Conference Call with TOC Members and Horseplayers on Friday (10-22)

[andymays]

Friday afternoon I was invited on a conference call with several Horseplayers and a couple of influential members of the TOC (Thoroughbred Owners of California). They are mainly responsible for raising the takeout and the 6.5% retention cap that prevents California Horseplayers from receiving significant rebates. The reason I was invited was that several of these people are on my email list and contacted me about the issues I've raised. Basically they're trying to shut me up because they get anxiety from the emails. The other thing is that most of these people aren't even aware of how badly they affect Horseplayers in the State of California. It's hard to believe but it's true.

Anyway, here's what happened:

I (we) wanted them to do something for Horseplayers before the Santa Anita meet starts and the others agreed with me. What I(we) suggested was the Horseplayers Early Pick 4 with 10% takeout (I've been pushing that for several months). I also suggested that they come out in support of at least one Horseplayers on the CHRB board. I told them that if they could get something done it could offset a boycott but there was no guarantee.

As far a the Early Pick 4 goes they said they would try and get back to us within 10 days. They thought that 10% may not be realistic. I told them that because of the short fields in California especially in the earlier races that it has to be that low to attract attention. They promised to give it a try. Do I think they'll get it done? No, I don't think they'll get it done but you never know. I had to ask.

As far as getting a Horseplayer on the board of the CHRB they told me that they couldn't appoint anyone to the board. I told them that I knew that but if they put out a press release in support it would carry a lot of weight. That probably won't happen either.

Everyone agreed that those two things were achieveable in the short term and that we would have the best chance of success with them. We'll see what happens and when they get back to me I'll post their response.

Anyway, it's worth a shot. I just wanted everyone to know what happened. If the other people want to identify themeselves then they can but I didn't want to post their names at this time.

And by the way I don't represent HANA (although I am a member) when I talk to these guys I represent California Horseplayers because that's what I am.

[InsideThePylons-MW]

Early p-4 with 10% takeout = 2% chance

Early p-4 with appx 15% takeout = 12% chance

Horseplayer (real one) on CHRB = <1% chance

TOC putting out a press release in support of horseplayer on board = 15% chance

I know it's a longshot any of these happen but please tell me that you didn't agree to shut up or suggest that horseplayers would be happy and shut up if any of the above actually happened.

[Indulto]

AM,
Can you tell us why these horsemen are talking to this group you're a part of rather than HANA? Is it related somehow to the video and/or HANA's positions at the CHRB meetings?

[andymays]

Originally Posted by InsideThePylons-MW

Early p-4 with 10% takeout = 2% chance

Early p-4 with appx 15% takeout = 12% chance

Horseplayer (real one) on CHRB = <1% chance

TOC putting out a press release in support of horseplayer on board = 15% chance

I know it's a longshot any of these happen but please tell me that you didn't agree to shut up or suggest that horseplayers would be happy and shut up if any of the above actually happened.

I was only speaking for myself and the other Horseplayers on the call were only speaking for themeselves. They asked me to give them about 10 days and they would give me an answer.

The chances of anything being done are probably less than the chances you listed above.

[DJofSD]

I wouldn't call it anxiety, guilt would be more like it.

If they want to do something for me, take the cap off of the number of races and/or tracks they can import.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by DJofSD

I wouldn't call it anxiety, guilt would be more like it.

If they want to do something for me, take the cap off of the number of races and/or tracks they can import.

There are probably 15 things that need to be done. We agreed on the ones I listed because everyone thought there was a chance to get them done over the next couple of months.

[Jeff P]

Andy, you are to be applauded for trying to get them to do something positive for players.

However, and with all due respect, in my opinion a 10% pick 4, or any other "bone" they decide to throw to players at this point is just that... a "bone" designed to divert attention away from the real elephants sitting in the room.

Make no mistake, these "elephants" were deliberately put there by track management, the CHRB, and the TOC.

1. Takeout - In my opnion, raising takeout in the face of player objections and falling handle is beyond simply not acceptable - it is deplorable and a violation of the public trust.

