What if we had a National Racing Czar?

stark
Posts: 3967
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Sat Apr 07, 2018 1:38 pm

Jeremy Balan
@BH_JBalan

Some humdingers on the CHRB agenda for next week.

- Required transfer of medical records for horses who have been claimed.

- Automatic scratch of first-time geldings who aren't reported as geldings.

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/Board/board_meet ... agenda.pdf
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
BaroqueAgain1
Posts: 9559
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:16 pm

Sat Apr 07, 2018 1:48 pm

Those are both such good ideas. How much to you want to wager that various groups (trainers, owners, vets?) will fight the first one? :roll:
stark
Posts: 3967
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Thu Apr 19, 2018 2:58 pm

stark wrote:Jeremy Balan
@BH_JBalan

Some humdingers on the CHRB agenda for next week.

- Required transfer of medical records for horses who have been claimed.

- Automatic scratch of first-time geldings who aren't reported as geldings.

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/Board/board_meet ... agenda.pdf
The CHRB, trainers, and vets have compromised over the transfer of vet records for claimed horses. The scope of the new proposal would only mandate records of joint injections. Could get approved during the May CHRB meeting.

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing ... ium=social
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4726
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Mon May 07, 2018 9:38 pm

Some thoughtful responses here and some overlap, some not so thoughtful.

Thoroughbred Idea Foundation @racingideas
If you were Czar of Racing, what would be your first three changes/improvements?

Carrie Brogden @MachmerHall
35m35 minutes ago
Replying to @racingideas
#1 NO race day drugs
#2 all horses post retirement not good enough to joint the broodmare bands or stand at stud be funneled into a standard rehome organization
#3 make a universal license, valid in all racing states , just like a DL.

maggi moss @maggimoss
2h2 hours ago
1. Hire a “czar” w total uniformity of all racing - rules and drug enforcement
2. Hire a public relations firm that brings back fans to the sport
3. Make tracks and regulators rid the sport of owners/trainers that callously discard the real athletes - the horses

Cormac Breathnach @CormacCB
1h1 hour ago
Replying to @racingideas
1. Fix the “upside-down model” where ADWs get lion’s share of takeout ahead of host tracks
2. Uniform rules etc
3. Limit stallion book sizes

Craig Bernick @Craig_Bernick
3h3 hours ago
Craig Bernick Retweeted Thoroughbred Idea Foundation
1. reduce takeout
2. make data (PP’s, race replays, catalog pages, live stream of races) available for free
3. create a central business office to improve marketing, sponsorship, and public relations of racing

More: https://twitter.com/racingideas/status/ ... 0860536832
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4726
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Mon May 07, 2018 10:53 pm

Joe Nevills @DRFNevills
7m7 minutes ago
1. Revive a Thoroughbred track in Michigan with proper funding, staff and support to survive long-term. Preferably GLD, but I’ll take anything but Pinnacle.

2. Revive Mount Pleasant Meadows under the same conditions.

3. Retire as czar of racing. My work here is done.
User avatar
Ballerina
Posts: 3045
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 6:22 pm
Location: Chesapeake, VA & Saratoga, NY

Mon May 07, 2018 11:04 pm

Perhaps a commission would be the answer - a long time equine lawyer, a former/retired trainer, a former/retired jockey, a multi horse owner/breeder over a long period of time. All with impeccable credentials.
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4726
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Thu May 24, 2018 8:06 pm

I think it would be great if all bettors had the same odds info as the big CRW players.

CHRB's Baedeker Wants Late Odds Changes Addressed
After a staff report and presentation by California Horse Racing Board executive director Rick Baedeker outlining his concerns about computer-robotic wagering, specifically late odds changes, the regulator decided May 24 to form a committee to examine the issue.

Baedeker recommended the board adopt a rule that mandates correct odds be provided to the public no later than five seconds after the start of any race. The staff report said the industry should be given a deadline to meet that standard. If it's not met, California would close its pools earlier, for instance when the first horse enters the gate.

