D’Amato: As it stands now, it’s looking to be inevitable unless we find another revenue source. You would like to have two circuits. It definitely gives owners more options for varying caliber of horses. But if it has to be, it has to be. We need just one additional revenue source to help get these purses up and allow California to sustain. If we don’t get that, consolidating into one racing circuit is probably the only option that we would still have.
Ferraro: The best way to stabilize the market here is to increase the purses. That’s our problem and the reason we are short of horses is because we can’t compete purse-wise. We don’t have any way of supplementing purses like Kentucky does with Historical Horse Racing. If we had purses that were more competitive with the rest of the country, most of our horse shortage problems would go away.
Harty: I don’t believe so. I believe expansion is the way to save the market. You’ve seen what happened through contraction, small field sizes, people aren’t betting on us, which hurts our handle which just compounds the problem. We need to expand and plan to expand. Hopefully it’s not too late, but without some sort of addition to our purse fund where we can make it more lucrative for people to come to California, we’ve got nothing.
Oldfield: No. Contraction assumes there is a consolidation of not only the tracks but a consolidation of the horsemen and trainers and the employees. The assumption that trainers and owners would go South was probably false and unwisely made. Look at the trainers who have moved South, it hasn’t been a resounding success. To assume that if you close the North that it means a shift to the South is a pretty naive thing to consider.
Nader: It might be the only way to stabilize the market. Now if the North is able to hit its targets and meet the criteria we’ve agreed to then there is no need for contraction. If the North can’t hit their targets, I don’t think we’ll have any recourse but to contract to stabilize the market and secure Southern California and make sure the state of California is still relevant, healthy and has a future.
O’Neill: For us to grow, we need to build on what we have and not shrink what we had. I think the whole industry has done a really good job of being a safer, more transparent sport. And to see tracks closing is not what the whole plan was, or at least I hope it wasn’t. I think the way the sport is going, we should be growing and building and not closing and shrinking.
How do you compete with no supplemental revenue streams?
Butler: You just have to try and be innovative, offer a product that people still want to bet, and continue to try and concentrate on a single circuit and there should be enough wagering dollars in state to keep the product moving forward.
Balch: Clearly, you don't, unless you develop alternate sources of supplementing purses, for example major corporate sponsorship, or otherwise. You need sources that could only be developed by all track owners and horsemen working together with regulators and legislators in serious strategic planning. Fifty percent of track revenues formerly came from non-wagering sources at the track. The nearly complete abandonment of marketing efforts for on-track business has cost all tracks in terms of profit and compromised California racing's future.
Harty: We can’t. I don’t see how it’s sustainable. It’s hard enough to attract horses to California in the first place. The level of racing is very competitive. There is a lot more bang for your buck somewhere else.
Nader: We need to find ancillary revenue so we are more competitive with other states that enjoy that advantage. That’s where California needs to be applauded for what it has achieved over the past 10 years without the benefit of a secondary income stream and still remains relevant on a national stage.
Oldfield: I couldn’t agree more that we need other revenue streams for the funding of purses. For horse racing to survive long term, both in the North and the South, we need outside sources of income, whether that’s Historical Horse Racing machines or some other mechanism. If the North were to go, it slows the bleeding but doesn’t stop it. I think the North is in a better position to survive without outside sources of income because of what it costs to raise a horse and race a horse in the North because we’re really not that far off the purse structure we have for the fair meets. Those machines are the lifeblood, not just to purses, but to keep racing in California alive.
O’Neill: It’s a little tricky with the Stronach business model because they own the ADW and the race track. In an ideal world there would be separation there and you would have the people or company that owns the race track try and do everything they can to get people to come out and have a great time, Concessions would be booming and ideally you would build on getting some on-track betting.
Rubinstein: We have to close the purse gap that is widening from states that have subsidies that are supporting the purses. That is the one thing we can do here, increase purses, that would give California a shot in the arm.
What one thing can be done that would make a difference?
