What would you do to make California racing great again? We canvas a cross section of opinions from those involved in racing and breeding in the Golden State

Words - John Cherwa

There is no doubt that horse racing in California is at a crossroads.

The closure of Golden Gate Fields in June signaled the possible end of full-time racing in the Northern part of the state. There is a long-shot plan to keep it alive at Pleasanton, but not everyone in the business is routing for success.

In the South, Santa Anita is still only racing three days a week and field sizes are not always impressive. Purses are not competitive with the rest of the country. The track sits on a piece of land in Arcadia that is worth at least $1 billion, so does it really make sense to run a few days a week for half the year? 

So, what are the views of those deeply involved in California racing on a day-to-day basis as a way forward? 

What follows is a question and answer session with prominent executives, trainers, owners and breeders. There are disagreements and obvious animosity. Although everyone interviewed has the same goal, keep racing in California alive. The solution to problems facing the most populous state in the country, might just be in here.

The answers to the questions we posed have been edited for clarity, brevity and to avoid too much repetition.

Can a one-circuit system (in the South) work?

Aidan Butler, chief executive 1ST/ Racing and Gaming: Absolutely. California is a huge betting state and it’s not just the horse population or purse disparities that separate us from other states that get additional revenue. There is a huge cost of running an operation that is an obstacle. So, putting all of the resources and effort into one area is the only way to go.

Alan Balch, executive director California Thoroughbred Trainers: It's highly doubtful, given that California is now more an "island" than at any time in at least 50 years.  There's very little chance of alternate circuits (Arizona, Washington) serving as viable or sustainable racing destinations for California breeders.  Successful Northern California racing was an integral and vital, if unsung, component of world-class California racing from the 1960s onward.

Bing Bush, equine attorney and owner: That’s to be determined but it’s difficult to envision that. I happened to be at Golden Gate Fields on the last day, I saw a lot of horsemen walking around in a very full grandstand, all thinking the same thing: “I wish all of these people were here during our days and then we wouldn’t be closing down.” I don’t see how Santa Anita hopes to fill that gap. It’s going to be a real challenge I hope we can meet. I’m hopeful but very concerned.

Phil D’Amato, a leading trainer at Santa Anita: I definitely think so. For me, we have the horses, we have the population. I just think we need to improve our purse infrastructure. When you get more money, people will come and owners will be more willing to put horses in the California racing system. 

Greg Ferraro, chairman California Horse Racing Board: Yes, I think it can. The problem is we don’t have enough horses, plain and simple. We’ll see how they do in Northern California with the dates we awarded them. I’m hopeful for them but I’m not optimistic. I’m worried that we don’t have enough horses for two circuits. Consolidating everything in Southern California may be the only way we can survive.

Eoin Harty, trainer and president of California Thoroughbred Trainers: If certain powers have their way, we’re going to find out. Personally, I don’t think so. The whole business hinges on breeding. The largest part of the horse population in California is Cal-breds and they don’t all belong in Southern California. If they don’t have a venue to run at, what’s the point in breeding them? And if you don’t start breeding them, where does the horse population come from? The economic impact on the state is huge. If we lose that, the fall is catastrophic.

Justin Oldfield, owner/breeder and chairperson of the California Thoroughbred Breeders Assn.: I think there was a misinterpretation of what a one-circuit system means. A one-circuit system is not defined by fulltime racing in the South and summer fair racing in the North. That is not the definition of a one-circuit system. I think what people mean is a one-circuit system that includes Los Al, Santa Anita and Del Mar and does not include the fairs. The fairs garner a lot more representation from the Legislature and the fan base across the North. I don’t think there is anyone who is saying we should end racing at the Fairs. I think no one would be in favor of a one-circuit system if it means only racing at one track at any one time.

Bill Nader, president and chief executive of Thoroughbred Owners of California: A one circuit system in California would allow the resources that are generated across the whole state be targeted into one single circuit which would effectively make better use of that money and funding. The problem with a two-circuit state like we have now is that if one circuit isn’t carrying its weight, like it is now, it takes its toll on the other region. 

Doug O’Neill, a mainstay trainer in California and two-time Kentucky Derby winning trainer: No. The track surface needs a breather throughout the year. I think with training and racing it needs some maintenance to bounce back. I think it’s really important to have some time between meets and that’s where it helps to be racing at a different circuit or track. 

Josh Rubinstein, president and chief operating officer at Del Mar: Yes. Nationally the foal crop is about half of what it was 30 years ago so that has affected every state. California simply doesn’t have the horse population to operate two year-round circuits. 

Is contraction the best way to stabilize the market?

Butler: We believe contraction is the best way to stabilize the market. There is  only a certain amount of purse money and a certain amount of population. Despite the hardship of the people at Golden Gate, concentrating all our efforts in the South is the only way to keep the state going.

