Del Mar + PTC-Update: The Word for the Day

[Premier Turf Club]

We have been told today by Del Mar simulcast director Paul Porter that he

"will not be sending us a contract because Drew Couto of the TOC told him not to. Why bother going through the effort when the TOC won't approve it anyway."


The word for the day is Collusion, C-O-L-L-U-S-I-O-N is defined in wikipedia as part of a group of

Anti-competitive practices that prevent and/or reduce competition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition) in a market (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market) (see restraint of trade (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restraint_of_trade)). They include such things as creating illegal



Barriers to entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barriers_to_entry) (to an industry) designed to avoid the competition that new entrants would bring.

Now let's use it in a sentence. There are groups in the industry, who have engaged in COLLUSION to keep Premier Turf Club and other potential competitors from enetering their market.

Got it. Good.:)

[Indulto]

We have been told today by Del Mar simulcast director Paul Porter that he

"will not be sending us a contract because Drew Couto of the TOC told him not to. Why bother going through the effort when the TOC won't approve it anyway."This is particularly depressing since DMR is not a MEC/CDI track or threatening to close down. I had always considered DMR and OSA to be progressive and fan friendly, but apparantly it's politics as usual. Have you had any conversations with CA State Senator Yee, yet?

[Premier Turf Club]

This is particularly depressing since DMR is not a MEC/CDI track or threatening to close down. I had always considered DMR and OSA to be progressive and fan friendly, but apparantly it's politics as usual. Have you had any conversations with CA State Senator Yee, yet?

Progressive to a point. Beholden to the TOC to a larger extent. You know if you're going to collude, at least be clever about it. Telling us "I'm not going to send you a contract because Drew Couto told me not to" seems pretty silly to me.

Yes, we have had some nice conversations with Sen Yee's aide Adam. We told him we would be happy to answer any questions about California racing that the Senator had.

[boomman]

Progressive to a point. Beholden to the TOC to a larger extent. You know if you're going to collude, at least be clever about it. Telling us "I'm not going to send you a contract because Drew Couto told me not to" seems pretty silly to me.

Yes, we have had some nice conversations with Sen Yee's aide Adam. We told him we would be happy to answer any questions about California racing that the Senator had.

Well I have to at least give points to Paul Porter for being honest! Ian: I think the statement above would probably be a good starting point with Senator Yee.....

Boomer

[betovernetcapper]

Isn't this in conflict with the TOC mission statement which states

"Among it's objectives are promoting expanded horse racing wagering opportunities, through added simulcasting, phone betting and Internet betting"

:ThmbDown:

[dutchboy]

I thought I read recently on this site that California law or rules will not allow any account wagering companies that provide rebates. Until that is changed I don't know what Del Mar could do or even waste time preparing a contract.

[Premier Turf Club]

Isn't this in conflict with the TOC mission statement which states

"Among it's objectives are promoting expanded horse racing wagering opportunities, through added simulcasting, phone betting and Internet betting"

:ThmbDown:

Yeah, I think there might be a whole lot of "conflicting" going on, but you know since no one will talk to us (or anyone else about it) it's tough to say.

Read the entire NYS Integrity report to identify some of the industry players. All of whom have TOC sign-off I might add. I guess we just don't make the grade.:(

[betovernetcapper]

Del Mar is currently selling it's signal to at least two AWD's that provide rebates IRG and Link2Bet. My guess is there are several others.

[DJofSD]

We have been told today by Del Mar simulcast director Paul Porter that he

"will not be sending us a contract because Drew Couto of the TOC told him not to. Why bother going through the effort when the TOC won't approve it anyway."

I know who Joe Harper is and I've stopped him to talk to him in the past. He's usually very approachable and should be very visable opening day.

I have a big enough pair. I'll be asking him why TOC has authority over their operations especially when it is a state owned and operated facility. I didn't know the TOC had extraordinay authority in the State of California.

Any one have any thing else to add?

[betovernetcapper]

I've just sent an email to the TOC board of directors at

director@toconline.com

I'm also sending a letter to Arnold at

Governor Arnold Schwaczenegger
State Capitol Bldg
Sacramento Ca 95814

Got nothing to lose

[Premier Turf Club]

I know who Joe Harper is and I've stopped him to talk to him in the past. He's usually very approachable and should be very visable opening day.

I have a big enough pair. I'll be asking him why TOC has authority over their operations especially when it is a state owned and operated facility. I didn't know the TOC had extraordinay authority in the State of California.

Any one have any thing else to add?

