they deal with it in a way where they don't even acknowledge the systematic failure that led to the people who fund the game being cheated out of their money.”

Maloney's quest continued for several years, with more incidents identified. Many horseplayers recall the incidents and remain concerned about past-posting, though tote experts, who wished to remain unnamed, told TIF that the specific issues Maloney identified about past-posting were rectified.

While he backed away from the fight in 2012, as Maloney explains in the book, he remains steadfast to this day that the wagering systems for American racing still lack some of the basic security provisions they need.

A STEP BACK FOR INTEGRITY IN 2020

In December 2020, ARCI adopted an update to its Totalisator Technical Standards (TTS) document. This document contains the requirements for North American pari-mutuel wagering operators and bet-takers, and is supposed to be adhered-to by members.

In its most recent update, the document included an adjustment to the requirements of the stop wagering device. As it describes, tote vendors “shall install two separate devices that activate the stop wagering function.”

The device closes wagering on a race and provided all downstream receivers of the signal from the device are calibrated, it stops the occurrence of past-posting as painstakingly identified by Mike Maloney over years.

According to the TTS document:

“The stop wagering device shall be the judge's console and a tote system backup located at the racing association.”

That is, the host track where the race is taking place.

The primary device is in the possession of the stewards overseeing the race itself. But the 2020 update amends the backup device's requirements.

“Said tote system backup may be operated by local racing personnel and/or racing stewards, and also remotely operated by tote personnel not physically located at the racing association.

“If the tote system backup is operated remotely, a protocol for the remote operation shall be submitted to the racing commission for approval.”

In other words, the main device is still with the stewards, but the backup device can be operated remotely, out of control of the track and stewards. This has flabbergasted Maloney, who offered the following comments in 2021:

“I can't imagine a system where an update of these protocols would bring us to, hypothetically, a less secure operation of the stop wagering function in 2021, but that is what seems to have happened.

“The same general lack of concern I felt the industry showed horseplayers in 2007, seems to still be in place now. The betting infrastructure is ancient. How can a reasonable observer look at what we have in place and not think it is in need of monumental upgrades to protect honest customers?”

If technology had evolved across the American pari-mutuel wagering landscape and centralized backup remotes were implemented with transparent oversight, then confidence might be warranted.

But that does not seem to be the case.

Instead, while other gambling technologies continue improving over time, tote technology seems to remain much the same.

“TRUST US” ISN'T ENOUGH

Alarmingly, some of the same “late scan” functions which Chris Harn and his conspirators exposed in the Breeders' Cup Fix Six remain in place.

Maloney documented in 2017 that the method by which tracks identify winning superfecta bets across all North American races still uses the “late scan” approach for verifying winning tickets.

Instead of submitting the full details of every superfecta bet to the host track as it is placed, the remote bet taker only communicates to the host track the dollar amount of superfecta bets they have taken before the race begins. Once the race is run and order of finish confirmed, then the host track requests that the remote betting sites provide detail on how many winning superfecta tickets should be paid to them.

Defined as a process “used after the winners are known” by the Inter Tote System Protocol (ITSP), a shared resource used by tote companies, tracks and remote betting sites, every superfecta bet on North American racing is processed as a late scan.

Maloney said:

“The 2002 pick-six scandal happened for a variety of reasons, all well-documented. To the best of my understanding, the only update that has been made to the ITSP is for the pick six, or any multi-race bet like it, which the industry calls 'Pick-N' bets. They've moved from late scans to early scans.”

The ITSP identifies an early scan is “used after the winners are known from leg to leg of Pick-N pool types.”

The total Pick-N play, with combinations and wager amounts, is still not secured and transmitted to the host track before the betting sequence begins. In 2017, Maloney called these situations “vulnerabilities without reasonable oversight.”

These processes still exist today.

TIF questioned the TRPB about the unusually low superfecta result of the 2019 Kentucky Derby in the weeks following the race. That year's race was unofficial for more than 20 minutes before stewards demoted Maximum Security and promoted Country House, at 65-1, to the win. The longest-priced winner of the race in modern times, which holds America's largest field and largest superfecta pool, produced a superfecta return which was surprisingly low in comparison to other combinations in the past, at just $51,400.

There may be a plethora of reasonable explanations, but none have ever been provided.

“Trust us” isn't enough.

The 2005 remarks of then Del Mar Thoroughbred Club President Craig Fravel, now the Chief Executive Officer for 1/ST Racing (formerly The Stronach Group), questioned the ability of the tracks themselves to properly ensure the security of wagering. Keep in mind that the one entity which exists in this capacity, the TRPB, is a wholly owned subsidiary of a consortium of racetracks.

“We [track operators] are a little suspect simply because we are maybe overly confident at times.

“I think to allow customers to have sufficient levels of confidence in us, we have to demonstrate that not only are we capable of reviewing things, but that there is a sufficiently independent and authoritative organization out there that can be the ultimate arbiter of those kind of decisions.”

North American racing is still waiting for one, some 16 years after Fravel's remarks, and 19 years since the Breeders' Cup Fix Six.

The lack of oversight is a flashing red light to both existing and new racing fans. In our next installment, we will look at other racing jurisdictions which are tackling these topics and seeking to keep pace with the ever-changing world.

Coming  Tuesday, May 4: Part 7 – Z

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

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

The post Wagering Insecurity: ‘Trust Us’ Isn’t Enough appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post