Butler: Obviously, getting another source of gaming revenue would make a huge difference in the state. For quite a while we were competitive from a purse perspective, but it’s become more and more difficult to find another source of gaming revenue.
Balch: Immediately convene the leadership of all tracks, labor, agriculture, owners, and trainers’ groups, for no-holds-barred strategic planning, to include ways and means of communicating with California's legislative leadership, to understand and save the massive economic impact on this industry in California. It almost certainly cannot be saved without government assistance and stimulus.
D’Amato: We’ve got the weather and great training facilities. Santa Anita just added a synthetic training track to handle all weather situations. Del Mar is perennially a great racing circuit. So, to me, we just need bigger purses. We’re pretty much the model for what HISA based its safety structure on. California to me is on the forefront of all those things with the exception of bigger purses. If we get money, people will come.
Ferraro: If we can come up with something like Historical Horse Racing our worries would not be over but would be decreased.
Oldfield: I don’t think there is a single person I’ve talked to, North or South, who doesn’t agree those machines are absolutely necessary. I think that should be a rallying cry from every stakeholder in the North to every stakeholder in the South, from the horsemen to the trainers, we need to get behind. Why aren't we rallying around this instead of sitting in CHRB (California Horse Racing Board) meetings arguing about dates? Why are we not working collectively on a strategy to get these machines? If there is one thing this industry needs right now is unity and the industry needs to unify behind that.
O’Neill: We need to rebrand to really celebrate the men and women who work alongside horses for a living. It’s just so important to get that mindset back that people are actually working and it’s not computers and gadgets that are doing all the work and that humans are actually getting their hands dirty. These are really a bunch of amazing men and women who have chosen to work alongside horses for a living and hopefully we never lose the hands-on approach that is so important. Our sport provides a lot of jobs and housing for thousands of people and that’s really important.
What is California racing doing better than anyone else?
Butler: If you look at the safety record for one and the operational performance without supplemental revenue we can be pretty proud of ourselves to where we are now. California has shown it can operate on a globally high level of safety and quality without having lots of cash coming in to help things. We should be pretty proud of that.
Balch: Very little if anything beyond what it's not responsible for: enormous potential markets, great weather year-around, and unrivaled facilities, mainly Del Mar, given the deterioration of Santa Anita and the demise of Golden Gate.
D’Amato: I think in terms of how Santa Anita and Del Mar take care of their owners, I think they go above and beyond in our racing jurisdiction. I think it’s a little bit tougher in other states. For what we have to offer, we try to roll out the red carpet for our owners and offer a really nice place to run your horses.
Ferraro: The quality of the racing surface and our effort for safety and soundness. HISA basically copied our rules. So our health and safety rules are better than anyone.
Harty: I think we have better venues than anyone else. There is not a prettier race track than Santa Anita. Del Mar offers the summer vacation package.
Oldfield: The one thing I can say about California racing is we’ve got a great fan base. California as a whole is an agricultural state, the largest in the country. The economic driver of the equine industry in California is largely horse racing. People tend to forget about the agricultural component to that, it’s huge. We would be dead without our Cal-breds, which also produces jobs and livelihoods for many people and in many cases provides an economy for smaller communities in California.
O’Neill: We are so blessed we can train day in and day out throughout the year and I think you have a lot fitter horse that comes from California than a lot of the country. That’s the one thing that no company or no family can screw up. We have the best weather in the world.
Is this too far down the road to fix?
Butler: We don’t think so. If we can find additional sources of revenue that’s going to really, really help. You get the purses, you have a far better chance of getting the horses. There is much more to the ecosystem when you’ve got the purses. We, as a company, want to make it as good as we can for trainers. We think of them as our customers and we want them to be successful. We’ve just got to try.
Balch: If you say you can't, you're already done. If you say you'll try, you've at least begun. No one person or one entity can do anything of true impact alone. It takes the entire interdependent industry together.
