Justify/Restoring Hope...quite the duo

BigDonOKC
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:11 am

Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:15 pm

stark wrote:Oh gosh BigDon, golly, gee whiz, what an honor!
But I'm sorry to say that I have a prior engagement, season seats for the Dodgers that could cause me a conflict of interest should sports wagering be allowed in California along with betting on the ponies.

I therefore designate my spot on the committee to somebody who will know all the legalities, Tessablue if he will accept it.


did not think you were up to it :P :P :P
Somnambulist
Posts: 7382
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:59 pm

Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:16 pm

I believe NYRA still couples if the purse is under $50k.

I'm not sure I disagree with that though. The Lumbar Guy going down to miserably low odds in the Vosburgh because of the coupled entry sticks out in my mind.
"Life's no piece of cake, mind you, but the recipe's my own to fool with."
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4663
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:17 pm

stark wrote:
Sparrow Castle wrote: We could start by passing the Horseracing Integrity Act of 2017-18.
Horseracing Integrity Act of 2017

This bill establishes the Horseracing Anti-Doping and Medication Control Authority as an independent non-profit corporation with responsibility for developing and administering an anti-doping and medication control program for: (1) Thoroughbred, Quarter, and Standardbred horses that participate in horse races that have a substantial relation to interstate commerce, (2) such horse races, and (3) the personnel engaged in the care, training, or racing of such horses.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all horse racing anti-doping and medication control matters. The Authority and such FTC jurisdiction shall terminate if an interstate compact providing for services consistent with such program is established within five years after the program takes effect.

The Authority may enter into agreements with state racing commissions to implement the program within their jurisdictions.

Program elements shall include:

anti-doping and medication control rules,
lists of permitted and prohibited substances and methods,
a prohibition on the administration of any such substance within 24 hours of a horse's next racing start, and
testing and laboratory standards.
The Authority shall:

develop, maintain, and publish such lists;
establish a list of anti-doping and medication control rule violations applicable to either covered horses or persons;
establish standards and the process for laboratory accreditation and sample testing; and
promulgate rules for anti-doping and medication control results management, for the disciplinary process for violation results management, and for imposing sanctions for violations.
The bill sets forth civil enforcement provisions.

Activities under this bill are funded by an assessment placed on state racing commissions based on the calculation of cost per racing starter.
Yes, this would be a place to start standardizing things. Let's get this passed and then work on the broader issues. If we can't get this passed soon, I'm ready to go for the golden ring that will do it all. Tired of all the discussion and nothing getting done.
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4663
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:27 pm

Somnambulist wrote:I believe NYRA still couples if the purse is under $50k.

I'm not sure I disagree with that though. The Lumbar Guy going down to miserably low odds in the Vosburgh because of the coupled entry sticks out in my mind.
It would have made betting the Belmont entirely different that's for sure. I'm not sure that would have changed at all the way the Belmont was run. But it's not very often that a triple crown would be on the line for one of the coupled entries.
BigDonOKC
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:11 am

Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:47 pm

Sparrow Castle wrote:
Somnambulist wrote:I believe NYRA still couples if the purse is under $50k.

I'm not sure I disagree with that though. The Lumbar Guy going down to miserably low odds in the Vosburgh because of the coupled entry sticks out in my mind.
It would have made betting the Belmont entirely different that's for sure. I'm not sure that would have changed at all the way the Belmont was run. But it's not very often that a triple crown would be on the line for one of the coupled entries.

year ago for get the track had a coupled entry of one and one A 2 and 2B it ran one 2b and 4 paid 1 4 ex because the 2 was not a live runer and 2b was not running for purse. even though it ran second 2b
stark
Posts: 3887
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:01 pm

BigDonOKC wrote: year ago for get the track had a coupled entry of one and one A 2 and 2B it ran one 2b and 4 paid 1 4 ex because the 2 was not a live runer and 2b was not running for purse. even though it ran second 2b
I remember that race, 2 days before the race Curtis posted right here he liked the 1-4 a lot.
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
Tessablue
Posts: 3400
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 11:29 am
Location: Boston

Wed Jun 13, 2018 4:18 pm

stark wrote: I therefore designate my spot on the committee to somebody who will know all the legalities, Tessablue if he will accept it.
It's flattering to learn that you've somehow gained the impression that I have experience in law. A bit less flattering that you think I'm a man, but oh well.

I want standardized raceday procedures, centralized funding for medical and safety research, and informed dissemination of research findings and medical warnings. We don't know enough, and what we do know is hard to find.