Balch: The unplanned and devastating contraction announced by Santa Anita ownership, without consultation or notice to any of its interdependent partners in California racing, is the single most destabilizing event in California racing history since World War II. Given the contraction of the North American foal crop, particularly since 2008, all track owners and horsemen working together with the regulator and Legislature might have been able to develop a model where it could have been a stabilizing influence.

Bush: I think it will turn it into chaos unless we can turn it into something more attractive than it is today. If we can’t make California racing more attractive, I don’t see how contracting can help it.

D’Amato: As it stands now, it’s looking to be inevitable unless we find another revenue source. You would like to have two circuits. It definitely gives owners more options for varying caliber of horses. But if it has to be, it has to be. We need just one additional revenue source to help get these purses up and allow California to sustain. If we don’t get that, consolidating into one racing circuit  is probably the only option that we would still have. 

Ferraro: The best way to stabilize the market here is to increase the purses. That’s our problem and the reason we are short of horses is because we can’t compete purse-wise. We don’t have any way of supplementing purses like Kentucky does with Historical Horse Racing. If we had purses that were more competitive with the rest of the country, most of our horse shortage problems would go away.

Harty: I don’t believe so. I believe expansion is the way to save the market. You’ve seen what happened through contraction, small field sizes, people aren’t betting on us, which hurts our handle which just compounds the problem. We need to expand and plan to expand. Hopefully it’s not too late, but without some sort of addition to our purse fund where we can make it more lucrative for people to come to California, we’ve got nothing.

Oldfield: No. Contraction assumes there is a consolidation of not only the tracks but a consolidation of the horsemen and trainers and the employees. The assumption that trainers and owners would go South was probably false and unwisely made. Look at the trainers who have moved South, it hasn’t been a resounding success. To assume that if you close the North that it means a shift to the South is a pretty naive thing to consider.

Nader: It might be the only way to stabilize the market. Now if the North is able to hit its targets and meet the criteria we’ve agreed to then there is no need for contraction. If the North can’t hit their targets, I don’t think we’ll have any recourse but to contract to stabilize the market and secure Southern California and make sure the state of California is still relevant, healthy and has a future. 

O’Neill: For us to grow, we need to build on what we have and not shrink what we had. I think the whole industry has done a really good job of being a safer, more transparent sport. And to see tracks closing is not what the whole plan was, or at least I hope it wasn’t. I think the way the sport is going, we should be growing and building and not closing and shrinking.

How do you compete with no supplemental revenue streams?

Butler: You just have to try and be innovative, offer a product that people still want to bet, and continue to try and concentrate on a single circuit and there should be enough wagering dollars in state to keep the product moving forward.

Balch: Clearly, you don't, unless you develop alternate sources of supplementing purses, for example major corporate sponsorship, or otherwise. You need sources that could only be developed by all track owners and horsemen working together with regulators and legislators in serious strategic planning.  Fifty percent of track revenues formerly came from non-wagering sources at the track.  The nearly complete abandonment of marketing efforts for on-track business has cost all tracks in terms of profit and compromised California racing's future.

Harty: We can’t. I don’t see how it’s sustainable. It’s hard enough to attract horses to California in the first place. The level of racing is very competitive. There is a lot more bang for your buck somewhere else.

Nader: We need to find ancillary revenue so we are more competitive with other states that enjoy that advantage. That’s where California needs to be applauded for what it has achieved over the past 10 years without the benefit of a secondary income stream and still remains relevant on a national stage.

Oldfield: I couldn’t agree more that we need other revenue streams for the funding of purses. For horse racing  to survive long term, both in the  North and the South, we need outside sources of income, whether that’s Historical Horse Racing machines or some other mechanism. If the North were to go, it slows the bleeding but doesn’t stop it. I think the North is in a better position to survive without outside sources of income because of what it costs to raise a horse and race a horse in the North because we’re really not that far off the purse structure we have for the fair meets. Those machines are the lifeblood, not just to purses, but to keep racing in California alive.

O’Neill: It’s a little tricky with the Stronach business model because they own the ADW and the race track. In an ideal world there would be separation there and you would have the people or company that owns the race track try and do everything they can to get people to come out and have a great time, Concessions would be booming and ideally you would build on getting some on-track betting. 

Rubinstein: We have to close the purse gap that is widening from states that have subsidies that are supporting the purses. That is the one thing we can do here, increase purses, that would give California a shot in the arm.

What one thing can be done that would make a difference?

Butler: Obviously, getting another source of gaming revenue would make a huge difference in the state. For quite a while we were competitive from a purse perspective, but it’s become more and more difficult to find another source of gaming revenue.

Balch: Immediately convene the leadership of all tracks, labor, agriculture, owners, and trainers’ groups, for no-holds-barred strategic planning, to include ways and means of communicating with California's legislative leadership, to understand and save the massive economic impact on this industry in California.  It almost certainly cannot be saved without government assistance and stimulus.