Baedeker added that closing pools early is not a solution he favors, but he does want the industry to move forward on addressing odds changes. He said the late odds changes that have followed increased play by CRW outfits has negatively impacted horseplayers' perceptions. He said a proposed rule with a reasonable timeframe would force the issue.

Furthermore, the CHRB executive director asked that the board encourage advance-deposit wagering outlets and tote companies to provide some of the same advantages enjoyed by CRW players to more of the public at large—in an effort to level the playing field. Baedeker didn't envision any rules being adopted toward this goal but hoped the message would be communicated to the industry.

"It would seem desirable to provide average players with the same tote connectivity as other bigger players have," Baedeker said. "I simply raise it because I've heard from players that it's not necessarily an even playing field."
More: https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing ... -addressed
stark
Posts: 3967
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:41 am

Last add.....

There's one thing I'm convinced of and that is the consistency from the racing crowd anytime something doesn't go as expected,
from a drop in odds after the race starts
to improper doses of medications being discovered
to duplicate owners in a race without coupling,
to a photo finish taking too long to decipher,
to not having a good camera angle investigating activities around the far turn,
to jocks not spending enough time on the scale for the arrow to settle,
to horses leaving the track for "treatments"
to jocks using the whip too often
to a track like Parx charging 30% for tri's and supers, while others charge as little as 19%
to California tracks trying to discourage claiming by out-of-state based connections.
to horses being asked to run in the snow on dangerous footing
to a lack of freebies provided to fans, pp's video etc.
to trainers "giving" their horse a start unbeknownst to the betting fans
to trainers and jocks strategizing how a race will unfold and who the competition is
to a foul is a foul or did it cost the horse a placing stewardship
and the list goes on.
And the thing the racing crowd is consistent about is the knee-jerk reaction, and I quote, "this wouldn't happen if we had National Policy", overseeing Czar, call it what you want, the people seem to think The Federales are the right answer.

And I'm convinced it isn't. There's nothing about the NFL or MLB that equates to horse racing. Horse racing is run by the individual states with varying laws and there's nothing wrong with that. Let the public, with their wallets, decide what's best for them. If they like wagering on horses where no raceday meds are allowed, somebody in Kentucky has enough pull to make that happen, then follow the money and see if it's really what the fans want? Same goes with coupled entries, if that's what the people want, a track will do it. But in reality, the outcry isn't strong enough, people seem to bet on whatever race is coming up next no matter some of those serious issues. And is that so bad?
Allow the free market to work, the public will bet with their wallets which product is best, and from a purely economical standpoint they have a new major foe becoming legalized, sports wagering! And once again, I'm convinced that a Czarina wouldn't know how to combat it.
If it was so easy, it'd already be done.
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
BigDonOKC
Posts: 297
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:11 am

Thu Jun 14, 2018 12:55 pm

Ballerina wrote:
stark wrote: Pick a lady from any walk of life that you think might be able to do the job and I'm all for it (since I can't think of a man that could pull if off)
Bo
Hillary
Penny (deceased)
Margaret (would've mandated all turf racing)
Julie
????????????????
Barbara
Mandy
Charlotte
Stark us to think you had a little common since--Hillary should be and more than likely will be. ;)
BaroqueAgain1
Posts: 9559
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:16 pm

Thu Jun 14, 2018 11:48 pm

Stark, I agree that letting bettors vote for changes via their wallets makes sense...for those things which have no effect on the actual horse.
Anything that affects the horses, like whipping, meds or track surfaces, can't really wait for the money to exert pressure for change.
The welfare of the racehorses needs to come first, for so many reasons.
stark
Posts: 3967
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:34 pm

The California Horse Racing Board delayed a proposal on out-of-competition testing changes, which would have aligned California with several major racing states and with the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium's National Uniform Medication Program, during its scheduled monthly meeting June 21 at the Alameda County Fairgrounds in Pleasanton.

