Ca. State Senate Hearing(AB2414)

[andymays]

Originally Posted by DeanT

Poly lover....

Wait for it......................Wait for it................................................ .................................................. ............................

It was on the turf!

He didn't want to tear up a good horse on the poly.

Won for fun too. This one will move up the ladder.
-------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.nctimes.com/sports/column...d5363aec6.html

Excerpt:

Today's Racing Digest workout analyst and handicapper Bruno De Julio said he believes in the Hollywood Park track.

"Hollywood Park has been perennially a very good surface to train over and run," De Julio said. "I believe horses have gotten fitter at Hollywood to race than anywhere else. I have had much success clocking and watching horses at Hollywood run than anywhere else."

De Julio said Del Mar's Polytrack is a good surface to train on and ship out to run on dirt. That's what Blind Luck did last weekend for trainer Jerry Hollendorfer in the Alabama at Saratoga Springs, N.Y., and what trainer Bob Baffert has done many times and did again this year when Lookin At Lucky won the Haskell at Monmouth Park in Oceanport, N.Y., and what Bulldogger did in an allowance race at Saratoga.

"(Del Mar) is a great surface to train over this year," De Julio said, "but it has been horrible to run over as it takes the brilliance out of horses. In other words, a brilliant horse with a great turn of foot or speed is stymied by this surface. This surface caters to slow horses. "

[Jeff P]

re: Senate Rules Committee AB 2414...

I'm told that no action was taken today.

Possible the bill could be referred to committee Thurs or Fri.

Now you know what I know.

-jp

.

[kenwoodall2]

Bill website just says "Third floor reading". Probably has to be read to give politicos time for their officr workers to figure out what takeout is!
Another item today has question about how much thew ammended changed from the original. I predict the whole bill will be pulled prior to 8-31. I called CHRB and my senator (state). Both offices were surpeised not 1 word is now same as original!

[Jeff P]

Quick update...

No activity on the bill by the Senate again today.

-jp

.

[rrbauer]

Well, the party line is that this is forward looking and will save racing in California. The only appropriate response from horseplayers is a total boycott of betting on the California product. Anything short of that will not be effective. It's time for all horseplayers to move or get off the pot.

AB 2414 MOVES FORWARD IN CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE

SACRAMENTO , CA – An important piece of legislation designed to help stabilize the California horse racing industry by providing incentives for the Breeders’ Cup to come to California , increasing purses, and expanding wagering opportunities continues to move through the California Senate.

The bill, AB 2414. enjoys widespread support from labor, Hollywood Park , Del Mar, the Oak Tree Racing Association, the Jockeys’ Guild, the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), and the California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF). The California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) also supports the passage of AB 2414 because it conforms to the principles set forth in the Horse Racing Law requiring the CHRB to assure protection of the public, encourage agriculture and the breeding of horses in the state, support the network of California fairs, provide for maximum expansion of horse racing opportunities in the public interest, and provide uniformity of regulation for each type of horse racing.

AB 2414, a bill authored by Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez, contains three major components:

· Provides an incentive for the Breeders’ Cup Limited to run its world championship races at California racetracks by mandating that a portion of the takeout at the host track be designated for promotion of the Breeders’ Cup. The bill cites a study indicating that the last two Breeders’ Cups held at Santa Anita Racetrack generated an additional $60 million economic impact on the State of California and Los Angeles region each of those years.

· Increases purses in order to encourage horse ownership, boost field sizes, and foster increased wagering on California horse races in order to compete with other states. Due to the high cost of running horses, owners and trainers seek out races offering the highest purses. Some states enhance purses with revenue from slots and other forms of gaming. It is hoped that by enhancing purses in California through AB 2414, the larger purses will encourage horse ownership, and more horsemen will opt to run in California . Larger fields invariably result in increased handle and more revenue, giving increased stability to the horse racing industry. AB 2414 points out “the importance of the horse racing industry to this state, including the 50,000 jobs associated with the industry…” The additional purse money will be generated by increasing the amount withheld from the wagered dollar. Even with this takeout increase of 2 to 3 percent on exotic wagers, such as exactas, trifectas, and the Pick Six, California ’s takeout rates will remain lower than those in some other states with comparable, high-quality racing. Under AB 2414, the takeout rate in California on exotic wagers placed on thoroughbred races will range from 22.18 percent to 23.78 percent, depending on the wager. This compares with a takeout rate of 25 percent or higher on many exotic wagers in New York , New Jersey , and Illinois .

· Provides the legal authority for California to offer a wagering variation called Exchange Betting, subject to approval by California horsemen and racetracks. Exchange Wagering is very popular in Great Britain where promoters claim it has attracted a younger audience for wagering on horse races. It is hoped that Exchange Wagering will attract a new clientele to California horse racing and lead to increased wagering that will benefit all segments of the industry. Exchange Wagering is also being considered by the New Jersey State Legislature. AB 2414 along with rules to be developed by the CHRB will provide ongoing checks and balances. Exchange Wagering can only be implemented following financial negotiations between horsemen and Advance Deposit Wagering (ADW) companies and is subject to approval by all parties, including horsemen and the CHRB.

