PDA

View Full Version : Call for Change at the CHRB


rwwupl
12-06-2010, 04:10 PM
This commentary was put out in California to the concerned politicians,regulators,writers and horse players.


A Call for Change at the CHRB



California Horse Racing


Various conflicts of interests with the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) have led to the decline of support of horse racing from the citizens of California.

The CHRB is tasked with serving the public interest, not the interests of one aspect of the industry over another. The CHRB has lacked appropriate balance in the membership. It is unacceptable for a public Board to be so dominated by interests of one segment of the industry they are charged with regulating.

The United States has 38 racing jurisdictions and the states of New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Texas, and Florida are among the largest and all prohibit their racing board members from having any financial interest in the business. Arizona allows only one member to have a financial interest in the industry and Maryland allows no more than four of its nine members to own horses.

A number of California state boards also prohibit such conflicts of interests by barring those in the industry from serving as members, including the Medical Board, Dental Board, Board of Optometry, and Board of Accountancy.

The leadership of the seven members CHRB is dominated by licensed horse owners and by law they are also members of the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), a horsemen’s advocate organization that is supported by over a million dollars per year from the betting public takeout money. The TOC members pay no dues for their support, along with other horsemen advocate groups in California.

We think California would be better served by limiting the CHRB to no more than three members with a financial interest in the industry, and the Chairman should have no financial interest at all.

The actions of the CHRB have destroyed the original business model that led to success, by approving for horsemen larger purses upon demand at the expense of the betting public. The takeout has escalated in California from 10% to 20% and headed for 30% with a deteriorating program presented to the customers and endangering the entire industry that provides 50,000 jobs and $50 million in state and local tax revenue and millions of dollars for charitable programs and endowments.

The CHRB has failed in its mission in all respects…

Mission Statement

The purpose of the California Horse Racing Board is to regulate pari-mutuel wagering for the protection of the betting public, to promote horse racing and breeding industries, and to maximize State of California tax reves.


A few years ago S/B 27 ($40 million) was intended to resolve the problems by granting from the State a 3% additional takeout for horseman purses instead of lowering the takeout for the customers to meet increased competition from other gaming. The result was that horsemen paid more for their horses and all costs increased across the board for all supporting services and made California one of the most expensive places in the country to maintain a racehorse, and support from customers continued to dwindle.

The recent takeout increase of 2-3% on exotic bets that begins on December 26th at Santa Anita flies in the face of reality. Instead of working to find the optimum price point (The price point that produces the maximum profit to those who put on the show)of the bet, the CHRB have supported (A/B2414,$70 million) another increase specifically for horsemen’s purses proposed by the TOC and added to the burden of racings customers. This is in conflict with other jurisdictions (NYRA,etc.) that are trying to find ways to lower the cost of the bet to compete with other gaming such as Sports Betting and Poker.

The recent fiasco at Los Alamitos when the CHRB allowed an increase of 2% to the takeout at the request of Los Alamitos after the Horseplayers Association of North America (HANA) had proven without any doubt that it was a revenue, handle, and profit loser for all and a downer for the customers indicated another rubber stamp approval.

The recent display of arrogance by the Chairman and the Vice Chairman of the CHRB at the September 22, 2010 meeting of the CHRB at Fairplex captured by Bill Christine in his article “Get out the Lifeboats” http://www.horseraceinsider.com/west-coast-wash/09272010-get-out-the-lifeboats/ indicates an attitude that is not in the best interest of horse racing in California.

For these reasons and more, and the downward trend line direction of the world’s greatest customer participation sport in California, we request a review of the CHRB actions from an independent state government oversight committee for obvious conflict of interest.

Roger Way

andymays
12-06-2010, 04:53 PM
Good job Roger. :ThmbUp:

Deepsix
12-06-2010, 05:24 PM
Might we assume that this is the beginning of the 'war of words' that we'll hear as it relates to the Santa Anita Boycott scheduled for 12/26 (or there abouts)? Bad CHRB, bad Owners, bad Trainers, and bad Race Track Operators....... bad.

PaceAdvantage
12-06-2010, 05:33 PM
Might we assume that this is the beginning of the 'war of words' that we'll hear as it relates to the Santa Anita Boycott scheduled for 12/26 (or there abouts)? Bad CHRB, bad Owners, bad Trainers, and bad Race Track Operators....... bad.So nice to see you posting again Deepsix...

Deepsix
12-06-2010, 05:41 PM
Hey Pace, nice to see you milling about, as well. The thing I find interesting is that Roger Way (Cal. West Coast HANA Rep) and HANA have been on opposite pages, here to fore, as it relates to boycotting SA. I then notice that Roger posted on the HANA topic but didn't identify himself as HANA representative.... ? Peculiar.

Anyway, nice keeping in touch.

Buhbye.

Greyfox
12-06-2010, 05:43 PM
Roger Way put a lot of research and thought into that post. Well said. :ThmbUp:

andymays
12-06-2010, 06:05 PM
Hey Pace, nice to see you milling about, as well. The thing I find interesting is that Roger Way (Cal. West Coast HANA Rep) and HANA have been on opposite pages, here to fore, as it relates to boycotting SA. I then notice that Roger posted on the HANA topic but didn't identify himself as HANA representative.... ? Peculiar.