Lots more @
https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing ... ium=social
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4726
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:39 pm

Sigh...here we go again...sounds like it got a bit testy.

Jeremy Balan Verified account @BH_JBalan
More Jeremy Balan Retweeted BloodHorse
First story out of today's CHRB meeting, with one more to come.

CHRB Delays Out-of-Competition Testing Proposal
The California Horse Racing Board delayed a proposal on out-of-competition testing changes, which would have aligned California with several major racing states and with the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium's National Uniform Medication Program, during its scheduled monthly meeting June 21 at the Alameda County Fairgrounds in Pleasanton.

The proposal, which sought to alter procedures, set guidelines, and apply penalties for "non-compliance" of out-of-competition testing rules in the state, was opposed by the California Thoroughbred Trainers and the Thoroughbred Owners of California, although both parties said they don't object to out-of-competition testing in principle.

After a lengthy discussion between CHRB members, CHRB medical director Dr. Rick Arthur, and representatives from the TOC and CTT, the board, albeit reluctantly, decided to send the proposal back to the committee.

Although CTT executive director Alan Balch was asked several times by CHRB board members to distill the organization's reasoning for opposing the proposal, he largely declined to explain and instead pointed to a document submitted to the board June 6 that was drafted by lawyers who represent the CTT and TOC.

The document from the law offices of Yoka & Smith, LLP lays out several bullet points to explain the groups' opposition, including that the board has not provided "evidence of necessity" for the proposed changes, issues with liability to owners and trainers with horses outside of racing facilities, lack of evidence "that any of the extensive list of (proposed) substances ... to ban in out-of-competition testing could affect racing performance if administered in an out-of-competition setting," and that the CHRB proposal would "improperly restrict or prohibit outright the veterinary use of legally compounded medications."

Balch's tactic was not taken well by CHRB chairman Chuck Winner and vice chairman Madeline Auerbach.

"Let's not obliterate the process by throwing all this junk at it," Auerbach said. "Let's be really candid here. That's a lot of 'blah, blah, blah.' Get specific. What is the problem? Come on."

"I believe the specifics are set forth very clearly in our letter (from) June 6," Balch responded.

"We're asking you now to synopsize it, Alan, so everybody on this board, without going through the gobbledygook—what is it in the proposed rule that is so objectionable to you that we should start this process all over again?" Winner said.

One of the main issues from both groups appears to be who will be held responsible for a horse that tests positive off racetrack grounds at a non-racing facility, and Balch eventually voiced that concern.
More: https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing ... g-proposal

Jeremy Balan Verified account @BH_JBalan
4h4 hours ago
CHRB equine medical director Rick Arthur, seemingly expecting this result, has already sent out a lengthy written statement to a list of horse racing media. Here are the final two paragraphs.
Image
Catalina
Posts: 3155
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:08 pm
Location: South Texas

Fri Jun 22, 2018 12:39 pm

So who all doesn't have out-of-competition testing? Could the states that do have it mandate California etc horses to be stabled at their OOCT track 4 or 6 weeks prior to the race they're hoping to run in, and to be submitted to OOCT testing at least twice prior to running? Or are the trainers objecting to OOTC worried that their horses suddenly won't eat up?
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4726
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Fri Jun 22, 2018 3:55 pm

The RMTC is tracking progress towards the adoption of the model rules. Seven states have passed the model rule on Out of Competition Testing: Arkansas, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Washington. The rule is "in process" in an additional four states, including California and New York, and "under consideration" in an additional five states.

State-by-State Comparison of Model Rule Adoption
https://rmtcnet.com/national-uniform-me ... iontesting
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4726
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:01 pm

No consensus at congressional hearing over Lasix, regulation
A congressional hearing Friday to discuss federal legislation that would nationalize some aspects of racing regulation and ban the race-day use of the anti-bleeding medication furosemide yielded no consensus from either the racing industry or legislators on the bill, underscoring the slim chances for the legislation’s passage anytime soon.