Exchange Wagering has been discussed at every meeting of the CHRB Legislative Committee dating back to March 4, 2010, and Exchange Wagering was specifically mentioned in the CHRB news release dated April 16, 2010, as being a significant proposal for legislation. The bill defines Exchange Wagering as “a form of pari-mutuel wagering” relating to “a given horse race or a given set of horse races” that is “submitted to an exchange wagering licensee.” The CHRB has verified that AB 2414 conforms to state and federal laws.

[DJofSD]

Thanks for posting the update, Rich.

This just confirms once again, as consumers in the state of California, we have no representation and no voice. We're expected to bend over and be thankful we at least got kissed.

[kenwoodall2]

Originally Posted by rrbauer

Well, the party line is that this is forward looking and will save racing in California. The only appropriate response from horseplayers is a total boycott of betting on the California product. Anything short of that will not be effective. It's time for all horseplayers to move or get off the pot.

AB 2414 MOVES FORWARD IN CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE

SACRAMENTO , CA – An important piece of legislation designed to help stabilize the California horse racing industry by providing incentives for the Breeders’ Cup to come to California , increasing purses, and expanding wagering opportunities continues to move through the California Senate.

The bill, AB 2414. enjoys widespread support from labor, Hollywood Park , Del Mar, the Oak Tree Racing Association, the Jockeys’ Guild, the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), and the California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF). The California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) also supports the passage of AB 2414 because it conforms to the principles set forth in the Horse Racing Law requiring the CHRB to assure protection of the public, encourage agriculture and the breeding of horses in the state, support the network of California fairs, provide for maximum expansion of horse racing opportunities in the public interest, and provide uniformity of regulation for each type of horse racing.

AB 2414, a bill authored by Assembly Speaker John A. Pérez, contains three major components:

· Provides an incentive for the Breeders’ Cup Limited to run its world championship races at California racetracks by mandating that a portion of the takeout at the host track be designated for promotion of the Breeders’ Cup. The bill cites a study indicating that the last two Breeders’ Cups held at Santa Anita Racetrack generated an additional $60 million economic impact on the State of California and Los Angeles region each of those years.

· Increases purses in order to encourage horse ownership, boost field sizes, and foster increased wagering on California horse races in order to compete with other states. Due to the high cost of running horses, owners and trainers seek out races offering the highest purses. Some states enhance purses with revenue from slots and other forms of gaming. It is hoped that by enhancing purses in California through AB 2414, the larger purses will encourage horse ownership, and more horsemen will opt to run in California . Larger fields invariably result in increased handle and more revenue, giving increased stability to the horse racing industry. AB 2414 points out “the importance of the horse racing industry to this state, including the 50,000 jobs associated with the industry…” The additional purse money will be generated by increasing the amount withheld from the wagered dollar. Even with this takeout increase of 2 to 3 percent on exotic wagers, such as exactas, trifectas, and the Pick Six, California ’s takeout rates will remain lower than those in some other states with comparable, high-quality racing. Under AB 2414, the takeout rate in California on exotic wagers placed on thoroughbred races will range from 22.18 percent to 23.78 percent, depending on the wager. This compares with a takeout rate of 25 percent or higher on many exotic wagers in New York , New Jersey , and Illinois .

· Provides the legal authority for California to offer a wagering variation called Exchange Betting, subject to approval by California horsemen and racetracks. Exchange Wagering is very popular in Great Britain where promoters claim it has attracted a younger audience for wagering on horse races. It is hoped that Exchange Wagering will attract a new clientele to California horse racing and lead to increased wagering that will benefit all segments of the industry. Exchange Wagering is also being considered by the New Jersey State Legislature. AB 2414 along with rules to be developed by the CHRB will provide ongoing checks and balances. Exchange Wagering can only be implemented following financial negotiations between horsemen and Advance Deposit Wagering (ADW) companies and is subject to approval by all parties, including horsemen and the CHRB.

Exchange Wagering has been discussed at every meeting of the CHRB Legislative Committee dating back to March 4, 2010, and Exchange Wagering was specifically mentioned in the CHRB news release dated April 16, 2010, as being a significant proposal for legislation. The bill defines Exchange Wagering as “a form of pari-mutuel wagering” relating to “a given horse race or a given set of horse races” that is “submitted to an exchange wagering licensee.” The CHRB has verified that AB 2414 conforms to state and federal laws.

_____
"http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_2414" Shows no new action. Jost waiting in the Ca Senate.

[Charlie D]

Exchange Wagering was specifically mentioned in the CHRB news release dated April 16, 2010

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/press_release...ss_release.pdf

Chairman Brackpool and Commissioner Choper reported on the previous day’s meeting of the Legislative Committee, Chairman Brackpool reiterated that the purpose of these continuing meetings with the industry and the public is to agree on "one piece of major legislation that could promote the industry." He said he had conversations as recently as that morning with the offices of the Governor and the Speaker of the Assembly, who are supportive of horse racing and "are expecting a piece of legislation to come out of this group." He suggested pursuing legislation that would have a reasonable chance of approval by the full Legislature and he cautioned against anything that would encounter fierce opposition, such as slots at racetracks. Commissioner Choper said the goal is to achieve "a substantial increase in the handle," and that some proposals have "a greater chance of making it through the Legislature than others." He said one of the more significant proposals is for the introduction of exchange betting in California. "We’re going to get some new data on that," said Commissioner Choper, including demographics on exchange bettors in Great Britain, to provide assurances that exchange betting typically involves "a different class of people (and) would not cannibalize existing betting all that much."