Ferraro: I hope not. I think the next year will tell. We’ll see how Northern California does. If they succeed that will be a positive thing. If not, then we will have some worries. If Santa Anita and Del Mar can keep a decent racing program going that would help. If we end up with six-horse fields and two days or racing instead of three, that’s going to be a terrible turn.
Oldfield: Absolutely not. You go to the fairs and they are packed. There is an appetite for horse racing in California. We’ve just got to do a better job of figuring out how to market that. You can’t determine whether what happened at Golden Gate over the last couple of years or 10 years is indicative because they did not market the place. They had a tree that covered up their sign and it wasn't until it was in the press that the racetrack was closing down that people started to show up. You can’t use that standard to see if there can be success because what was done wasn’t that good. There is an absolute appetite in California for horse racing and we need to tap into that. If the machines were to come in tomorrow, we wouldn’t be talking about if the sport will survive but what are we going to do with all this money we are bringing in.
Nader: The jury is still out. We’ve established the metrics that CARF (California Authority of Racing Fairs) and the CHRB have agreed to and it’s too early to tell because we don’t have any data to pass judgment. It’s on the brink. As the North has stated on many occasions, “Give us a chance.” But I do think the chance comes with the obligation that the industry has to come together and make the call. It can’t be something like the North would be able to go forward with proving its worth in the final quarter of 2024 because the balance is too delicate with no secondary income in the state and the fact that both circuits are linked to each other to create a sustainable future.
O’Neill: Absolutely, not. I think it can be reversed in a positive way very quickly. I would love to see us turn someplace like Santa Anita into an equestrian center. If you could bring in that equestrian label, I think it has a better brand and reputation. And you would have a bigger pool of horse lovers and I think we have plenty of room here to do just that. If I hit the lottery and was president of Santa Anita for a couple years, my approach would be to focus on jobs and housing. I’d put new dormitories here, which gives you a bigger pool of horse lovers here who would work alongside horses for a living. I’d turn the back parking lot into an equestrian center or at least a mini-version of one.
Rubinstein: Absolutely not. California is a state with over 40 million people. We have loyal fans and a rich history of thoroughbred racing at the highest level. We have California people betting on the races, we have California owners at the sales. I talk to many high-level people and they all agree that California is essential to the long-term success of the industry.
How much time is left?
Butler: We’re not really looking at it in that way. We’re just looking to see what we can do at the moment to improve racing and the ecosystem around the track that involves the trainers and owners. We need to find that fine line where we can get everything we need to be done here.
Balch: Absent serious strategic brainstorming, less every day.
!["It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…" so wrote Charles Dickens. For horse racing in 2020, it just wasn't where you would expect the best and worst, at least in a modern-day "Tale of Two Racetracks."To wit: Santa Anita began 2020 in the wake of a nightmare: 20 racing fatalities in 2019. The Fair Grounds in New Orleans, on the other hand, was on the cusp of two straight Januarys without a racetrack fatality. If you don't know the rest, you can probably guess what happened, 2020 being 2020: Santa Anita embarked on a record year in 2020 with zero fatalities on the dirt track and one less fatality in turf races than in 2019 [see sidebar]. Meanwhile, at the Fair Grounds—long known as having one of the best surfaces in America—six racetrack fatalities occurred in January, a number more than double the average for this month. Instantly, media attention focused on the Fair Grounds, interest made more acute, perhaps, by the highly publicized spate of fatalities at Santa Anita.Overlooked by a large portion of the media (perhaps conveniently, some would say) is the anomaly that January 2020 represented, not just for the Fair Grounds but also for Thoroughbred racing in America. In terms of catastrophic injury rate, the sport enjoyed the smallest rate of fatalities per 1,000 starts—1.53—in 2019. The Jockey Club created an Equine Injury Database (EID) in 2009, recording statistics and specifically compiling data from 14 leading tracks (including Santa Anita). In that first year, fatalities were 2.0 per 1,000 starts—the highest in the span of the 11-year-old