CHRB OK's Fall season for Pleasanton over SoCal complaints

[Kasept]

CHRB unanimously approves dates for 10-week season at Pleasanton

Steve Andersen | Mar 21, 2024

The California Horse Racing Board voted 6-0 on Thursday to allocate racing dates for a 10-week season beginning in October at the Alameda County Fair in Pleasanton that will serve as a replacement for Golden Gate Fields, which is scheduled to close in June.

The dates allocation is the first stage of an approval process. Organizers of the proposed race meeting must submit a detailed license application to the racing board later this year, most likely in August, before receiving full accreditation for a 26-day meeting scheduled from Oct. 19 to Dec. 15.

The Pleasanton meeting, which will be managed by the California Authority of Racing Fairs and called Golden State Racing, is designed to offer continuous racing in Northern California following the county fair circuit in the summer and early fall.

While the racing board approved dates for the Pleasanton meeting, several members stated widespread concern regarding financial issues, specifically whether the track can generate sufficient handle to avoid a purse deficit that currently plagues several tracks in the state.

“We have some questions that haven’t been answered,” racing board chairman Greg Ferraro said at the conclusion of the meeting. “This is a serious fiduciary responsibility, and we do expect more information.”

Officials representing Golden State Racing and the Alameda County Fair said work will be done in coming months to finalize accommodation for as many as 1,100 horses in the stable area as well as housing for backstretch employees. In addition, there are long-range plans to install a turf course and deal with water refuse issues. With Golden Gate Fields closing, the only turf racing in Northern California will be a brief fair meeting in Santa Rosa.

After the closure of Golden Gate Fields in June, the Northern California racing calendar will continue with fairs from mid-June to mid-October at Pleasanton, Sacramento, Santa Rosa, Ferndale, Fresno, and finally at Pleasanton in the fall, if the proposed meeting is granted final approval.

The unanimous vote came at the end of a sometimes contentious three-hour and 30-minute discussion on the long-term future of racing in the north; concerns about widespread economic issues, primarily purses at state tracks; and the feasibility of continuing to operate two circuits in the state.

:: Get the Inside Track with the FREE DRF Morning Line Email Newsletter. Subscribe now.

Last July, 1/ST Racing, the parent company of Golden Gate Fields and Santa Anita in Southern California, announced that Golden Gate Fields would close in December, a date later extended to June 9 at the request of the racing board.

Officials with 1/ST Racing have sought to consolidate racing in the state largely at Santa Anita and limit racing in Northern California to the fair circuit. Officials with 1/ST Racing and the Thoroughbred Owners of California had hoped that without year-round racing in Northern California that simulcast revenue from that part of the state could be directed to tracks in the south to offset massive purse deficits at Del Mar and Santa Anita and to help pay for annual regulatory costs of as much as $20 million that include contributions to the racing board’s budget.

The proposal of a fall meeting at Pleasanton was not universally supported at Thursday’s meeting, which was held in Sacramento. In advance of the racing board’s vote, officials with the TOC spoke in opposition of a Pleasanton meeting, expressing concern about whether the track can generate sufficient handle.

The TOC’s board of directors met Wednesday and declined to support the Pleasanton proposal, according to Bill Nader, the organization’s chief executive officer.

“The TOC does not support the plan for allocation [of dates] as currently presented,” Nader said. “We’ve always maintained the TOC would support a plan provided that it was viable. There wasn’t enough assurance there was a viable plan.”

Nader expressed concern about proposed takeout rates and whether handle would be high enough to support purses.

:: Bet the races with a $200 First Deposit Match + FREE All Access PPs! Join DRF Bets.

In greater detail, Nader stated that business during autumn racing dates at Pleasanton would struggle to keep pace with a similar period at Golden Gate Fields.

“We think it’s a bit unrealistic,” he said.

In documents recently filed with the racing board, Golden State Racing proposed overnight purses of $134,000 daily, a figure that rises to $200,000 when a small number of stakes are included.

Last weekend, Golden Gate Fields offered daily overnight purses ranging from $87,250 on a seven-race program on March 15 to $110,000 on an eight-race program on March 16 before bonuses were included for California-breds. Golden Gate Fields cut overnight purses 25 percent in December to offset a $3 million purse deficit.

Officials with Del Mar and Santa Anita have stated opposition to the Pleasanton proposal and spoke at Thursday’s meeting in support of the consolidation of racing to Southern California.

Josh Rubinstein, president of Del Mar, said the state no longer has sufficient horses for two circuits. He cited a current figure of 3,100 active Thoroughbreds – 2,300 in Southern California and 850 at Golden Gate Fields.

“We want to work through stakeholders for one circuit in California to strengthen our race product through the year,” he said.

His statement came on a day when Golden Gate Fields and Santa Anita took entries for Sunday, drawing sufficient horses for seven- and eight-race programs, respectively, or one fewer than planned.

Craig Fravel, executive vice chairman of 1/ST Racing, the parent company of Golden Gate Fields and Santa Anita, was subject to a strong line of questioning on Thursday by some members of the racing board days after he submitted a letter stating that if racing was not consolidated to Southern California that 1/ST Racing may conduct “an analysis of alternative uses of Santa Anita” as well as the San Luis Rey Downs training center in Northern California.

“The letter bothers me,” commissioner Damascus Castellanos said Thursday.

“We don’t close tracks. Don’t put that burden on us. If racing ends, it will be because of some of the people in this room. If we can continue racing throughout California and it’s financially stable and it’s good for the state, let’s do it.

“Now we have the north versus the south and that is not good. I don’t do well to bullies. You put this on the CHRB, and that’s not right.

“The letter shouldn’t have been done. That’s the way you chose to play the game, and we’ll go from there.”

Fravel largely backed away from the topic of Santa Anita’s future on Thursday, stating that company owner Belinda Stronach “does not want to close Santa Anita.”

“It’s not for sale,” Fravel said. “No one in this room wants racing to survive more than me. I’ve made a life out of it.”

Fravel emphasized that Santa Anita has been a money-losing venture in recent years at a time when the company has footed massive bills for significant improvements, including construction of a new infield synthetic training track and an expensive water refuse system for the stable area.

Santa Anita runs approximately seven months of the year, holding a dominant position on the Southern California calendar.

“We are deeply concerned there is no two-circuit format anymore,” Fravel told the board. “Santa Anita is the engine that drives California racing. I hope you take that into account.”

Fravel said track officials are expected to meet in the next week to discuss purse levels for Santa Anita’s spring meeting that begins April 19. Santa Anita has a purse deficit of more than $4 million.

Long-term concern about prize money levels and the availability of horses dominated the meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, Ferraro forecasted that racing in the state is likely to look significantly different in coming years.

“This is increasingly clear if racing is going to survive we can’t have two circuits,” Ferraro said. “We have to make one circuit.”

Speaking at Thursday’s meeting to executives of racetracks and the leaders of organizations representing owners and trainers, Ferraro said, “Leaving this room, you need to get together now and have one circuit north and south where you’re not conflicting and you’re benefiting each other. It was done in the 1950s and 60s and it can be done again.”