The hearing was largely a replay of other congressional hearings on issues that have divided the racing industry for decades, namely, the effort to align racing states under one set of rules and the controversial use of furosemide, commonly known as Lasix, on race day. It was the first hearing to discuss a bill that was introduced last year, but one in a string of hearings over the past 10 years to delve into racing’s regulation, with a typical cast of characters reiterating many of the same arguments.

The bill, introduced by U.S. Reps. Andy Barr (R.-Ky.) and Paul Tonko (D.-N.Y.) would appoint the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, a private, nonprofit company, to oversee the regulation and enforcement of the industry’s medication policies. The provision explicitly banning the race-day use of Lasix was added last year in order to gain the support of Frank Stronach, the owner and breeder who controls The Stronach Group, a vertically integrated private racing company.

Much of the question-and-answer session of the hearing focused on the use of Lasix, with supporters claiming that the medication is an effective way to treat bleeding in the lungs, and opponents arguing mostly along the lines that the use of the diuretic presents a public-perception problem for the sport’s bettors and international buyers of racehorses. Lasix is legal to use on race day in every North American racing jurisdiction but is banned on race day in most other major racing countries.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R.-Ill.) began by asking questions designed to point out that most horsemen consider use of the drug to be a humane response to bleeding in the lungs. He asked one of the witnesses invited to testify, Kitty Block, president of the Humane Society of the United States, why race-day use of the drug should be banned given the belief that the drug mitigates a health problem, and Block responded by saying that “injecting a horse in the neck” on race day is “not a perception you want projected.”

“In that case, maybe optics should take second place to the protection of horses,” Kinzinger responded.

Supporters of the ban countered that the problem of bleeding has been overstated, and that the phasing out of the race-day use of the drug would not lead to widespread problems in the industry, citing the experiences of foreign jurisdictions.

“The concern that the sky will fall if we prohibit Lasix is wrong,” said Craig Fravel, chief executive of the Breeders’ Cup, in response to a question from Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D.-Ill.), who indicated in her remarks that she was opposed to the race-day use of Lasix.

The time devoted to the back-and-forth over Lasix underlines one of the most significant hurdles facing the bill in a Congress in which many House members are facing tough re-election races this fall. In the past, most racing lobbyists have said that efforts to pass legislation similar to the bill introduced last year have little chance if the racing industry does not provide a united front.

Witnesses were equally divided on the other main component of the bill, the appointment of USADA as a national overseer of the sport’s policies. Proponents of the current state-by-state regulatory system contended at the hearing that regulators are doing an adequate job of overseeing the sport, though those supporters also acknowledged that racing states are not all aligned under one set of rules, despite decades of effort to accomplish national uniformity.

Supporters of the bill used that failure as a talking point.

“Everyone here said we need uniformity,” said Stuart Janney, vice chairman of The Jockey Club, which has led a coalition of groups in support of the legislation. “This is the quickest way.”
More: http://www.drf.com/news/no-consensus-co ... regulation
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4726
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:03 pm

FEDERAL COMMITTEE HEARS PROS, CONS OF MEDICATION REGULATION BILL
By: Tom LaMarra
A June 22 congressional subcommittee hearing on the Horseracing Integrity Act of 2017 didn’t come close to offering a consensus on whether the legislation is necessary, but it did give lawmakers a much better view of the regulatory landscape given unusually balanced testimony.

In a major change from previous federal hearings on related bills, the witness panel was equally split between supporters and opponents of the measure, which would create an entity controlled by the United States Anti-Doping Agency and, though not stated in the bill, the industry groups pushing for its passage. The bill, which would also ban race-day administration of the anti-bleeding medication Lasix, was introduced in May 2017 and remains without a sponsor in the United States Senate.