D’Amato: We’ve got the weather and great training facilities. Santa Anita just added a synthetic training track to handle all weather situations. Del Mar is perennially a great racing circuit. So, to me, we just need bigger purses. We’re pretty much the model for what HISA based its safety structure on. California to me is on the forefront of all those things with the exception of bigger purses. If we get money, people will come.

Ferraro: If we can come up with something like Historical Horse Racing our worries would not be over but would be decreased.

Oldfield: I don’t think there is a single person I’ve talked to, North or South, who doesn’t agree those machines are absolutely necessary. I think that should be a rallying cry from every stakeholder in the North to every stakeholder in the South, from the horsemen to the trainers, we need to get behind. Why aren't we rallying around this instead of sitting in CHRB (California Horse Racing Board) meetings arguing about dates? Why are we not working collectively on a strategy to get these machines? If there is one thing this industry needs right now is unity and the industry needs to unify behind that. 

O’Neill: We need to rebrand to really celebrate the men and women who work alongside horses for a living. It’s just so important to get that mindset back that people are actually working and it’s not computers and gadgets that are doing all the work and that humans are actually getting their hands dirty. These are really a bunch of amazing men and women who have chosen to work alongside horses for a living and hopefully we never lose the hands-on approach that is so important. Our sport provides a lot of jobs and housing for thousands of people and that’s really important.

What is California racing doing better than anyone else?

Butler: If you look at the safety record for one and the operational performance without supplemental revenue we can be pretty proud of ourselves to where we are now. California has shown it can operate on a globally high level of safety and quality without having lots of cash coming in to help things. We should be pretty proud of that.

Balch: Very little if anything beyond what it's not responsible for:  enormous potential markets, great weather year-around, and unrivaled facilities, mainly Del Mar, given the deterioration of Santa Anita and the demise of Golden Gate.

D’Amato: I think in terms of how Santa Anita and Del Mar take care of their owners, I think they go above and beyond in our racing jurisdiction. I think it’s a little bit tougher in other states. For what we have to offer, we try to roll out the red carpet for our owners and offer a really nice place to run your horses.

Ferraro: The quality of the racing surface and our effort for safety and soundness. HISA basically copied our rules. So our health and safety rules are better than anyone.  

Harty: I think we have better venues than anyone else. There is not a prettier race track than Santa Anita. Del Mar offers the summer vacation package.

Oldfield: The one thing I can say about California racing is we’ve got a great fan base. California as a whole is an agricultural state, the largest in the country. The economic driver of the equine industry in California is largely horse racing. People tend to forget about the agricultural component to that, it’s huge. We would be dead without our Cal-breds, which also produces jobs and livelihoods for many people and in many cases provides an economy for smaller communities in California.

O’Neill: We are so blessed we can train day in and day out throughout the year and I think you have a lot fitter horse that comes from California than a lot of the country. That’s the one thing that no company or no family can screw up. We have the best weather in the world.

Is this too far down the road to fix?

Butler: We don’t think so. If we can find additional sources of revenue that’s going to really, really help. You get the purses, you have a far better chance of getting the horses. There is much more to the ecosystem when you’ve got the purses. We, as a company, want to make it as good as we can for trainers. We think of them as our customers and we want them to be successful. We’ve just got to try.

Balch: If you say you can't, you're already done.  If you say you'll try, you've at least begun.  No one person or one entity can do anything of true impact alone. It takes the entire interdependent industry together.

Ferraro: I hope not. I think the next year will tell. We’ll see how Northern California does. If they succeed that will be a positive thing. If not, then we will have some worries. If Santa Anita and Del Mar can keep a decent racing program going that would help. If we end up with six-horse fields and two days or racing instead of three, that’s going to be a terrible turn. 

Oldfield: Absolutely not. You go to the fairs and they are packed. There is an appetite for horse racing in California. We’ve just got to do a better job of figuring out how to market that. You can’t determine whether what happened at Golden Gate over the last couple of years or 10 years is indicative because they did not market the place. They had a tree that covered up their sign and it wasn't until it was in the press that the racetrack was closing down that people started to show up. You can’t use that standard to see if there can be success because what was done wasn’t that good. There is an absolute appetite in California for horse racing and we need to tap into that. If the machines were to come in tomorrow, we wouldn’t be talking about if the sport will survive but what are we going to do with all this money we are bringing in.

Nader: The jury is still out. We’ve established the metrics that CARF (California Authority of Racing Fairs) and the CHRB have agreed to and it’s too early to tell because we don’t have any data to pass judgment. It’s on the brink. As the North has stated on many occasions, “Give us a chance.” But I do think the chance comes with the obligation that the industry has to come together and make the call. It can’t be something like the North would be able to go forward with proving  its worth in the final quarter of 2024 because the balance is too delicate with no secondary income in the state and the fact that both circuits are linked to each other to create a sustainable future. 