On the transparency side, greater disclosure of ownership percentages in partnerships, reworked jockey suspensions to potentially include trainers if the horse was not ridden to win, and some standardization on the issue of rabbits and entrymates. Either new approaches to coupling or some sort of declaration system in the event that connections have multiple horses in the same race.
stark
Posts: 3887
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:17 pm

Why should it be federal and not individual state laws? For comparison some states people don't have to pay state income tax. Some states are more friendly to illegal aliens than other states
Some states let their people smoke marijuana while others don't. Who is to say the federal law would be in the best interest of all? Let's just take a simple topic like takeout. Does anybody think a federal ageny has the uniform answer?
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
User avatar
Curtis
Posts: 783
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:17 am
Location: Monroe, WA
Contact:

Wed Jun 13, 2018 5:27 pm

stark wrote:
BigDonOKC wrote: year ago for get the track had a coupled entry of one and one A 2 and 2B it ran one 2b and 4 paid 1 4 ex because the 2 was not a live runer and 2b was not running for purse. even though it ran second 2b
I remember that race, 2 days before the race Curtis posted right here he liked the 1-4 a lot.
Nah, I ended up betting the 4-1 straight since the 4 had a better liter to yard quotient. Woulda got it too, if only the darned jock on the 2B had kept his mount running straight on the clubhouse turn. Tough beat!
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4663
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:00 pm

stark wrote:Why should it be federal and not individual state laws? For comparison some states people don't have to pay state income tax. Some states are more friendly to illegal aliens than other states
Some states let their people smoke marijuana while others don't. Who is to say the federal law would be in the best interest of all? Let's just take a simple topic like takeout. Does anybody think a federal ageny has the uniform answer?
I'm not advocating for a federal law to establish or have oversight of a national commission. The Horseracing Integrity Act establishes a non-profit that is limited in scope. It's focus is the medication use and regulation part. These are two different things, but the provisions in the Act could lead the industry to establish a national commission, similar to other national sports, if an Interstate Compact isn't going well.

My personal feelings are that the issues in the industry are too broad to be solved through IC. I'm no expert on this but try to stay informed about the issues and pros and cons. And, because it isn't yet law, there could be substantial changes in the Horseracing Integrity Act in order to pass it.
BigDonOKC
Posts: 288
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:11 am

Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:16 pm

Curtis wrote:
stark wrote:
BigDonOKC wrote: year ago for get the track had a coupled entry of one and one A 2 and 2B it ran one 2b and 4 paid 1 4 ex because the 2 was not a live runer and 2b was not running for purse. even though it ran second 2b
I remember that race, 2 days before the race Curtis posted right here he liked the 1-4 a lot.
Nah, I ended up betting the 4-1 straight since the 4 had a better liter to yard quotient. Woulda got it too, if only the darned jock on the 2B had kept his mount running straight on the clubhouse turn. Tough beat!
Curtis now that you posted may be Stark will stop call or refereeing to me as Curtis. Also the race I refer to was over 10 years ago it ran 1-2-4 and they show it as 1-2-4-3 and I had 1-2b they would not pay 1-2b because the 2 was not a live runner and they said the 2b was not running for purse.
Catalina
Posts: 3152
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:08 pm
Location: South Texas

Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:21 pm

stark wrote:Why should it be federal and not individual state laws? For comparison some states people don't have to pay state income tax. Some states are more friendly to illegal aliens than other states
Some states let their people smoke marijuana while others don't. Who is to say the federal law would be in the best interest of all? Let's just take a simple topic like takeout. Does anybody think a federal agency has the uniform answer?
Doesn't have to be federal oversight. I have no problem letting the Jockey Club set uniform rules for all TB racing within the United States, provided we give the Jockey Club enough teeth to enforce said rules. Like, needing to have a vet available on site for morning works, out-of-competition testing, a working (and quickly available) loose-horse-alarm for morning works and so on.
Somnambulist
Posts: 7382
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:59 pm

Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:25 pm

Or national protocol for concussed jockeys. Hurt jockeys. So many things.

There is an article I read from the LA Times that was published sometimes in the 90's where they were approving Lasix at NYRA and even then people were saying how little they knew about Lasix. A lifetime later and we still don't. How sad is this? It's incredible how the game doesn't want to invest in itself.
"Life's no piece of cake, mind you, but the recipe's my own to fool with."
User avatar
Curtis
Posts: 783
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 12:17 am
Location: Monroe, WA
Contact:

Wed Jun 13, 2018 6:53 pm

BigDonOKC wrote: Curtis now that you posted may be Stark will stop call or refereeing to me as Curtis. Also the race I refer to was over 10 years ago it ran 1-2-4 and they show it as 1-2-4-3 and I had 1-2b they would not pay 1-2b because the 2 was not a live runner and they said the 2b was not running for purse.
Thanks for clearing it up! Now maybe Stark can keep us straight. ;)
User avatar
Sparrow Castle
Posts: 4663
Joined: Wed Sep 18, 2013 6:44 pm

Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:25 pm

I was thinking more the NTRA than the Jockey Club https://www.ntra.com/, at least I had hoped for that when it first started almost two decades ago. But that could have been done at any time by giving them authority and funding. Some participants (okay many) are reluctant to give up power or put money into it, everyone from tracks, racing commissions, the alphabet soups of racing, etc.