First off, that would be awesome, I'd greatly appreciate it.

I've heard from people that Joe Harper is a good guy. We pointed out to Mr. Porter that by not sending us the contract because "Drew Couto told him not to" might make Del Mar a "participant", and that he might want to run it by his bosses or his legal department first. He chose not to.

I can't imagine why Paul Porter would let Drew Couto tell him what to do, but apparently there are a lot of things I don't understand about how business get's done in California.

I know this is crazy right? All we're looking to do is to do business. It really can't be what it looks like, can it? Is there anyone else who reads this board, a California owner, Cal. trainer, TOC board member (slim chance but what the hell) that understands how bad this looks and wants to make this all just go away?

And Mr. Couto is an attorney for pete's sake. He understands the word for the day. :)

[Indulto]

Mr. Couto appeared willing to share his thoughts in the following forum:

http://www.ag.arizona.edu/rtip/Symposium/2003%20Symposium/2003%20transcripts/friplayinginthepool.html (http://www.ag.arizona.edu/rtip/Symposium/2003%20Symposium/2003%20transcripts/friplayinginthepool.html)
30th ANNUAL SYMPOSIUM ON RACING
FRIDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2003
MORNING SESSION 1

PLAYING IN THE POOL: WHAT ARE THE RULES?

Moderator:
Tom Dawson : Producer, Winner Communications, Inc.

Speakers :
Drew Couto : Consultant, TOC
David Cuscuna : Professional Gambler
Ron Nichol : Operations Program Coordinator, Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency
James Quinn : NTRA Player Representative, Santa Anita Park

[Transcript follows]

[trigger]

Not a lawyer, but since the TOC is the official horsemen's groupin California, doesn't the Horseracing Act give them the right to refuse to sign off on any off-track wagering agreement with out explaining why? If I'm not mistaken, the Gulfstream horsemen cited this Act to shut off the NYOTB at their 2007 winter meet for several weeks. Any lawyers out there?

Title 15>CHAPTER 57 > § 3004 Prev | Next
§ 3004. Regulation of interstate off-track wagering
(a) Consent of host racing association, host racing commission, and off-track racing commission as prerequisite to acceptance of wager
An interstate off-track wager may be accepted by an off-track betting system only if consent is obtained from—
(1) the host racing association, except that—
(A) as a condition precedent to such consent, said racing association (except a not-for-profit racing association in a State where the distribution of off-track betting revenues in that State is set forth by law) must have a written agreement with the horsemen’s group, under which said racing association may give such consent, setting forth the terms and conditions relating thereto; provided,
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00003004----000-.html

[NoCal Boy]

Ian- You know I respect what you are trying to accomplish with PTC, but I have corresponded recently with Drew Couto on ADW in general in California and he is very sensible and rational on his positions. I am not saying you are being treated "fairly," with the DMR signal, but I think you have to somewhat admit your competition is more the Youbet's and TVG's of the ADW world rather than the IRG's of the rebate world. Although you are not looking to get into California, these other ADW's are in California and have made investments in California racing. The TOC has had their issues with TVG, but they have been productive for CA racing. The ADW law is being re-written right at this time in California and it seems natural for the TOC to try and "protect" the long-time established ADW's in the state. You would take a few customers away from TVG and Youbet on Del Mar et al races, and a few from XpressBet on SA and GG, from states you are operating in.


Perhaps a deal can finally be brokered between TVG and TrackNet which will then allow for the open access being preached. However, as in any business, the established players have the clout and that lies with the TVG's, Youbet's and TrackNet partners right now.

Just my opinion. I do expect the TOC to ensure Youbet gets SA and GG in 2008 if this nonsense is not resolved. I do believe a resolution is necessary before PTC gets much further along on TVG and TrackNet signals.

[Premier Turf Club]

Re Drew Couto being "rational" in his positions I would be happy to entertain alternative explanations for why he

a)refused to return seven phone calls from us.

b)refused to explain his position to the CARF simulcast director.

c)refused to return at least half a dozen phone calls from an attorney representing a TOC board member who was told by his boss to "keep calling until you get an explanation."

d)told a prominent California owner that he “wouldn’t talk about why he turned down Premier”, followed up with an “I won’t talk about why I won’t talk about it.” when that owner pushed further.

e)has approved any number of outfits named in the NYS integrity report as in previous federal indictments and / or having continuing connections to illicit activities.

f)denying the signal to any licensed ADW helps the horsemen?