O’Neill: Absolutely, not. I think it can be reversed in a positive way very quickly. I would love to see us turn someplace like Santa Anita into an equestrian center. If you could bring in that equestrian label, I think it has a better brand and reputation. And you would have a bigger pool of horse lovers and I think we have plenty of room here to do just that. If I hit the lottery and was president of Santa Anita for a couple years, my approach would be to focus on jobs and housing. I’d put new dormitories here, which gives you a bigger pool of horse lovers here who would work alongside horses for a living. I’d turn the back parking lot into an equestrian center or at least a mini-version of one. 

Rubinstein: Absolutely not. California is a state with over 40 million people. We have loyal fans and a rich history of thoroughbred racing at the highest level. We have California people betting on the races, we have California owners at the sales. I talk to many high-level people and they all agree that California is essential to the long-term success of the industry. 

How much time is left?

Butler: We’re not really looking at it in that way. We’re just looking to see what we can do at the moment to improve racing and the ecosystem around the track that involves the trainers and owners. We need to find that fine line where we can get everything we need to be done here.

Balch: Absent serious strategic brainstorming, less every day.

Bush: The question hinges on the success of Santa Anita. I think that question could best be answered by Belinda Stronach.  

Ferraro: Sometimes it feels like we have a couple of days. I think we’ll know by the end of this year how bad a shape we’re in.

Oldfield: I think we still have time because we have the ability to do something we haven’t had in years and that’s chart a new course in the North. The North is not going to be the savior of the South but we have the ability to demonstrate that things can work and we can do things better and we can set those examples for other parts of the state. The future of racing is publicly held companies. What does that mean for Santa Anita? I don’t know. As a horseman in California, I absolutely want to see Santa Anita flourish, but I don’t know how that intersection of public and private could work to keep Santa Anita alive.

Nader: It would be advantageous if you could start with a clean slate and start over, but that’s not going to happen because of the complexities in the state and the way things are done.  The key would be to get the secondary income stream and then chip away at the building blocks underneath to create a better structure. But you need that big change at the top.

Rubinstein: We have time and we’re focused on what we need to stay competitive with purses. I do think it’s important for us to stop and take a breath and look at the new dynamic without Golden Gate Fields. Losing Golden Gate changed the dynamic significantly.

What are the optimistic signs you see out there?

Butler: We’ve had numerous conversations with the TOC (Thoroughbred Owners of California) and they seem extremely supportive and seem to understand exactly what needs to be done in California. We are a little bit disappointed in the organizations that really don’t seem to grasp the amount of investment we continue to make to operate racing in California.

Balch: There simply aren't any. Even Santa Anita's decision to make a multi-million dollar “investment” in a synthetic training track was made in a vacuum, without considering other potentially more important and lasting changes.  Other commitments made at the time for California breeding stimulus and major backstretch improvements, have been ignored.

D’Amato: I see my owners continue to buy horses from all over, not only inside the country but outside of the country, and continue to funnel them into California. We still have that going for us despite the disparity of purse money with Kentucky, Arkansas and New York.  But as things start to go in opposite directions that window could change.

Ferraro: The loyalty of the horsemen here, and that Kentucky and the others are beginning to realize that they need California for them to be successful as well. Enthusiasm from trainers who want to make it work, that’s the best thing we have going for us.

Harty: The only optimistic signs are rumblings and rumors that the attorney general is looking into and searching for ways we can shore up our purse accounts. I was optimistic seeing the CHRB offering Northern California a lifeline. They are very, very small victories. We’re in a huge urban market. If Southern California can’t make a go of it, who can? 

Oldfield: The one thing that is very optimistic is when Golden Gate announced it was going to close, there was this idea that everyone would scatter to the wind. But ultimately the horsemen in Northern California united more and better than I’ve ever seen. That alone was very optimistic and heartwarming. That gave me a level of hope about this industry. 

Nader: It’s a huge state with so much importance nationally. We’ve got tremendous bandwidth as far as our buying power and our betting power not just in California but across the country. We’re over 20% of the national handle. The race tracks are so beautiful, the climate is great. The number of races that are carded on the turf that can actually run on the turf is high. It’s very conducive to horse players because of its reliability.

O’Neill: Closing day at Santa Anita you had 11 races on Saturday and 12 on Sunday. That’s optimistic. There was a record handle this year at the Kentucky Derby. That’s an optimistic sign.

Rubinstein: The progress of safety and that the Breeders’ Cup will be in California three straight years. The community, here at Del Mar, supports racing and the business leaders know how important racing is to the local community. On the racing side, Del Mar’s product has been as good as anyone’s over the last two years.

Can breeding in the state be sustainable with fewer Cal-bred races? 