I understand there are serious stumbling blocks, but the industry has had enough time to come together and fix itself. I have moved on to the strategy of making these changes in chunks, just do something to move forward. Let the world (and my family and friends) know we care, we are hearing and seeing, we are doing something.

Timely tweet:

Jim Mulvihill @YourFriendJimbo
44m44 minutes ago
Replying to @raypaulick @Craig_Bernick @HplayersAssnNA
The NTRA has long been a friend to horseplayers, creating and growing the NHC, adding an Eclipse Award for Horseplayer of the Year, and, most importantly, eliminating nearly all signers. It might not be spelled out in the mission statement but it is definitely in our blood.
stark
Posts: 3887
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:26 pm

Catalina wrote: Doesn't have to be federal oversight. I have no problem letting the Jockey Club set uniform rules for all TB racing within the United States, provided we give the Jockey Club enough teeth to enforce said rules. Like, needing to have a vet available on site for morning works, out-of-competition testing, a working (and quickly available) loose-horse-alarm for morning works and so on.
My personal experience is limited to "A" tracks in California and the items you've mentioned are all pretty much covered already. I'm guessing that may not be the case at Canterbury or Delta Downs? The question then becomes why not? First guess is the cost and who should pay to have a vet on site for morning workouts? I have no reason to believe that the Jockey Club knows the answer to that question even if they had the teeth. The fact is that somebody in power is objecting or something so simple, such common sense, would already be in place.

How about an issue near and dear to many from coast to coast, taxes....or in our language takeout. The fees on a wager can be anywhere from 10% to 30% depending on the type of wager and the track its at. Why is that? Why can't all tracks be the same with an answer that satisfies the players churning the handle, the house putting on the show, the state that feels entitled, and the horsemen getting winners checks. Should large volume players get rebates so that their tax rate is actually lower that Curtis and Don? My guess is that nobody, including the Jockey Club knows the right answer or how to implement it.
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
stark
Posts: 3887
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:09 pm

So here's an easy question for either the Jockey Club or the NTRA that want's national standards.

Should a businessman like Frank Stronach who owns a racetrack, let's say Golden Gate Fields not too far from the Golden Gate Bridge, be allowed to run his business all year long, 52 weeks of racing at that one venue if he as the business owner wants to do it?

What say you Czarina?

(p.s. on a completely somewhat unrelated note I couldn't help but notice new construction today of a TacoBell. The only problem some might say is that it is literally next door to a DelTaco, the only thing separating them are the drive-thru lanes). Might be how the California Fair circuit feels about Frank?)
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
Catalina
Posts: 3152
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 5:08 pm
Location: South Texas

Wed Jun 13, 2018 11:51 pm

stark wrote:So here's an easy question for either the Jockey Club or the NTRA that want's national standards.

Should a businessman like Frank Stronach who owns a racetrack, let's say Golden Gate Fields not too far from the Golden Gate Bridge, be allowed to run his business all year long, 52 weeks of racing at that one venue if he as the business owner wants to do it?

What say you Czarina?

(p.s. on a completely somewhat unrelated note I couldn't help but notice new construction today of a TacoBell. The only problem some might say is that it is literally next door to a DelTaco, the only thing separating them are the drive-thru lanes). Might be how the California Fair circuit feels about Frank?)
No. Race track licenses would be restricted to seasonal racing operations, with the option of utilizing the facilities as a training center between meets.
stark
Posts: 3887
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Thu Jun 14, 2018 1:01 am

Catalina wrote: No. Race track licenses would be restricted to seasonal racing operations, with the option of utilizing the facilities as a training center between meets.
California doesn't have seasons.
Los Alamitos in SoCal races all year round.
Frank has proven success with his formula in other states, would those be revoked to be in sync with Ca?

thanks for playing along!
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
stark
Posts: 3887
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:55 am
Location: SoCal

Thu Jun 14, 2018 9:22 am

Okay, so I checked in with Frank about this seasonal license idea and he said....
But dis is America, the land of the free, I need an opportunity to make an honest living and I can't do it when you shut me down.
When my business is open I make money, TVG makes money, Governor Brown makes money for California, the horsemen make money, a few of the fans even make money.
But when you shut me down, which one of those people help me pay my bills, absolutely none of them.
It's kind of like ChickFilet in reverse, they've figured out a way to be closed on Sunday and still make their budget, but can you imagine if some oversight committee in Washington said you have to close, you can't sell fried chicken on Sundays, geesh, blue laws for chickens!

So, I've talked it over with Belinda and how do you say it....I'm taking my ball and going home, you can have your stinking racetrack.
Just kidding, while it's still mine I'm going to bulldoze it and make way for new homes, shopping stores etc. Won't even have to change the name, Golden Gate Fields sounds like it'll be a nice neighborhood.

Is this what the Jockey Club, NTRA, BigDon, Tessapink and Czarina really want for an outcome?
I've found it easier to tear up tickets at 8/1 instead of 8/5.
Post Reply