Members of the Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection Subcommittee, which falls under House Energy and Commerce Committee, expressed much interest in hearing about the overall health and welfare of racehorses. In fact, Rep. Tony Cardenas of California said it was “unfortunate” there wasn’t a veterinarian on the panel to address the use of Lasix and other health-related issues.
More: http://tharacing.com/federal-committee- ... tion-bill/
stark
Posts: 3967
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Fri Jun 22, 2018 4:20 pm

Fascinating stuff, thanks for sharing.
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4726
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Fri Jun 22, 2018 5:38 pm

Lasix Dominates Congressional Drug Reform Hearing
Thoroughbred industry witnesses representing both pro and con sides of a federal bill requiring a uniform anti-doping and medication control program testified before a Congressional subcommittee on Friday, marking the first time that proponents and opponents of HR 2651 have been able to voice arguments while facing questioning from politicians who will decide if the measure advances.

No clear-cut “winner” emerged from the June 22 proceedings before the Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection subcommittee. The most salient points of the two-hour debate came near the end, when questioning drifted away from the cumbersome subplot of Lasix usage and drilled down to the more specific issue of whether Congress needs to step in and impose independent oversight based on the fact that the sport crosses state lines during the course of everyday wagering, breeding, sales and racing commerce.

...

Rep. David McKinley (R-WV) made a point of noting that the witnesses in opposition to the bill brought more verbal fire to their arguments than the supporters did.

“When people come before the panel, sometimes there’s a little bit of confusion over whether they’re with [or against] any particular bill.” McKinley said. “Not one this one. You two–Hamelback and Martin–I don’t know whether you didn’t get the memo, but your passion came out pretty strongly about where you stand on this. So I’m fascinated by that, but I want to hear the counter to it as we debate this.”

McKinley then asked Fravel to point out where those in opposition to HR 2651 were wrong in their reasoning.

“The gist of a lot of this [anti-intervention] testimony is things are going fine, we’re doing well, don’t mess with us; that we don’t need a national program, we can do it all ourselves,” Fravel said. But, he added, in terms of bringing about meaningful change, “the current system takes too long. It takes forever.”

Near the end of the hearing, Janney was asked why he didn’t have confidence in allowing the feds to just step back and allow the various racing state regulators to come to a consensus on adopting the model rules that already exist.

“I’m 69 years old,” Janney replied. “It’s my considered opinion that I would never be around to see that day. It will not happen. I’ve worked for the last 20 years being involved with other people to try to figure all this out. And the status quo, for a lot of people, is exactly what they want. What I’m here to do is to try to provide the things that are going to be necessary for this industry so that my children can enjoy it.”

The next step in the legislative process will be for the subcommittee to report their findings from this hearing to the full Energy and Commerce committee.

Watch the entire hearing (beginning at 13:50) below.
More: http://www.thoroughbreddailynews.com/la ... rm-hearing
stark
Posts: 3967
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Sun Jul 01, 2018 11:47 am

Kenny McPeek
‏@KennyMcPeek
Jun 29

Trying to watch my horses to run @Churchill and @TVG doesn’t show on either channel. Can’t watch on an ADW because I’m in New Jersey to run a horse @MonmouthPark Can’t watch on @HorseRacesNow either,sport is ridiculous in how inept it is towards fans. Someone figure this out

Lots more rant in the history on the 29th @ https://twitter.com/KennyMcPeek
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
BaroqueAgain1
Posts: 9559
Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 6:16 pm

Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:11 pm

Trying to watch my horses to run @Churchill and @TVG doesn’t show on either channel.

Really? I'm under the impression that TVG2 always shows the races from Churchill. Even watching on TVG, I can see the graphic for the MTP for the Churchill races, the on-air analysts discuss those races and tell viewers to go to TVG2 to watch them. Yesterday, Nick Hines was in the TVG2 chair, and he came on TVG to show his ticket for an upcoming wager at Churchill. :?
I wonder what happened during the times Kenny was trying to watch his horses? :shock:
But I agree that the situation is ridiculous.
Post Reply