Butler: The breeders have been absolutely brilliant considering the circumstances. We’ve got to continue to offer a wide variety of Cal-bred races so we can give them a reason to continue their operations. The breeders have been working with us and understand what needs to be done and to try and get this fixed.

Balch:  The issue is incentivizing breeding in California, wherever the Cal-breds run, whether in restricted or open company.  California-bred thoroughbreds comprise the critical population of horses running at all California tracks, in all races except unrestricted graded stakes.  California racing simply cannot be sustained without those horses filling races, especially overnights, since handle on overnights is what funds stakes purses.

D’Amato: Near the end of the Santa Anita meeting, there were 20 horses entered in both the 2-year-old Cal-bred girl and boy races. That’s a really good sign the California breeding industry is still going in the right direction. I don’t think we can survive as a circuit in California without a very strong Cal-bred program.

Ferraro: No, it can’t be. They have to be able to produce a certain number of horses to be viable. If there is not enough racing, there is not enough calling for those horses. Otherwise, you can’t sustain the breeding industry. 

Oldfield: The awarding of dates by the CHRB, stabilized the breeding industry. A lot of people didn’t know if they were going to breed at all in California. When those dates were awarded it gave people hope to continue and breed. I don’t think racing in the state can be sustainable without Cal-breds. Most of the horses that run in the North are Cal-breds. If you look at the races that card the most horses, those are Cal-bred races. If Cal-bred races were to go away, it would have a devastating impact on racing and the horse population.

Nader: Yeah, I think it just has to be managed well. You just have to be smart and understand. The number of foals in California was 3,800 in 2003 as there are 1,300 today. There has been plenty of contraction and if there would be more it would be unfortunate. But in the end, if it’s managed correctly while still maintaining the quality of Cal-breds, I think we would be OK.

O’Neill: No. That part of California racing needs to be tweaked and fixed . I don’t know where they come up with the money to invest in the programs. It’s working on the negative as it is. If I had a genie and one wish it would be to have a guy like Paul Reddam to run the track. You would see an instant turnaround. He has that kind of business mindset that people would be tripping over each other to get into the track. There are people like that who just don’t fail. The Rick Carusos of the world, and if they do, they don’t fail long. I would love for a guy like Paul Reddam to own a track like this for a year or two and see what would happen.

What is the most important issue to address?

Butler: It’s really improving the purses which will allow us to improve the inventory, which improves the betting.

Balch: Saving, incentivizing, and stimulating California breeding. All you have to do is compare the behavior and commitment from New York, New Jersey, and Kentucky to racing. It demonstrates the critical importance of governmental action in a state-regulated industry like ours. Sadly, that regulatory/legislative constituency in California, which was once the hallmark of attention and education by California tracks, owners/trainers, labor, farms, agriculture, etc., was largely and effectively abandoned once California track ownership began evolving in the late 1990s.

Bush: Purses, perspective and the image of horse racing with our younger generation. We need to figure out how to get influencers involved. And get them to understand how much love goes into the care of these horses by people who have a passion and a bond with those animals. 

Ferraro: The size of our purses. All of our problems stem from that one thing. The purses aren’t high enough so we don’t have enough horses, so we can’t run enough races. The public recognizes when you have a good race card, they come out. But when you have a lot of ordinary race cards, like we’ve suffered this year, they just won’t show. 

Harty: The purses and the breeding. If better minds than I, like the California breeding industry, can get together with other Western states, so instead of it just being Cal-breds, New Mexico-breds, Arizona-breds, Washington-breds, Oregon-breds. They do that in other states, so it’s not a new idea, but it would help incentivize racing in California.

Oldfield: Most important issue is an outside source of income to address the purses. It’s something that everyone can unite behind . Not a single stakeholder would disagree with that. It would put California on a level playing field with other states.

Nader: I’ll speak on behalf of the horse player who looks to California racing and recognizes what it brings to the betting population. We have to make sure the product hits the brand and reputation from the expectation of horse players, the competitiveness, the field sizes and meet the expectations of horse players. We have to maintain our standards and make sure our purses and field sizes respect the great reputation of California.

O’Neill:  The horseman moral is just about as low as I’ve seen it. I think we need to boost that up and what would boost it up is knowing that something is in the works that indicates we’re trying to build on-track business and on-track handle.

Rubinstein: We’ve obviously been on a very good run with safety and we can never be complacent with that. Business side we need to secure supplemental revenue sources.

Alan Balch - Fiefdoms redux?

I’m reminded of racing’s counterproductive fiefdoms by a 2008 writing in these pages of the late Arnold Kirkpatrick, my much-revered colleague and friend.  Back then, it seemed to him, there were way too many fiefs in the way of industry-wide accomplishments.  