If you get the chance, someone posted the minutes from a CHRB board meeting last year on PA where Mr. Couto, the CHRB and Shawn Egide from Day At The Track engage in the best rendition of Who’s On First I’ve heard since Abbott and Costello. It goes something like

-The California tracks refuse to send me contracts because we don’t have TOC approval.

-Well, I can’t approve Day At the Track because they don’t have any contracts from California tracks for me to approve.

-How can I get a contract from a California tracks when they tell me they won’t send them to me until you have approved us?

-How is it the TOC’s problem that Mr. Egide can’t get contracts for me to approve? I can’t approve any contracts if the tracks don’t send them to him.


Trust me; this is how it’s been done in California for a LONG TIME. It’s not news to the people who have come out of the woodwork to give me some insights into their experiences out there.

And for the record. We have passed due diligence in North Dakota that included background checks (criminal and credit) as well as an FBI fingerprint check (read the integrity report and notice how many of those associated with the bidders “neglected to send in their fingerprint cards.”) We have also passed the NYS Wagering Board background check, and the TRPB background check.

[prospector]

my take on this is very basic..
i don't need to bet on delmar..
the question then becomes if delmar wants me to bet on delmar..if so, open up ian or lose my business (small it may be, but i control it.)

[Premier Turf Club]

Not a lawyer, but since the TOC is the official horsemen's groupin California, doesn't the Horseracing Act give them the right to refuse to sign off on any off-track wagering agreement with out explaining why? Arbitrarily and carpricously, I don' think so. Remember, Congress giveth, and Congress can taketh away. Horse Racing's unique status when it comes to interstate gaming is a gift from the legislators.

If I'm not mistaken, the Gulfstream horsemen cited this Act to shut off the NYOTB at their 2007 winter meet for several weeks. Yes, because OTB refused to pay a fair rate for the signal.



Again, when it can be demonstrated that the TOC has approved contracts at similar rates to other simulcast providers the 'I won't because I don't have to and you can't make me' defense won't cut it.


My guess is any lawyer worth his salt is going to tell you that he wouldn't want to have to defend the industry in anti-trust litigation. That is if his fee was contingent upon getting them off.

A little bit of trivia. In late 2002, Susan Bala from RSI had retained counsel to study these very things and was preparing an anti-trust lawsuit against a number of the biggest players (tracks, ADWs, horsemen's groups, etc.) when she was busted by the feds. Unlucky for her, very fortuitous for the industry.

[m001001]

... but I think you have to somewhat admit your competition is more the Youbet's and TVG's of the ADW world rather than the IRG's of the rebate world.
...

Maybe this is the key.

Other pari-mutuel rebate shops who required larger minimum volume ($200k and up monthly) have customers who won't bet at all unless there are substantial rebates.

But customers of Youbet and the like (PTC included?) are recreational and will bet the same with or without rebate?!

Just a speculation.

[Premier Turf Club]

Maybe this is the key.

Other pari-mutuel rebate shops who required larger minimum volume ($200k and up monthly) have customers who won't bet at all unless there are substantial rebates.

But customers of Youbet and the like (PTC included?) are recreational and will bet the same with or without rebate?!

Just a speculation.

1)I disagree that our customers will bet just as much without a rebate. But I don't want to speak for them, I will let them answer how rewards have affected their play. And I'm not criticizing your response, it is a reasonable supposition, one I just don't agree with but difference of opinion makes a horse race.:)

2)If that is indeed the case why didn't Mr. Couto communicate that the approx 15 times he was asked?

If you haven't read the NYS Integrity report you should. TOC isn't mentioned but all the bad actors that are have received Drew's blessing.;)

[betovernetcapper]

But customers of Youbet and the like (PTC included?) are recreational and will bet the same with or without rebate?!


I think that's part of the mindset of TrickNet-they'll bet anyway, so screw them. Race tracks had a similar business model. I mean people have to go to the track-right?

[GoBabyGo]

yeah thats a great name like in they tricked everybody into thinking they wanted to help the industry but in reality they have a financial stake in rgs

i got this from another board but it is on page 82 of that ny report

rather than accept payment directly RGS employed Churchill Downs as a settlement agent to collect monies from the tracks and transfer these monies to RGS. In return, Churchill Downs receives a percentage of the monies it collects.


so i get if if rgs gets the best rates from cd and gets a lot of handle because of that more money for cd. if cd helps rgs by keeping out anybody else more money for cd. if cd pressures other tracks to help rgs then more money for cd. we want to give the signal to everybody, yeah thats the ticket.

what a friggin joke. :lol: