By T. D. Thornton
For the past seven months, the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) has attempted to cajole northern California racetracks and fair venues into working out an agreement on a proposed slate of 2017 race dates so the CHRB wouldn't have to impose an imperfect schedule on the affected parties.
On Nov. 17, after a half-year process that included countless hours of testimony, hundreds of letters, emails, and calls from constituents, and numerous committee meetings that yielded no clear consensus, the CHRB voted 4-0 (with one abstention) to implement a 2017 dates structure that largely mirrors the existing 2016 schedule.
Not everyone was happy with the mandated allotments, and the sticking points largely remain the same as they have for months in this complex, multi-sided decision-making process: The availability of turf racing, concerns about stabling, the problem of overlapping meets, and the desire to dovetail racing at fairs venues with their existing carnivals and agricultural expositions are all still significant issues that will affect the circuit in 2017 and beyond.
“It was a puzzle that unfortunately did not allow for everyone to be satisfied with the result,” said CHRB chairman Chuck Winner. “After [Wednesday's race dates committee] meeting, we came as close as we could, and there's no question that some are not satisfied. And for that, we're sorry. We made every effort to try to get people to work together. We have tried to make that happen, and in some ways, that failed.”
The 2017 NorCal schedule (in blocks of dates, not actual race days) will be as follows: Golden Gate Fields (Dec. 26, 2016-June 20, 2017); Pleasanton (June 21-July 11); Cal Expo (July 12-Aug. 1); Santa Rosa (Aug. 2-Aug. 22); Ferndale (Aug. 23-Sept. 5); Golden Gate (Aug. 23-Sept. 19); Pleasanton (Sept. 20-Oct. 3); Fresno (Oct. 4-17); Golden Gate (Oct. 18-Dec. 19).
The framework that was voted on by the full CHRB board had been adopted unanimously one day ahead of time by the race dates committee, and included several contingency provisions.
“Part of the resolution included the stipulation that Golden Gate would not card any claiming races…under [a] $5,000 claiming price,” said CHRB executive director Rick Baedeker. “It was also stated in testimony that Sonoma [Santa Rosa], given the position in the calendar, might decide not to run its third allocated week, in which case the proposal…would call for Ferndale to move up a week and race un-overlapped” for one week without going head-to-head against Golden Gate.
Prior to the vote, Sonoma County Fair (Santa Rosa) chief executive officer Rebecca Bartling reiterated her long-standing point that by assigning July race dates to Cal Expo instead of Santa Rosa, horsemen on the NorCal circuit would be deprived of turf racing opportunities. Alan Balch, executive director of the California Thoroughbred Trainers, later echoed the same sentiment.
“We are the only fair that made that strong commitment [of installing a turf course],” Bartling testified. “By allowing Cal Expo to stay in the July position, you have six weeks without turf races in the north.”
Bartling said she is continually asked by horsemen and other affected parties to explain the reasoning behind the CHRB structuring the schedule this way, but she is at a loss to explain the logic to them.
“The only answer I have is it must be political,” Bartling said. “And do we want politics to dictate the future of horse racing in California? I don't think that's a good course.”
Commissioner Madeline Auerbach, who was the lone abstainer in the voting, agreed with Bartling on her points about the lack of turf availability.
“I am very concerned about the turf racing,” Auerbach said. “It is a huge percentage of our handle, and when we do not afford those people who have turf horses the opportunity to run, those horses disappear from our circuit…The only fair that has an opportunity to bring fresh blood and fresh horses in there is Sonoma [Santa Rosa], and I think we do them a great disservice by not recognizing that perhaps as much as we should. And I hope that next year we will see a little bit different level of cooperation when we talk about these things.”
Auerbach underscored that NorCal tracks should not view the 2017 dates vote as a precedent-setting template for the future, and encouraged the tracks to continue to work together for the betterment of the circuit as a whole. Several other commissioners similarly cautioned that the CHRB might be willing to reshuffle the schedule for 2018 and beyond.
Dates for southern California tracks were not an issue, as a three-year agreement for that circuit had been approved by the CHRB in August.
As it has in previous monthly meetings this autumn, the CHRB once again came precariously close to being short on voting members. Commissioner Richard Rosenberg's term expired several months ago, and his replacement has yet to be appointed. It was announced that commissioner Alex Solis was absent because he had flown to Panama to be with his ill father. California law stipulates that passage of any public measure requires a majority of members that are supposed to be seated on that full regulatory board. So in the seven-member CHRB's case, that means no resolution can pass without four supporting votes (i.e. a 3-2 split would not be considered passage).
Not a subscriber? Click here to sign up for the daily PDF or alerts.