To Arthur Hancock’s suggestion that our problems were caused by a lack of leadership, Arnold was “unalterably convinced that our problem is not a lack of leadership but too much leadership.”  He counted 183 separate organizations in Thoroughbred racing alone, each with their own agendas and jealousies.  “With 183 rudders all pointed in different directions, we have two possible outcomes – at best, we’ll be dead in the water; at worst, we’ll be breaking apart on the rocks.” 

In 2024, can it be said, without irony, that this is the best of times, and the worst of times?

In North America, and California in particular, an historic sport and industry contraction is well underway, by every possible indicator – led by the declining foal crop.  One might think there has been a corresponding contraction in the list of racing’s organizations; somehow, I doubt that’s true.  Nevertheless, in the “Golden State,” once a perennial leader of American racing, we have lost a critical mass of tracks since 2008:  Bay Meadows, Hollywood Park, fair racing at Vallejo, San Mateo, Stockton, and Pomona, and Golden Gate Fields this year. 

Is it simply a coincidence that this all happened while one racing operator – the Stronach Group --  increasingly dominated and controlled the sport in California, as no track owner ever before was permitted to do?

Arnold’s word “fiefdom” . . . comes back to mind, but now from a different perspective.  In European feudal times, as we learned in school, the fief was a landed estate given by a lord to a vassal in return for the vassal's service to the lord.  There are a great many California owners, trainers, breeders, jockeys, vendors, fans, and even regulators, who have been wondering how the vassals ever turned the tables.

In a Los Angeles Times interview published on April 5, Aidan Butler, the chief executive officer of 1/ST Racing and Gaming, the Stronach operator, used the term “imbeciles” to describe those who would question the company’s intentions, and perhaps its motives, in sending what was widely perceived as a blatantly threatening letter to the California Horse Racing Board.  

Instead, he termed the letter “transparent.”  And then stated, “if nothing else, people have been forewarned.”  Seconds before, he had claimed that the amount of money Stronach had invested in Santa Anita proved its good intentions.  This is the same executive who months earlier had suddenly announced, giving stakeholders notice of only hours, that Golden Gate Fields would be closed within weeks, before changing his mind under pressure from the rest of the industry.

Confused?

Stronach’s track management may be described many ways; truthfully “transparent” is certainly not one of them, despite constant assertions to the contrary.  As a private family company, even in a regulated industry, its leaders can claim whatever they want with impunity.  After all, the exceptionally valuable real estate on which most (all?) of their track holdings reside appears to make them immune from audit or inspection:  they rarely, if ever, are reluctant to tell their racing fraternity vassals that it’s their way or no way.  The damage resulting from that attitude is staggering.

Edward J. DeBartolo, Sr., was a predecessor billionaire owner of multiple American tracks.  Perhaps, however, because of his ownership of great and successful team sports franchises, among other interests such as construction, retail, and shopping center development, not to mention education and philanthropy, he knew what he didn’t know.  He realized he always needed teammates.  He delighted in saying to his fellow track owners that managing race tracks was by far the most difficult of all his enterprises, due to the elaborate interdependent structure of racing, and its nearly infinite number of critical component interests, each with different expertise.  More complicated than any of his other pursuits, he said!  To succeed in racing challenged him to learn, and his success resided in hiring, consulting with, and relying on people who knew more than he did.  As it did in all his businesses. 

Even to the most oblivious, it can’t have been hidden to the Stronach leadership that entering the heavily-regulated California racing market in the late 1990s would present serious challenges, at least as enormous as the opportunities.  Acquiring the two glorious racing properties of Santa Anita and Golden Gate (with a relatively short leasehold at a third, Bay Meadows) had to have been exciting.  To someone with the DeBartolo outlook on interdependent management, rather than the inverse, it could have been invigorating and boundlessly successful. 

That the opposite has resulted is an enormous tragedy for the sport worldwide, not just in California.  After all, the State of California’s economy (as measured by its own Gross State Product) is among the top five in the world, outranking even the United Kingdom’s.  How could this happen?

Had Stronach leadership begun, at the outset, consulting and cooperating in good faith with its California partners (including regulators, legislators, and local communities, not to mention fellow racing organizations, the owners, trainers, breeders, and other tracks), learning from them as teammates rather than dictating to them, California racing would look far different now than it does.  Its imperious and constantly changing management leadership compounded perennial problems and threats, not to mention complicating the industry’s politics and standing in California sports.  Obvious failures to understand California markets and invest in sophisticated communications and marketing also have been apparent, despite continual assertions to the contrary.    

Is there still hope for California racing?  Yes . . . but if and only if honest humility suddenly appears from Stronach leaders, and immediate, sincere engagement occurs with all the rest of the interdependent entities upon whose lives and success the racing industry depends. 

Alan Balch - What, me worry?

Article by Alan F. Balch

If you’re of a certain age, you can’t help but remember Alfred E. Neuman, the perennial cover creature of MAD magazine.  I sure do, and not mainly because of the magazine’s content . . . I was a dead ringer for him.  Skinny, gap-toothed, freckle-faced, red-haired, with crazy big ears.  So my laughing “friends” said, anyway.