2. Integrity - in my opnion, odds that change after the gate opens are simply not acceptable in this day and age.

3. Integrity - in my opnion, "Slap on the wrist" penalties for those caught cheating through the use of drugs is no longer acceptable.

4. Fairness - The TOC's 6.5% ADW Retention Cap statute prevents CA residents from getting rebates. This state law must be stricken from the books.

5. Violation of the Public Trust - In my opnion, through its actions, the CHRB has violated its own mission statement and therefore the public trust it was empowered to protect.

For those who do not know, the CHRB's misison statement reads:

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 revenues.

In my opinion, player representation on the CHRB is the only sure way to prevent continued violation of the public trust in the future.


-jp

.


PS. DJ, I agree with you on the need for full card simulcasting - but would rank it as elephant #6 behind the others listed above.

.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Indulto

AM,
Can you tell us why these horsemen are talking to this group you're a part of rather than HANA? Is it related somehow to the video and/or HANA's positions at the CHRB meetings?

They responded to my emails. Quite a few of the people on this board are on the email list. Their response to the emails was passed on months ago to Jeff and other HANA board members. It wasn't a secret. The reason they are reaching out is that the TOC along with Brackpool and Israel are getting a ton of bad publicity and they really never expected the backlash. Most of these people don't have any idea how their manipulations over the years have helped destroy the game. The same with the CHRB. They might be successful owners, breeders, or businessmen but when it comes to gambling they are totally and completely ignorant.

[Deepsix]

AndyM, I'm trying to place your telephone conference in perspective--- You participated (as an individual horseplayer expressing only your own views) in the telecon with a couple of influential TOC members BUT were these individuals representing the TOC, or did they offer a similar disclaimer that they were participating outside the TOC, and that the TOC did, or did not endorse their participation? I'm unsure of the significance, at this point, but wanted to be clear on that point.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Deepsix

AndyM, I'm trying to place your telephone conference in perspective--- You participated (as an individual horseplayer expressing only your own views) in the telecon with a couple of influential TOC members BUT were these individuals representing the TOC, or did they offer a similar disclaimer that they were participating outside the TOC, and that the TOC did, or did not endorse their participation? I'm unsure of the significance, at this point, but wanted to be clear on that point.

They were representing the TOC. They did not commit to anything except making the effort to advance our (mine and the other Horseplayers on the call) position and give us an answer within 10 days.

[chickenhead]

Legacy matters less than current action, what the people you're dealing with are actually doing is what matters. Every track has a legacy position that the current people had nothing at all to do with. You deal with them based on what they're currently doing. You deal with management based on how they are managing things.

No management gets a pass for not dealing with their legacy situation -- but the only logical approach is to treat them all the same, with a hope that they are amenable to make things better, with a hope that they are honest brokers until they prove otherwise. Because many tracks with poor legacy situation will prove themselves amenable to positive change, are receptive to working with players.

Some people don't seem to get the idea that a track leaving all their legacy rates alone, but choosing to lower one of them represents a net positive to the players at the track -- their lot is now better than it was before. It is a move in the right direction, a promising sign by management.

Portland Meadows has higher takeout rates than they should, across the board. They have chosen to lower one of them. There is a reasonable expectation that, if it is successful, and handle grows on that bet, they may lower other takeout rates. Because they have shown by their actions that they are amenable to the idea -- there is a yet to be broken hope that they may be honest brokers.

We have seen this with other tracks, such as Tampa. From a starting point of clearly unacceptable rates -- they have in an honest and forthright fashion been lowering takeouts in a very systematic fashion, and honestly judging the results. Life gets better each year for their players.

No track is even remotely close to perfect, but the management at some places are doing some of the sorts of things you want them to be doing. They are looking for people to work with them, have shown it by their actions. The management at other places just simply aren't doing anything. Nothing positive, nothing negative, they are not changing things. At a few places, from time to time, the management makes changes that are very bad.

