How Serious Are California's Problems and Can They Be Solved

[MonmouthParkJoe]

Originally Posted by Valuist

I think the same thing with Richard Duchossois (chief CHDN shareholder) and Arlington.

+1

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

I'm in awe at how a small state like Louisiana keeps four thoroughbred tracks running...FG, DeD, EvD and LaD.
The first two and last two run meets at the same time.
LaD has been going downhill for years now, wonder how long these four can stay in operation.

Depends how crappy a horse you want to bet on. The stock is just awful. Same Here in Texas there are cows that would be competitive in the low level races.

[castaway01]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Andy, what I am describing was the status quo in California between 1938 and 1968, when Oak Tree started. Somehow trainers survived it and nobody complained.

And those same trainers already move for Del Mar or for the Northern California fairs, just like New York trainers move for Saratoga.

They can do it. And if they really can't, well, then they don't have to be trainers. Someone else will do it. Horse racing is not a welfare program for horsemen.

Finally, the big lure for bettors is we would have full fields if we consolidated-- all the GGF horses PLUS all the SoCal horses.

Or half the owners and trainers will leave the game, as has happened everywhere else things have "consolidated", leaving us with the same crappy racing but less of it.

[GatetoWire]

I don't see things in California changing unless there are serious changes to the people involved at Santa Anita, CHRB and the TOC.

The handle in California has cratered the last 10 years and they all just walk around with their head in sand.
Instead of trying to fix some major issues with their business they argue about who should give lasix shots, how many times it's ok to whip a horse in the last 1/16th, the price of boxes at Santa Anita etc etc.

The current group of people in charge in California are happy with the status quo and while they do nothing, their handle and overall business shrinks more and more every day.

Unless major changes in attitude happen it's going to be impossible to solve their larger problems because what I've seen the past 5 years is that the people in charge don't really want to fix things.

[AndyC]

Originally Posted by dilanesp

Andy, what I am describing was the status quo in California between 1938 and 1968, when Oak Tree started. Somehow trainers survived it and nobody complained.

And those same trainers already move for Del Mar or for the Northern California fairs, just like New York trainers move for Saratoga.

They can do it. And if they really can't, well, then they don't have to be trainers. Someone else will do it. Horse racing is not a welfare program for horsemen.

Finally, the big lure for bettors is we would have full fields if we consolidated-- all the GGF horses PLUS all the SoCal horses.

You are living in a time warp. Things have changed. The expense of having two households is not the same as it was for 1938-68. Del Mar, Saratoga and the fairs worked because they were all run when schools were not in session and the meets were short. They were vacations.

Full fields are certainly preferred by most bettors but I have never heard of a new bettor wanting to get into racing because they notice that the fields are full. The old bettors (and I do mean old) would probably increase their betting slightly but not so much as to change the business model of racing.

[ronsmac]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

In the second part of his look at the changing landscape of racing in California after the closure of Hollywood Park, Daniel Ross examines some key statistics and gets the views of a number of influential racing figures on the situation - and how to improve it.
In part one, How the closure of Hollywood Park is still hitting California hard, we voiced the concerns and impressions of those either shaped by, or else fashioning, the changes that have altered the landscape of racing in California since Hollywood Park closed.
We spoke with freshman trainer Dan Blacker, for example, who was driven into debt as a result of his small stable being divided between separate training facilities. Veteran handler and California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT) president Jim Cassidy discussed concerns that “Super Trainers” are driving smaller operations out of business in California’s constricted racing environment. While racetrack surface expert Dennis Moore elaborated upon the impact that a widened racing calendar has had on Santa Anita’s main and turf courses.
Today, we aim to put some of the concerns that have been raised into statistical context while giving those interviewed a platform to propose possible solutions to the issues facing the industry, as a means of stirring debate.
Nothing exists in a vacuum, and the health and constitution of horse racing as a whole has been at the mercy of forces long in effect. Many trends playing out after Hollywood Park’s closure in December 2013 began their trajectory years prior, buffeted by a long series of events - the reduction of race-days per week, for example, or the passage of Senate Bill 1072, affecting, among other things, exotic takeout rates for purses.
It should also be noted that this is a far from an all-encompassing statistical look at the state of the industry in California. Rather, we have cherry-picked certain figures to highlight and to address some of the main concerns raised during this investigation. And so, to reiterate, our primary focus has been upon 2014 and 2015 in comparison to the years immediately before Hollywood Park’s demise, to get a sense of what kind of effect it has had on the sport in the Golden State.
Southern California
Trainers/horses
· Since 2008, between 330 and 370 trainers have started at least one horse at a Southern California track in any given year.
· Since 2008, the number of trainers winning 80 percent of the purses in Southern California has hovered around 16 percent (encompassing fewer than 60 trainers there). This trend hasn’t changed since Hollywood Park closed.
· However, the percentage of overall horses in Southern California making starts for these top percentile-winning trainers spiked after Hollywood Park’s closure.
· Between 2008-2013, those trainers winning 80 percent of the purses saddled, on average, 69 percent (and never more than 71 percent) of all horses that started in Southern California. In 2014 and 2015, they had 77 percent of all starters.After Hollywood Park closed, therefore, the relative percentage of starters saddled by these trainers jumped by more than 11 percent.
· As such, the top percentile-winning trainers are making more starts in Southern California.
Between 2008 and 2013, those trainers winning 80 percent of the purses made on average 62 percent (and never more than 63 percent) of the total starts in Southern California. Between 2014-2015, they made 66 percent of the starts in Southern California. After Hollywood Park closed, therefore, the relative percentage of starts made by these trainers rose by nearly 7 percent.
For the whole story click on the link. https://www.thoroughbredracing.com/a...hey-be-solved/ …