Kids can be so mean to each other.

Obviously, the teasing stuck with me.  For a lifetime.  But back then, I shared another trait with him:  nothing worried me.  Everything seemed like a joke.  Like everyone else, I just yearned to grow up so I could be free.  Free of school, free to live all day, every day, with horses in a stable, if I wanted.  Which I did.

By college, though, I was an inveterate worrier, and still am.  My best friend once said, “Alan, if you didn’t have anything to worry about, you’d be worried about that!”  

We in racing, and in California particularly, have an overabundance of worries these days.  How the hell did it all happen?  From leading the world in attendance and handle a few short decades back, not to mention great weather, we have (not suddenly) come to . . . this.

In an interdependent sport, business, industry, such as ours, everything one part does affects all the others.  No part can succeed without the others; if one fails, all fail.  Unfortunately, there have been many failures to observe amongst all of us.

Ironically – but not entirely unexpectedly – I believe California racing’s historical prowess started to unravel in the best of times:  the early 1980s.  Our California Horse Racing Board regulators no doubt believed the industry was so strong that it could easily withstand disobeying a statutory command, which “disobedience” some of us believed could lead to disaster. 

 Hollywood Park sought to purchase and operate Los Alamitos, despite a clear prohibition in the law forbidding one such entity to own another in the state, “unless the Board finds the purpose of [the law] will be better served thereby.”  Santa Anita’s management at the time objected strenuously, including in unsuccessful litigation, providing a “list of horrors” that might ensue if the delicate balance among track ownerships in the state were disturbed.  

Among those horrors was the prediction that a precedent was being set for the future, where one enterprise might not only become significantly more influential than others, it could even become more authoritative and powerful than the regulator itself.

We at Santa Anita, whose management I was in at the time, were deeply concerned about our own influence and competitive position . . . and our reservations and predictions were largely ignored, undoubtedly for that very reason.  At everyone else’s peril, as it has ultimately turned out.

That Hollywood Park acquisition move turned out to be ruinous.  For Hollywood Park!  And the cascade of repercussions that followed, including changes of control at that track, led to another fateful regulatory change in the early 1990s:  the splitting of the backstretch community’s representation into separate and sometimes rival organizations of owners and trainers, which in every other state in the Union are joined as one.  Before his death, the author of that idea (Hollywood’s R.D. Hubbard) said, “That was the worst mistake I ever made.”

Consider that in the first half-century of California racing, interests of the various track owners, as well as owners and trainers in one organization, were carefully balanced.  No one track interest ruled, because the numbers of racing weeks were carefully allotted in the law by region.  

Unilateral demands of horsemen went nowhere.  Practically speaking, the Racing Law couldn’t be changed in any important way without all the track ownerships agreeing, with the (single) horsemen’s organization.  In turn, that meant there were regular meetings of all the tracks together, often with the horsemen, or at their request, to address the multitude of compelling issues that constantly arose.  

But when that balance was disrupted, even destroyed, is it any surprise that for the last three decades the full industry-wide discussions that were commonplace through the 1980s are now so rare that track operators can’t remember when the last meaningful one even took place?  

Thoroughbred owners have meetings of their Board not even open to their own members, and never with the trainers’ organization.  The Federation of California Racing Associations (the tracks) apparently still exists, but hasn’t even met since 2015.  The Racing Board meets publicly, airing our laundry worldwide on the Internet, showcasing our common dysfunction and lack of internal coherence to anyone who might be tempted to race on the West Coast.  

Not to mention those extremists who cry out constantly to “Kill Racing.”  And one private company, which also owns the totalizator and has vast ADW and other gaming holdings, not to mention all the racing in Maryland and much of it in Florida, answerable to nobody, controls most of the Thoroughbred racing weeks in both northern and southern California.

Our current regulators didn’t make the long-ago decisions that set all this in motion, and may not even be aware of them.  In addition, the original, elaborate regulatory and legal framework that was intended in 1932 to provide fairness and balance in a growing industry is unlikely to be effective in the opposite environment.  And the State Legislature?  All the stakeholders originally and for decades after believed nothing was more important than keeping the government persuasively informed, in detail, of the economic and agricultural importance of racing to the State.  Tragically, that hasn’t been a priority for anyone in recent history.

Just to top it off:  as an old marketer of racing and tracks myself, I believe in strong, expensive advertising and promotion as vital investments.  For the present and future.  I once proved they succeed when properly funded and managed; but I’m a voice in the wilderness now, to be certain, when betting on the races doesn’t even seem to be on the public’s menu.

What?  Me worry?!

