NYRA to refund 8.6 million dollars to bettors

[DeanT]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

How do they both miss the fact that the takeout was never lowered when it was supposed to?

Especially when all they had to do was read Paceadvantage.com

http://216.92.33.211/forum/showpost....47&postcount=7

S.32 - This act shall take effect immediately; provided that sections two, twenty-two, twenty-three and twenty-four of this act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law and shall expire and be deemed repealed two years after such effective date.

[Caroline]

Originally Posted by DeanT

Especially when all they had to do was read Paceadvantage.com

http://216.92.33.211/forum/showpost....47&postcount=7

How stupid are they? No? Yes? Not Stupid? Not Ignorant? Guessing... Well at least they can "afford" the lower take now, with all that casino income for local interests... Could they have done that anyway? Who cares?

[chickenhead]

just to highlight that a bit more, because there is something particularly unbelieveable if you look closely.

From NYRA and racing board as reported by DRF:

NYRA and racing board officials pinned the error on a provision of complex, wide-ranging amendment to the state's racing law passed in 2008 that affected only NYRA's three tracks -- Aqueduct, Belmont, and Saratoga. Both sides said on Wednesday that they had no knowledge of the provision until alerted to it by auditors over the last few days.

The next line should have been:

Miraculously, a poster on the internetz was able to find, decode, and understand these mind bogglingly complex and wide ranging amendments within 1 day of them being signed into law. He also, amazingly, in a feat of almost unimaginable mental fortitude and swami like foresight, managed to specifically quote the sunset amendment.

In fact its the only amendment he quoted. He quoted it because it also contains when the provision begins. The quote of the amendment, one sentence long, contains the start date and the end date. If anyone read what the start date of the hike was, they also read the end date. They are contained in the same friggin sentence of the law

We hereby declare him the smartest man in the Universe, or certainly NY.

S.32 - This act shall take effect immediately; provided that sections two, twenty-two, twenty-three and twenty-four of this act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law and shall expire and be deemed repealed two years after such effective date.

Figman, June 17th, 2008.

and again:

Both sides said on Wednesday that they had no knowledge of the provision until alerted to it by auditors over the last few days.

[PaceAdvantage]

Is anyone really surprised that something like this could happen given the completely messed up nature of how racing is legislated in New York State?

NYCOTB demanding a takeout hike, which they GET...and still DIE off...

And then someone falls asleep at the switch and doesn't lower the takeout when they should...comical...but then again, given all the bullshit that goes on with this "Franchise Oversight Committee," along with all the other nonsense government has shown itself prone to when it comes to racing here, I'm not surprised there was confusion, that "magical post" by Figman that chickenhead just cited not withstanding.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

Maybe if they would have audited NYCOTB more closely, this initial takeout increase to 26% (which was FORCED by NYCOTB's out of control losses) would have never been written into law to begin with. If you want to start auditing, start there...oooops...that's right...NYCOTB is no more...which is why the takeout was supposed to be lowered back to 25%

I guess all of this clearly points out the fact that the mysterious "Franchise Oversight Board" is a meaningless entity, as is the NYS Racing & Wagering Board. How do they both miss the fact that the takeout was never lowered when it was supposed to?

Dumb question, I know.

I don't recall NYCOTB having any auditing or accounting issues (at least not in recent years). It had a dumb deal with the harness tracks and a bad cost structure with the union that it couldn't get out of because the state refused to vote for a new deal and behave rationally about it's own piece of the pie (which is now smaller because the total handle is lower).

I don't know anyone at NYRA, but I'm sure there are a lot of bright, dedicated, hard working people there. I know plenty of people like that at the former NYCOTB. IMO, anything having anything to do with government in any capacity will eventually either become corrupt, inefficient, a dumping ground for patronage jobs, or screwed up in at least some way. It's a shame that everyone has to take the hit when something stupid like this happens.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

If they have to pay back 8.6m dollars like the article states, then they had 8.6m dollars of horse player's money. I don't why it matters what the source of the betting was unless you think it's significant that only a portion of it was NY horse player money. Am I misunderstanding?

Yes, you are. The article is shoddy. The 8.6 million was taken from all bettors, not those on track. NYRA did not get the benefit of most of this, at most probably 10-15%. They get a set fee while the one that take the bet gets the difference.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

Yes, you are. The article is shoddy. The 8.6 million was taken from all bettors, not those on track. NYRA did not get the benefit of most of this, at most probably 10-15%. They get a set fee while the one that take the bet gets the difference.

I did see that eventually in the DRF article, but IMO it's somewhat irrelevant. I don't think anyone is accusing NYRA of purposefully doing this to benefit itself.

The only issues are the ones I elaborated on in a later post.

1. Bettors got screwed out of 8.6m they were legally entitled to and some may also have tax implications to take care of that will require additional costs. Some will never recover any of it.

