Despite opposition from Southern California tracks, which desire a consolidation of racing in the state, the California Horse Racing Board approved fall race dates in Northern California for a 26-day season at Pleasanton during its monthly board meeting in Sacramento March 21.
The vote to award the dates was 6-0. A seventh commissioner, Dennis Alfieri, was absent during the vote that capped an approximately four-hour board meeting. He was involved in earlier discussions.
Though the board granted the dates, several commissioners raised concerns about the financial, environmental, and logistical details related to the planned race meet at Pleasanton. Fall racing at Pleasanton is meant to fill a void in the north caused by 1/ST Racing’s impending June closure of Golden Gate Fields. In light of their Pleasanton concerns, commissioners said they would closely evaluate the license application for racing there when it comes before the board this summer.
The California Authority of Racing Fairs led the proposal for racing at Pleasanton at the Alameda County Fairgrounds, though racing there, should it go forward, would operate as Golden State Racing to differentiate it from the summer fairs and for marketing purposes.
The summer fairs will continue as usual this year, with Pleasanton again part of the fair rotation.
Sign up for BloodHorse Daily
Officials from 1/ST Racing, which owns Golden Gate and Santa Anita Park, and Del Mar, spoke out against the awarding of dates to Pleasanton. Southern California tracks, with the support of the Thoroughbred Owners of California, sought to have no fall racing in Northern California, citing short fields across California. No racing in the north would allow for a consolidation of racing in the south and the redirection of simulcast funds to bolster overpaid Southern California purses.
With Thursday’s decision, purse cuts are likely to come for tracks in the south, notably at Santa Anita and Del Mar.
Craig Fravel
Craig Fravel, 1/ST Racing and Gaming executive vice chairman, who March 19 sent a letter to the CHRB stating that the company would have to evaluate its investments in Santa Anita Park and at San Luis Rey Training Center if dates were awarded to Pleasanton, told the board Thursday that Santa Anita had overpaid purses by $4 million.
He said during the meeting he could not immediately specify how much purses would fall, which would depend on how quickly the purse deficit is to be paid back.
Several board members hammered Fravel with comments and questions, upset with the tone of his letter and its implications on behalf of 1/ST Racing, a subsidiary of The Stronach Group. Fravel wrote that 1/ST racing would reconsider its planned investment there and analyze “alternative uses” for Santa Anita if Pleasanton received dates.
“It’s sad to say that a letter like that comes across as basically, if you don’t do it my way, I’m gonna take my ball and leave,” CHRB commissioner Damascus Castellanos said. “That’s not cool.”
Fravel emphasized that California has to face “true realities,” which include purses lower than those of tracks in other states that have gaming to boost racetrack profits and purses.
“The letter didn’t say we’re shutting down; the letter said we have to sit down and figure out what we’re going to be able to invest with the prospect of continuing to lose money,” he said.
Fravel said he spoke March 20 with Belinda Stronach, chairwoman, CEO, and president of The Stronach Group and chairwoman and CEO of 1/ST Racing: “She does not want to close Santa Anita. We have had offers over and over again from people wanting to buy the place and every time I’ve ever shipped those requests up to north to Canada (where she lives), the answer to come down is—it’s not for sale.”
Santa Anita, designated on the National Register of Historic Places, is located in Arcadia in Southern California. The 320-acre property in the shadow of the San Gabriel Mountains is valuable real estate.
Though Northern California racing is to continue this fall, pending the approval of the license application, how far that goes into the future still must be determined. Officials at Pleasanton, which only has a dirt track, said they would like to add a turf course at a cost of $7 million if it has a second year of racing, but whether they have the financial resources to add a turf course is in question. Race dates for 2025 have not been awarded.
Bill Nader, president and CEO of the TOC, whose organization backs a consolidation of California racing, questioned whether Pleasanton would be able to generate enough handle to meet its purse estimates for the fall meet. He cited handle declines last year when the spring meet at Churchill Downs was shifted to Ellis Park following a spike in horse fatalities at Churchill, and in California when Hollywood Park closed in 2013 and racing moved to Los Alamitos Race Course.
Bill Nader
Counting stakes funds, daily purses at Pleasanton are forecasted to be around $160,000. This would be below the rough average of $200,000 at Golden Gate from past years but ahead of the approximate $130,000 daily average in 2024, which was sharply lowered to offset a massive purse overpayment before the track closes.
Representatives from the California Thoroughbred Trainers, California Thoroughbred Breeders Association, and Jockeys’ Guild backed continued racing in Northern California, as did individual Northern California horsemen who spoke Thursday before the board.
Many consider Northern California racing vital to the state’s breeding industry. California-breds account for 75% of entries in the north, compared to 40% in the south, according to CTBA board member Justin Oldfield.
Some speakers urged a push for legislative assistance that may provide alternative forms of revenue to boost the California racing industry. Past attempts have been unsuccessful in a state with a strong lobby from tribal gaming.
CHRB chair Dr. Greg Ferraro
Though he voted in favor of awarding dates to Pleasanton, CHRB chair Dr. Greg Ferraro echoed the viewpoints of other speakers, such as horse owner and TOC board member Stephanie Hronis, who called for one racing circuit in California and not division with two.
“You need to get together and figure out how you can have one circuit, a north-and-south (circuit), where you’re not conflicting with each other, where you’re benefiting each other. The only way racing is going to survive in California is to have a single (circuit) that goes north and south,” Ferraro said. “It was done back in the 50s and 60s. It could certainly be done again.”