Graded Stakes Winning Owners - Closing Remarks - John Harris (Harris Farms)

Article by Bill Heller

The breadth of California Racing Hall of Famer John C. Harris’ accomplishments is so vast, it’s difficult to know where to begin. “He’s probably one of the most influential horsemen in California racing as an owner and breeder, and respected by both sectors,” Bill Nader, the CEO of the Thoroughbred Owners of California, said. “He’s just an amazing man. What an impact he has had.”

His impact was celebrated last August when he was honored at the Edwin J. Gregson Charity/fundraising dinner at the Inn at Rancho Santa Fe, just a few miles east of Del Mar. He has served five terms as the President of the California Thoroughbred Breeders Association and is a member of the Jockey Club, the California Horse Racing Board and the Breeders’ Cup Board of Directors.

His list of racing stars includes his home-bred Soviet Problem, the 1994 California-bred Horse of the Year who won 15 of her 20 career starts with three seconds, one of them by a head to Cherokee Run in the 1994 Breeders’ Cup Sprint at Churchill Downs. Harris was co-breeder and co-owner of the incredible filly with Don Valpredo, the co-founder of Country Sweet Produce in Bakersfield. Harris called Soviet Problem “the best one I’ve ever had.”

Harris’ stallions at Harris Farms have included Cee’s Tizzy, sire of two-time Breeders’ Cup Classic winner Tiznow. Harris Farms was also part of the success story of 2014 and 2016 Horse of the Year California Chrome. Both those superstars grew up on Harris Farm and began training there.

The Harris Farm story traces back to Harris’ father, Jack, and his decision to move his farm from Texas to California in 1916. Twenty-seven years later, they established Harris Farm in California’s Central Valley, near Coalinga, a diversified company.

Thoroughbreds are just part of Harris’ story. His Harris Ranch Beef Company produces nearly 200 million pounds of beef and is California’s largest fed cattle processor. Harris Ranch Beef has been in California’s supermarkets for decades.

The Harris Ranch Restaurant alongside Interstate 5 has been a popular rest-stop for families traveling from Los Angeles to San Francisco or the other direction It is one of three dine-in restaurants on the vast property of more than several thousand acres. Harris Ranch Restaurant serves as many as half a million customers each year and has won several culinary awards. 

Harris Farm produces onions, garlic, almonds, pistachios, olives, citrus fruit and asparagus and includes vineyards for producing wine.

But horses hold a sacred place in Harris’ soul, and he has bred and raced champions for several decades.

The Harris Farm Horse Division is split into two distinct ranches, 450 acres in Coalinga, from the main ranch and the remaining 140 acres located in Sanger specializing in the development of young horses and long-term lay-ups.

How has he been able to succeed in so many endeavors simultaneously?

“I try to keep all the balls in the air and not screw up things in the process,” Harris said.

Those close to him know how remarkably well he’s accomplished that.

 “We’re all amazed, too,” said Tom Wyrick, the Assistant Manager of the Harris Farm Horse Division. “He’s a very caring guy. He’s good to people.”

Harris went the extra mile naming his horses for his employees. The first was Big Jess, Harris’ first home-bred stakes winner. He won 14 of 69 career starts with 12 seconds, seven thirds and earnings of $152,312. One of Big Jess’ sons, Juan Barrera, was also named for an employee. In 45 lifetime starts, he posted 10 victories, six seconds and seven thirds, making $245,705.

Harris cares deeply about racing in California, all racing in the state. 

On the California Horse Racing Board, Harris tried to ensure the future of California’s fair racing, trying to preserve historic venues such as Ferndale. 

Harris received a Bachelor of Science Degree in animal science and agricultural business management from the University of California at Davis.

In 2008, he was inducted into the California Racing Hall of Fame.

Harris said he was in favor of a recent proposed rule to limit the number of mares a stallion serves to 140: “I think it’s a good idea, but it’s kind of academic in California. We rarely have stallions in California who breed over 140 mares. Some are over 100, but none over 140. One-hundred-forty is quite a few. We breed horses here to race. The declining mares, that’s the tip of the iceberg. The problem in California is a lot of people aren’t making a lot of money racing here, and their interest starts to wane.”

  His interest never has. 

And he’s not slowing down. In 2023, Harris Farm horses won 27 of 194 starts and earned $1,628,186, its highest total of the 2000’s.

At the Edwin J. Gregson Foundation Dinner last August, Foundation President Jenine Sahadi said, “We’re delighted to honor John, not only for the accomplishments of his Harris Farm Horse Division, one of the country’s leading racing stables and utmost influential owner/breeder operations, for which he has been inducted to the California Racing Hall of Fame. We also acknowledge his many years of distinguished service to the industry as a California Horse Racing Board Commissioner, board member of the Breeders’ Cup, Jockey Club and the California Thoroughbred Breeders Association.”

Bill Nader, who was at that dinner, said, “It was a great night.”

And it couldn’t have meant more to Harris: “Eddie was a really good friend.”