EID. So what happened at the Fair Grounds? Dr. Michael "Mick" Peterson, executive director of the Racing Surfaces Testing Laboratory, led a team of track management and, perhaps more critical, trainers with horses at the Fair Grounds to examine and analyze the track surface, particularly maintenance practices. Fatalities are multifactorial, and the intent was to address potential issues with the track surface. According to Peterson, unexpected and unpredicted rainfall during training hours occurred in January. Making matters worse, the rain—while amounting to maybe a half to three-quarters of an inch—fell for 45 minutes to an hour. Harrowed before training, the track surface was "open," as Peterson termed it, enabling water to penetrate the surface rather than run off. The result was a surface possibly over-saturated and potentially ripe for injuries and fatalities during races in the afternoon. Closing the door to this possibility meant closing the track if rain was expected or did fall during training and sealing or "floating it," which produces a flat surface for water to run off into the infield. If that sounds simple, it isn't. There are dozens of trainers with stalls full of horses each needing track time, either for leg-stretching gallops or, more importantly, workouts timed out a certain number of days before an upcoming race. Racehorses are athletes who absolutely have to get out of their stalls, and there are no days off. Weather can’t be a deterrent; they run in the rain, and they train in the rain. Stopping training to float and seal a racetrack—something commonly done between afternoon races—is uncommon during training hours and disruptive to trainers’ schedules. Simply put, trainers lose a hunk of training time if the track superintendent floats the surface during workout hours in the morning. Here is where, according to Peterson, the Fair Grounds achieved real success. A group of trainers met with Fair Grounds track manager Jason Boulet, track superintendent Pedro Zavala, and Peterson and basically said, "We're going to have to do that then," referring to track closure during training for surface sealing.For Peterson, Boulet and especially Zavala, this response from trainers with entries, races slated, and owners to whom they are accountable was as jaw-dropping as Santa Anita's zero dirt-track fatality statistic in 2020."It really was one of those perfect moments in interaction between track management and superintendent and trainers," said Peterson, who added, "It's hard to get up in the morning and not know which horses you can train. I was thoroughly impressed with the willingness of trainers to do that." Their only request was as much of a heads-up as possible to trainers if weather radar indicated rain looked likely. Track closure during training for floating was an option left on the table. It was part of “give and take,” as Peterson termed it, to enable trainers to send out horses needing a workout for an upcoming race ahead of a wet track. "If I'm a trainer, I know that I might lose the second half of training because they're going to shut it down and run the floats. Then I can train whatever horses I know I need to get out there in the first set."This is where the industry needs to go—the communication, being reasonable, recognizing the need for give and take at times."The cooperation of trainers at the Fair Grounds should not have been a surprise, given the history at the track. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005 provides an anecdote that is very telling about the input of trainers into track conditions and management at this third oldest American racetrack.Katrina flooded the Fair Grounds and washed away the track surface. What replaced it was not nearly as good as pre-Katrina, according to regular Fair Grounds trainers. A group of them, principal among them Al Stall, provided a simple observation: "It was better with the darker sand," said Stall at the time, referring to reddish sand in the pre-Katrina surface.Peterson remembered Boulet calling him to report that trainers were convinced darker spillway sand from the nearby Mississippi River would bring the track back to what it was. "Jason said, 'I think they're crazy. I don't think the color matters,'" recalled Peterson with a laugh. "I said, ‘Jason what they are actually identifying is the little bit of iron oxide in the sand. It's hydrophilic and not hydrophobic, and you know what? I bet they're exactly right.’"In lay terms, hydrophilic means moisture-absorbing and not moisture-resistant (hydrophobic). Stall not only knew what the post-Katrina surface needed but where to find it. The New Orleans native drove Peterson and Boulet to different sand pits in the area, collecting samples of red sand. Peterson took it from there with something called X-ray diffraction testing to identify which source would be best.Sand, however, is far from the only reason for a