The short answer. Very and No.

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by AndyC

You are living in a time warp. Things have changed. The expense of having two households is not the same as it was for 1938-68. Del Mar, Saratoga and the fairs worked because they were all run when schools were not in session and the meets were short. They were vacations.

Full fields are certainly preferred by most bettors but I have never heard of a new bettor wanting to get into racing because they notice that the fields are full. The old bettors (and I do mean old) would probably increase their betting slightly but not so much as to change the business model of racing.

They will have no choice. Eventually Los Al will stop running and Del Mar will relinquish some fall dates. They will not be able to race year round because November / December racing is not profitable here.

So it's one year round circuit or large gaps on the calendar.

[biggestal99]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

.part of the reason fewer fans is the commute is a hassle now...normal half-hour travel can take 1.5 hours regularly...

They opened a brand spanking new train station on the Gold line a stones throw away from the track.

downtown to SA in a little over half an hour.

Allan

[SuperPickle]

Originally Posted by Valuist

I think the same thing with Richard Duchossois (chief CHDN shareholder) and Arlington.

The top three most endangered major tracks in America. (I'm not counting things like Rillto or stuff not currently racing like Colonial or Hialeah.)

1. Golden Gate
2. Los Al
3. Arlington

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by GatetoWire

I don't see things in California changing unless there are serious changes to the people involved at Santa Anita, CHRB and the TOC.

The handle in California has cratered the last 10 years and they all just walk around with their head in sand.
Instead of trying to fix some major issues with their business they argue about who should give lasix shots, how many times it's ok to whip a horse in the last 1/16th, the price of boxes at Santa Anita etc etc.

The current group of people in charge in California are happy with the status quo and while they do nothing, their handle and overall business shrinks more and more every day.

Unless major changes in attitude happen it's going to be impossible to solve their larger problems because what I've seen the past 5 years is that the people in charge don't really want to fix things.

Exactly right 👍 Your last paragraph is dead on.

[therussmeister]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

The top three most endangered major tracks in America. (I'm not counting things like Rillto or stuff not currently racing like Colonial or Hialeah.)

1. Golden Gate
2. Los Al
3. Arlington

4. Finger Lakes

[fiznow]

Originally Posted by PhantomOnTour

I'm in awe at how a small state like Louisiana keeps four thoroughbred tracks running...FG, DeD, EvD and LaD.
The first two and last two run meets at the same time.
LaD has been going downhill for years now, wonder how long these four can stay in operation.

EVD and LAD should split the week, not both run Wedensday to Staturday. FG is still one of my favorite meetings.

[fiznow]

The fields at GG haven't been bigger 15 years ago and since then I hear the track is dying.

[AlsoEligible]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

People love to say this about Santa Anita and I'll leave you with these facts. When Frank dies the tracks will be sold for estate reasons. Every time in the last 20 years someone in California has purchased a racetrack (Bay Meadows and Hollywood Park) they've developed it.

So I think knowing the track will be sold and knowing every track sold has been developed and then saying "Santa Anita is fine" is short sighted.

I'm not sure I agree with the assumption that the tracks will be sold when Frank dies. He doesn't own the tracks, The Stronach Group does. TSG will continue to own the tracks after Frank dies, and presumably one of his children will take over the company.

Now, the kids may sell off GGF if the money is right, but I can easily see them holding onto Santa Anita, given that it's still a profitable and historic track that draws a Breeder's Cup every other year.

[Psychotic Parakeet]

Santa Anita is not going anywhere. I am pretty sure they would not bulldoze a designated WWII historical landmark. It is the main reason why they are not messing with the dilapidated stalls on the backstretch.