California had relatively low takeout rates. They weren't the lowest, and like all tracks they were still much too high, but they were relatively low. They have just raised those rates, on many of their bets. Life for their bettors has just gotten much much worse. It is a move in the wrong direction, a very big public wrong move.

They have shown themselves, with Los Al, to not be honest brokers. To not operate in an honest and forthright fashion. To not be amenable to the idea of the effect of rates, that it matters. The combination of ADW cap and increasing the takeouts arguably marks them as the LEAST amenable to the idea of any jurisdiction in the country, because they are currently operating in a fashion that puts them out of sync with the entire industry -- they are the only ones raising blended prices, whereas many tracks are lowering them. Arguably making the management in California the least horseplayer friendly in the country.

Again, every track has a legacy position that the current people had nothing at all to do with. You deal with them based on what they're currently doing. You deal with management based on how they are managing things.

If the idea is offered them that they can do some kind of weird appeasement, by still raising the blended rates, but including some lipstick on that pig by touting "we've spoken with the horseplayers, and we've done what they asked" by offering one pick 4 at a great new price of 15%, who knows, they might think its a savvy move. They get exactly what they want, higher overall rates -- and they get a great PR partner for cover.

That doesn't speak to anything about what you're doing Andy, you are representing yourself, and I'm glad you're talking to them. But for me it is clear that I wouldn't want HANA, as the horseplayer group I want to speak for me, as a California bettor -- to say "that's ok" to what the CHRB and TOC have done, a pick 4 wouldn't change that.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by Jeff P

Andy, you are to be applauded for trying to get them to do something positive for players.

However, and with all due respect, in my opinion a 10% pick 4, or any other "bone" they decide to throw to players at this point is just that... a "bone" designed to divert attention away from the real elephants sitting in the room.

Make no mistake, these "elephants" were deliberately put there by track management, the CHRB, and the TOC.

1. Takeout - In my opnion, raising takeout in the face of player objections and falling handle is beyond simply not acceptable - it is deplorable and a violation of the public trust.

2. Integrity - in my opnion, odds that change after the gate opens are simply not acceptable in this day and age.

3. Integrity - in my opnion, "Slap on the wrist" penalties for those caught cheating through the use of drugs is no longer acceptable.

4. Fairness - The TOC's 6.5% ADW Retention Cap statute prevents CA residents from getting rebates. This state law must be stricken from the books.

5. Violation of the Public Trust - In my opnion, through its actions, the CHRB has violated its own mission statement and therefore the public trust it was empowered to protect.

For those who do not know, the CHRB's misison statement reads:In my opinion, player representation on the CHRB is the only sure way to prevent continued violation of the public trust in the future.


-jp

.


PS. DJ, I agree with you on the need for full card simulcasting - but would rank it as elephant #6 behind the others listed above.

.

In my younger days on of the things I love to do most was bodysurf. Occasionally, depending on where and when I decided to go out I would get absolutely slammed by a wave. There were times when I got slammed so hard I didn’t know up from down for several seconds. This is exactly what happened when the CHRB lied to you and to Horseplayers by raising the takeout. We were all slammed. Nobody is happy with the outcome. It is also true that nobody has slammed them back more than me. Several people on this board get the emails so it's no secret.

When you come out with a nuanced position contrary to what HANA is all about then I’m thinking maybe you’ve lost your way and need to think about what your goals are. To take a position that a major track lowering takeout on a popular exotic wager to 10% is somehow just a “bone” makes no sense to anyone. We need several more bones thrown at us just like it. HANA should be throwing pool parties to support such bets instead of minimizing the wager or the people trying to get them approved. Which major track is in the process of lowering takeout across the board?

All of the other points you make are valid but some are not unique to California. They apply everywhere. As far as the retention cap goes that opens up the debate about rebating. Most people agree that in a perfect world we would have lowered takeout for all and no rebates. If that’s the case then HANA should be working toward that end. Why isn’t it?