[Jeff P]

George Wiley is a staff consultant who works for The Speaker of The California Assembly John A. Perez

I received the following email this morning:

Subject: change of plans...
From : "Wiley, George"
To : "'jeff@jcapper.com'"
Cc :
Bcc :
Organization :
Received : 08-30-2010 11:04 AM

Hi Jeff...because the Senate refused to grant us a hearing on the Speaker's AB 2414, a decision was made over the weekend to instead utilize a Senate bill (SB 1072) that is in the Assembly to incorporate the current contents on AB 2414. That bill will be heard today in the Assembly GO and Appropriations Committee. Additionally, the exchange wagering authorization is going to be delayed until May 2012. That, and some other minor changes appears to have prompted Magna going neutral on the bill (still trying to confirm this). Please give me a call if you have any other questions...George Wiley

If they enact a takeout increase without a mitigating offset such as exchange wagering, I say the California product does not deserve one single penny of player business.


-jp

.

[DJofSD]

Jeff,

Are you stating that as a personal opinion or as an offical HANA position?

[andymays]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

Jeff,

Are you stating that as a personal opinion or as an offical HANA position?

Pool Riot?

[Jeff P]

DJ, right now it's my personal opinion only. However, I did not make that statement lightly - I will not retract it - and will seek the backing of the other HANA Board Members on this.

This past year I have been involved in the process of attending meetings and providing input to the CHRB related to the Los Al takeout increase. Seeing the CHRB lobby for a thoroughbred takeout increase while ignoring the facts (Los Al's brick and mortar handle fell 27% during the six month period immediately following their takeout increase) is (in my opinion) not only deplorable but contrary to the mission statement of the CHRB which calls for them to promote horse racing and regulate parimutuel wagering for the protection of the wagering public.

The actions of the TOC, CHRB, and Tracks in this matter provide clear insight into exactly how they see the importance of the customer.


-jp

.

[DJofSD]

Jeff,

Thanks for the reply and the claification along with the additional thoughts.

My opinion: the CHRB is just a tool of the TOC and the other vested interests. They certainly do not appear to me to be doing anything in my interest as both a tax payer and as a bettor. As far as I am concerned, the take out from the pools that I will bet into is a tax, and, I have no representation when it comes to that tax.

[Indulto]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

,,, If they enact a takeout increase without a mitigating offset such as exchange wagering, I say the California product does not deserve one single penny of player business. ...

jp,
How is this takeout increase expected to affect rebated players? Would you be of the same mind if the bill also removed the ADW cap and permitted access by all ADWs?

Why have you so far only taken a stand against further increases to direct takeout rather than for lowering them from existing exorbitant levels? Does an optimum pricing point for rebates already exist?

[Jeff P]

Why have you so far only taken a stand against further increases to direct takeout rather than for lowering them from existing exorbitant levels? Does an optimum pricing point for rebates already exist?

Call me naive if you want. Last January I thought that because the CHRB was considering a takeout increase for Los Al they must not be using all of the information available to them such as case history from other forms of gambling, racing industry funded economic studies, etc. as part of their decision making process.

I thought that by getting actively involved and giving them input they would open their eyes and start to realize racing is a customer driven business. I thought that given access to relevant information they would start making decisions based on the same criteria that successful businesses with a profit motive do... such as identifying customer needs and wants and then making an effort to satisfy those needs and wants.

Looking back I couldn't have been more wrong. Not only were they aware of racing's paid for economic studies and case history from other forms of gambling - but they were purposely choosing to ignore it.

Originally Posted by Indulto

jp,
How is this takeout increase expected to affect rebated players? Would you be of the same mind if the bill also removed the ADW cap and permitted access by all ADWs?

The problem is that racing has S O O O - - M A N Y things wrong. Where do you start?

In my opinion the ADW cap is one of the worst things the TOC has ever had enacted. Instead of the intended effect: supplementing purses - The adw cap has driven a significant amount of money offshore where it does nothing to supplement purses.

If you walk into a store to buy a loaf of bread and see that the bread is stale and that it is overpriced you walk out and buy it somewhere else.

If you contact the owner of the store and let him know in a reasonable and intelligent manner the reasons you and others are not buying his bread - The next time you walk into the store you should have at least some expectation things will have improved. If not and you recontact the owner, and he tells you what you can do with your ideas about fresh loaves of bread at competitive prices...

At some point you HAVE to consider the possibility the owner of that store no longer deserve your business.

That's as accurate a description of the problem in California as I can present using an anology.

And it's exactly where horseplayers find themselves right now.

Indy, if the bill contained a measure to do away with the adw cap as well as a measure to increase the takeout it would still be a bad piece of legislation and HANA would still be against it.

It's crystal clear to me now that a different approach is needed.


-jp

.