Anyway, nice keeping in touch.

Buhbye.

The email (same as the thread starter) went out with a huge HANA logo at the top.

Stillriledup
12-06-2010, 10:54 PM
Great stuff Rog! :ThmbUp:

DeanT
12-07-2010, 12:07 AM
Yep, really good job Roger!

DJofSD
12-07-2010, 12:12 AM
Kudos, Roger, kudos.

Maybe, just maybe, it's not too late to turn the ship around. At one time not that many years ago, California touted themselves as some of the best racing in the USA. It could be true again.

Charli125
12-07-2010, 03:41 PM
Well said Roger, and I'll confirm what Andy said. The email went out with a HANA logo on top.

rwwupl
12-07-2010, 07:37 PM
Well said Roger, and I'll confirm what Andy said. The email went out with a HANA logo on top.

I am informed that the Paulick Report will run it tomorrow, Andy brought it to his (Brad Cummings) attention. I will put Brad Cummings of Paulick Report on distribution in the future.

I hope you all can support it with comments.

Thanks, Roger Way

andymays
12-07-2010, 07:39 PM
I am informed that the Paulick Report will run it tomorrow, Andy brought it to his attention. I will put Brad Cummings of Paulick Report on distribution in the future.

I hope you all can support it with comments.

Thanks, Roger Way

Let's hope they don't change their minds. You know how that works.

jelly
12-07-2010, 09:13 PM
Great job :ThmbUp:


In the future I would use 10-15% instead of 2-3%.

highnote
12-08-2010, 01:46 AM
Good stuff! :ThmbUp:

andymays
12-08-2010, 11:15 AM
The article was picked up by the Paulick Report.

Make sure to comment on the piece at this link. It was also sent to everyone at the CHRB. Be respectful but tell it like it is.

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/people/hana-chrb-dominated-by-narrow-interests/#PageComment_38971

DJofSD
12-08-2010, 12:05 PM
From a response to the above the Paulick Report article:

I am a bettor and an owner of thoroughbreds. I support the 2% increase in take out. As a bettor I don't as much look at the takeout of the particular type of bet I am making as much as I look at the quality and size of the fields that I am wagering on. California racing is severly lacking in both of those, and this will only encourage owners and trainers to keep their horses there. I'm tired of hearing HANA say that the horseplayers drive this industry.What about the owners who invest in bloodstock. We are the one's putting on the show here......

Really, the owners and breeders are putting on the show? What the h*ll do we have race tracks and their operators for if that's the case? Or, do I not understand English?

BillW
12-08-2010, 12:08 PM
From a response to the above the Paulick Report article:



Really, the owners and breeders are putting on the show? What the h*ll do we have race tracks and their operators for if that's the case? Or, do I not understand English?

It's amazing how easy it is to see why racing is in such trouble and frustrating as hell that it seems so difficult to fix :mad:

andymays
12-08-2010, 12:13 PM
From a response to the above the Paulick Report article:



Really, the owners and breeders are putting on the show? What the h*ll do we have race tracks and their operators for if that's the case? Or, do I not understand English?

DJ I sent the link to every employee at the CHRB so I'm sure some of them will comment under the article. We need to answer the comments that go against us.

The truth is that quite a few employees at the CHRB agree with us and not the CHRB Board so most of the people who work there would change things if they could.

Charli125
12-08-2010, 12:51 PM
DJ I sent the link to every employee at the CHRB so I'm sure some of them will comment under the article. We need to answer the comments that go against us.

The truth is that quite a few employees at the CHRB agree with us and not the CHRB Board so most of the people who work there would change things if they could.

I think it's a good thing to get some dissent on there. Those views are out there, and no matter how wrong they may be, we need to educate them. As long as we keep things above the belt, my hope is that we can educate some folks on the way things really work.

DeanT
12-08-2010, 01:39 PM
DJ I sent the link to every employee at the CHRB so I'm sure some of them will comment under the article. We need to answer the comments that go against us.

The truth is that quite a few employees at the CHRB agree with us and not the CHRB Board so most of the people who work there would change things if they could.

It is what I notice in Canada about horsemen organizations etc. The people like me who own horses are business people and we understand customers, and the biz. But we are pretty quiet. The loud folks who say they represent me are at a polar opposite.

IMO, there are TONS of people in CA racing that think their direction is insane, but they are fairly silent, and quietly leave the game. Just like horseplayers tend to.

InsideThePylons-MW
12-08-2010, 01:48 PM
"And our owners, who provide the major part of the funding for our sport, must be recognized for their contribution." Arnold Zetcher....Chairman of the TOC

DeanT
12-08-2010, 03:21 PM
“The tracks have to earn their share of the entertainment dollar just like any other entertainment,’’ he said.

Read more: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/60254/nysrwb-takes-action-in-wake-of-otb-shutdown#ixzz17Y8A5Cde

Why does most everyone in power in the industry insist on calling racing revenues "entertainment" revenues? Are people paying $14 and buying $10 popcorn to watch the third at Beulah in a movie theater? Are people buying Raphael Bejarano T shirts? Are people paying $5500 for a rail seat to sit beside Jack Nicholson?

I have read books on Steve Wynn and he never, ever, ever has called his casino gambling revenues "entertainment dollars", and casinos are in the entertainment business about 1000 times more than racing is.