For some reason you’ve chosen to ignore your California representative and myself by not returning phone calls or most emails. You also chose to disengage a couple of months ago when you were told about the responses I received from members of the TOC, CTT, and some Track Executives. You said that you were done so please don’t imply that we are somehow a rogue group trying to undermine anything. I’ve never heard of not engaging anyone up until the last minute when it comes to negotiating a successful settlement. Maybe I'm reading too much into your response and the response of other board members so far.

If you and HANA are going to lead a boycott then you have a responsibility to Horseplayers everywhere to put forth a maximum effort for a successful action. When we spoke more than a couple of months ago you assured me that you were holding a winning hand. By that I mean that you had several high volume players who played California races on a regular basis that would stop playing. You also told me that you would get out there and make the case. So far I haven’t heard you or any board members on any popular southern California radio shows.

Do you have the high volume players I mentioned up above lined up or not? Are you sure they’re telling you the truth about how much and how often they play California races?


Are you and some HANA board members planning on getting out there and selling a boycott all Horseplayers in California?

I am all for a boycott if I see a maximum effort on your part and on HANA’s part. So far I don’t see it and I’ll be damned if I’m going to accept a half hearted effort when it comes to something so important. Many of us have long term relationships with people involved in Southern California racing. We will support a boycott but we should not be made fools of by any half hearted effort that has little chance of success. Any action on our part should be as close to a certainty as possible. That means knocking down handle at least 15% more than the current trend. If you're not sure then you probably don't have the support.

You can choose to take this personally or you can choose to involve your members and make your best effort. I would like to support the effort. It’s up to you.

[andymays]

Originally Posted by chickenhead

If the idea is offered them that they can do some kind of weird appeasement, by still raising the blended rates, but including some lipstick on that pig by touting "we've spoken with the horseplayers, and we've done what they asked" by offering one pick 4 at a great new price of 15%, who knows, they might think its a savvy move. They get exactly what they want, higher overall rates -- and they get a great PR partner for cover.

I went over the deal with them. 15% doesn't get it done because of field size especially in the early races. It has to be around 10% to work. They know that.

[Jeff P]

When you come out with a nuanced position contrary to what HANA is all about then I’m thinking maybe you’ve lost your way...

Just to be clear, HANA's goals are right on the home page of the HANA website. Those goals relate to the following "elephants in the room" that I mentioned in my earlier post in this thread:

1. Takeout

2. Pool Integrity

3. Drug Integrity

Add to that: The TOC's 6.5% ADW Retention Cap Statute and the deplorable behavior of the CHRB.

Andy, I guess you and I will just have to agree to disagree about this.

I see a 10% pick-4 as a move in the right direction... something I'd normally be supporting in a big way.

Call me cynical, but I can also see them seeing it a "bone" they can use to keep players quiet about the elephants in the living room.

Believe me when I say this:

I applaud your efforts to get them to do ANYTHING positive for players.

However, they want to shut us up. They don't want their elephants brought to public attention in any significant way.

It is my opinion that a national players' boycott of the California racing product is going to take place. It is also my opnion that this is going to happen with or without HANA support, and that it absolutely WILL draw massive public attention to the elephants in the room...

In my opinion, shining the spotlight on the elephants is more important when it comes to bringing about change related to HANA's goals than loss of handle (as evidenced by their actions in light of what happened at Los Al.)

That's all I can say (or am willing to say) for now.



-jp

.

[Charli125]

Originally Posted by andymays

To take a position that a major track lowering takeout on a popular exotic wager to 10% is somehow just a “bone” makes no sense to anyone.

Andy,

When you look at this in a vacuum, then it doesn't make sense. But, if you look at the entire situation, and see that they're raising takeout on the other bets while possibly lowering this one, it's obviously being done to draw attention from what they're doing. If they wanted to help out the player, then they wouldn't be raising takeout, it's as simple as that.

All boycott/don't boycott arguments aside, I find it hard to believe that you are seriously going to treat this as a win. Here's something I asked Roger the other day, and I'd pose the same question to you.

What CA is doing is raising takeout on the majority of their bets, while lowering takeout on one small bet. You are asking us to praise and support them for this action. I just don't understand that rational. Please explain.