CHRB Debates Split Santa Anita Meets

The California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) tends to operate a little more closely to the racetracks it oversees than regulatory bodies do in other states. In fact, the CHRB generally schedules its monthly morning meetings at tracks to coincide with live afternoon racing programs held later the same day, and it is not uncommon for the host track to be on the meeting's agenda to give an overview of its business initiatives.

So when this month's host track, Santa Anita Park, earlier this week announced the cancellation of its Apr. 27 card because of insufficient entries, it established the potential for an uncomfortable (but perhaps necessary) discussion about the horse population and the short- and long-term prospects of field sizes on the southern California circuit.

Surprisingly though, the calling-off of the races only got mentioned peripherally when the CHRB convened at Santa Anita on Thursday. The topic barely surfaced when commissioner Madeline Auerbach followed up a recitation of meet-end statistics and future marketing plans by Santa Anita executives by asking several pointed questions about the way the track split up its Dec. 26-July 4 license into two “meets” even though there was not much of a gap (four days) on the actual calendar.

Auerbach wanted an explanation as to why certain aspects of Santa Anita's operation, like race-entry preferences and jockey and trainer standings, were reset after the winter/spring meet closed Apr. 9, while others, like single-ticket jackpot pari-mutuel carryovers and the track's condition books, were not started anew when racing resumed Apr. 14 for the spring/summer meet.

“I struggle with the way it was handled,” Auerbach said. “I've heard everything talked about but the racing side, and my concern is the racing side.

“All of the horses that were entered, for the 'second part' of the meet, went back to a 'zero date.' It was kind of an arbitrary, artificial way to [reset the top jockey and trainer standings],” Auerbach continued. “But what in effect you did to the horsemen, in my view, was not fair to the horsemen. Because you had a lot races that were written based on 3-year-old races [and then] very early on you moved to '3-and-up.' So you had cases where you had 4-year-olds…coming back that were excluded from a race [and] maybe you had a 3-year-old that maybe ran a couple weeks ago that got in. So it seemed kind of an arbitrary thing to do roll back the dates for the horsemen to enter horses.

She continued, “The other thing that seemed unusual is that you ended a meet in the middle of a condition book. That didn't make any sense. If you really had two [separate] meets going, then the end of the book is the end of the meet, and then you have a new book for the next meet….it just seemed strange. In some respects it was like a second meet, and in other respects it wasn't….I think you've confused the horsemen, we've created some unhappiness, and we're struggling in terms of inventory management and getting these horses to run.”

Joe Morris, Santa Anita's senior vice president, acknowledged Auerbach's concerns and agreed that the track is going through a figuring-out process. The entire circuit, he said, is still feeling the effects of Hollywood Park's closure in 2013.

“This is the first time since Hollywood's gone that there wasn't more of a break,” Morris said. “Technically, it is one license [Dec. 26-July 4], so that's more on the mandatory payout side of it. We just felt it was best to keep that going; [bettors] had invested their money in that carryover, and we just didn't see a reason to do a mandatory payout.”

As for the meet standings, Morris said, “We've got 80 years of history here. So part of it on resetting stats for jockeys and trainers was to keep that 80 years of history.”

Regarding racing office preferences, Morris said, “On the zero dates with the horsemen, our thought was it gave everybody the same chance. We reset it to zero and everybody comes into the new [meet] with the same chance, and we have been a little short on entries, there's no denying that….So giving everybody the same chance I don't think is shutting anybody out. The horses that are getting in are running.”

Auerbach voiced disagreement, but did not belabor her point: “It did shut people out, but that's something to consider.”

Morris continued: “We're discussing all of what you just said internally, because it wasn't as smooth as it could have been. There's no arguing that side of it….that's something we'll look at. Maybe we'll just run the thing straight through [next year]….As we kind of re-engineer ourselves here with the way our industry is, we're looking at many things going forward on the racing side.”

Horsemen's representatives were encouraged to chime in, but none seemed overly eager to take a strong stand on the splitting of race meets.

Greg Avioli, president and chief executive officer the Thoroughbred Owners of California, said, “We were aware that this was happening, yes. We deferred to their judgment.”

Alan Balch, executive director of the California Thoroughbred Trainers, said, “I agree with what Mr., Avioli said. We deferred to their judgment. @thorntontd