Fair Grounds surface that was, arguably, the best and safest in America before last January. It is one part of many measures, initiatives and improvements implemented since the "Al Stall tour." And in what may be a shock to many in the media and public, those same measures are in place at other major U.S. racetracks. All account for the continuing decline in racetrack fatalities as recorded by The Jockey Club.The origin of the efforts was a safety initiative launched by Churchill Downs Incorporated in the wake of the breakdowns of Barbaro (2006) and then Eight Belles (2008) in Triple Crown races, according to Peterson. The initiative led to protocols for testing surface samples. At the Fair Grounds each year, testing takes place six weeks before the racing meet starts on Thanksgiving Day—the traditional opening day. "If the composition isn't right, by then we already have the material on-site to match target standards. Then what happens a few weeks before the race meet is we come in with ground-penetrating radar—the biomechanical surface tester—and go through every piece of equipment and test," said Peterson, who doubles as a professor of biosystems and agricultural engineering at the University of Kentucky. If the depth, literally and figuratively, of surface preparation and management is a surprise, a bigger one might be that 13 other leading tracks in America—again, including Santa Anita--perform the same testing to certify optimum track-surface composition. Separate from composition testing before a race meet is daily implementation of a Maintenance Quality System (MQS) with a breadth that is mind boggling. The Fair Grounds’ Zavala, as well as superintendents at the 13 other tracks, chart training times of all horses by workout length, make daily surface-depth or "cushion" measurements at as many as 16 different places on the racetrack and take moisture readings at 18 different spots. Data required in the MQS even calls for logging the speed of the tractors pulling harrows over the track and the direction they travel. The latest addition to the MQS arsenal for Peterson and racing is a new type of weather station that debuted at Keeneland during the fall meet and Breeders' Cup. It supplements daily reports summarizing data from the previous 24 hours of weather with improved real-time data. The objective is to counteract the effects of rapidly changing weather conditions like that experienced at the Fair Grounds last January. The benefits go beyond morning training with updates at, "say, the third race of a race day to enable adjustment for the fifth race by surface crews," said Peterson.The coronavirus, Peterson said, was a barrier to the expansion of MQS to new tracks but not expansion within racetracks already on board with the system. The new weather station is but one example. There is also a new integrated track tester that measures everything from all-important moisture content to something called dielectric constant. It provides improved real-time data to track superintendents on conditions at their specific track through a GPS.Can racing, through track surface improvements, continue to reduce catastrophic racetrack injuries beyond the 16% reduction over the last decade? Peterson is hopeful. "The endpoint I see on this is having in place a process for what they call in manufacturing continuous improvement where we don't just quit when we get a little better."The latest recorded racing fatality rate, again, represents the "best of times." With lessons learned at the Fair Grounds, protocols in the MQS and technology improvements in testing, there is potential that the best can become even better.[SIDEBAR"]A December 16, 2020, story in the Los Angeles Times attributed a reduction in the fatality statistics at Santa Anita Park in 2020 to a "combination of enhanced safety protocols and less racing because of shutdowns caused by the coronavirus.” The story added that "nearby fires could be considered factors [and track closures as a result] in cutting the death count by more than half."Here are the facts: 20 racing fatalities occurred at Santa Anita in 2019—13 on the dirt track and seven on the turf tracks--in 6,650 starts. In 2020, which saw 5,050 starters go to the post at Santa Anita, there were no fatalities on the dirt track and six on the turf surfaces. Averaging race fatalities for the number of starts per 1,000 starters, Santa Anita averaged .12 racing fatalities in 2020 and 3.01 in 2019. Averaging removes track closures due to COVID-19 and fires as criteria for the decrease. Also, the "death count" was reduced not by "more than half" but by almost two-thirds in racing fatalities in 2020 as compared to 2019. The numbers are conclusive: Safety protocols—and safety protocols alone—account for the reduction.](https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/517636f8e4b0cb4f8c8697ba/1614168160216-ZKX0BETIBU8P7PBBVWUG/Grandstand_morning.jpg)