2. NYRA and whoever was supposed to audit them screwed up badly

[cj]

Just to be clear, I'm not saying there isn't a major problem here. There should be at least a few people looking for work by the end of the year.

[cj]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper

I did see that eventually in the DRF article, but IMO it's somewhat irrelevant. I don't think anyone is accusing NYRA of purposefully doing this to benefit itself.

The only issues are the ones I elaborated on in a later post.

1. Bettors got screwed out of 8.6m they were legally entitled to and some may also have tax implications to take care of that will require additional costs. Some will never recover any of it.

2. NYRA and whoever was supposed to audit them screwed up badly

I only posted what I did because some people here were doing exactly what you say nobody is doing...accusing NYRA of doing this for its own benefit.

[jelly]

As mentioned above.


S.32 - This act shall take effect immediately; provided that sections two, twenty-two, twenty-three and twenty-four of this act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall have become a law and shall expire and be deemed repealed two years after such effective date.



What the hell is so complex?

[Rutgers]

Just a few rambling thoughts.

On January 8, 2011 I e-mailed the NYSRWB about NYRA’s takeout on some wagers being outside of the parameters of the law. I never received a response. Maybe they do not respond to non-NYers. I waited until January, because the changes to takeout can only take place the first day of the calendar quarter. And technically, Jan 1 starts a new “meet” as well. As October 1st fell in the middle of the Fall Belmont meet, and I could understand why NYRA would not want a rate change mid-meet.

It should be noted, that while some of the takeout rates for NYRA where higher then prescribe by law, as poster ukbro00 stated everybody knew (or should have known) they were betting into a 26% takeout. Therefore, to imply that NYRA did anything fraudulent is absurd.

I also emailed NYRA in April, 2010 and July 2010 asking them about the takeout, but I did not receive a response. And in August 2010, I commented on Steven Crist’s blog about the “1% NYC OTB takeout increase sunseting” and NYRA takeout being outside the parameters of the NYS law. While he did not post my comment he did send me a e-mail acknowledging the sunset provision went in effect and that NYRA could ask for lower takeout if they wished. I do not know if he discussed it with anybody at NYRA but he does know Charles Hayward personally.

From my perspective, there may be some issues with the change in takeout.

In NY is the Racing Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law establishes the allowed takeout range. NYRA then makes a request to NYSRWB board which either allows it or does not allow it. Any takeout rate must be approved by NYSRWB, NYRA can not change takeout without the NYSRWB approval.

But there is no provision in the PML that requires NYRA to make a the request to change it. And the law clearly states that NYRA can’t change the rates without NYSRWB approval. So there may have been (or there is) a legal question of whether NYRA did or did not do anything wrong. Basically, NYRA was conforming with the law when the law changed, but there is nothing in the law that requires NYRA to change with it. In my opinion, it is a poorly written law.

And for what’s it worth, it are two other posts on the sunset provision:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?p=969237

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s....php?p=1036848

[chickenhead]

Originally Posted by cj

Yes, you are. The article is shoddy. The 8.6 million was taken from all bettors, not those on track. NYRA did not get the benefit of most of this, at most probably 10-15%. They get a set fee while the one that take the bet gets the difference.

Not that it matters, but it might -- when this was originally enacted into law -- did NYRA jack up their signal fees to ADWs and keep this 1%, did they jack up their signal fees to ADWs and pass along 1% OTB, or did they keep all signal fees, everywhere, the same -- passing that 1% along to every distributor (ADW and tracks alike).

I don't know the answer to that -- and when it comes down to reparations to bettors I don't think it matters, but that seems to be implicit here and I just was curious if anyone knew for sure.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by cj

I only posted what I did because some people here were doing exactly what you say nobody is doing...accusing NYRA of doing this for its own benefit.

Nobody that counts.

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by Rutgers

But there is no provision in the PML that requires NYRA to make a the request to change it. And the law clearly states that NYRA can’t change the rates without NYSRWB approval. So there may have been (or there is) a legal question of whether NYRA did or did not do anything wrong. Basically, NYRA was conforming with the law when the law changed, but there is nothing in the law that requires NYRA to change with it. In my opinion, it is a poorly written law.

And for what’s it worth, it are two other posts on the sunset provision:

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s...d.php?p=969237

http://www.paceadvantage.com/forum/s....php?p=1036848

I "think" I understand what you are saying, but I suspect if NYRA didn't think it screwed up it wouldn't be agreeing to pay back the money with penalties so easily.

If you are right, the best case scenario is that they knew they were theoretically supposed to ask to lower the take by 1% and would definitely get it, but decided to not ask because they wanted the extra revenue.

I'm not sure if I feel better about that or an honest screw up.

If they knew they had the opportunity to lower the take by 1% but didn't ask, then all the stories about how they would love to lower the take but can't are nonsense.

[andymays]

The point is that most jurisdictions including California have priorities and Customers are way down on the list.