Forums

Wow…. thats a crazy decision. Unless you have a real sprint horse and luckily get a draw that suits…. for the majority of the field, they will struggle. 

But majority of NZ tracks are not designed for mile racing? So America predominantly race over a mile, but they dont have their most prestigious race run over 3200m from a stand? 

you can't compare gallops to harness. ask any punter and they will tell you they think the gallopers are always trying and the trots are often just there to follow them around. and everyone knows thats true anyway. Thats the way the harness rating systems work,especially over there.run them down the track with some quiet follow them around runs . Its not like people don't know that. personally i think addington 1980 races should be limited to 10 runners,not 14. 

As it did in 2025, a Florida House of Representatives bill seeking to decouple racing and gaming licenses for Thoroughbred operators unsurprisingly passed its first committee.View the full article

that wanting an optimum field size is just talk. you have to judge them by their actions,not the talk that comes out of hrnz. its very obvious that hrnz have strongly been pushing policies which have directly lead to so many small fileds. The 2 year old racing,the high class racing,the over saturation of racing at cambridge and auckland

Well at least they ain't running the derby and oaks in same say as is done here, never understood that.

Sign of things to come? https://www.hrnz.co.nz/news/nsw-oaks-and-derby-to-be-run-over-the-mile/

A decision over a 2026 fair meet race-date proposal before the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) was punted unanimously to a single-discussion meeting in February (the date yet to be decided) after last-minute reshuffling of the chairs behind the scenes led to an at-times contentious meeting Wednesday. The original proposal outlined 19 race weeks this summer between three different fair tracks: six racing weeks at Tehama District Fair, six racing weeks at Alameda County Fair, and seven racing weeks at Humboldt County Fair. The meeting agenda packet included either a signed live race agreement or a memorandum of understanding between the three fair associations and Bernal Park Racing Management Company (BPRMC), headed by long-time owner-breeder George Schmitt. However, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) weighed into the matter Tuesday, issuing a letter to Schmitt saying they could not approve the proposal. “After a thorough review, we have determined that the current statutory framework does not provide authority for CDFA to approve the proposed structure. Food and Agriculture Code §4058 envisions entities formed by fairs or similar public organizations, and existing provisions do not contemplate private entities leasing racetrack facilities for the purpose of conducting live horse racing meetings. Additionally, related statutes impose restrictions that would prevent implementation of the proposal as submitted,” the letter states. This prompted representatives of BPRMC and the fairs to scramble together a revised proposal for the board to decide upon, shrinking their originally allotted dates down to a four-week window each. The new set of proposed dates would see the following: Tehama District Fair, Red Bluff: April 29 – May 26, 9 Racing Days Alameda County Fair, Pleasanton: June 17 – July 14, 12 Racing Days Humboldt County Fair, Ferndale: August 5 – September 1, 12 Racing Days Moving forward, it's the individual fair associations that will be the licensees applying for the race dates and submitting the race-meet applications, rather than Bernal Park doing so–something that was made unclear in the proposal. These developments were so last minute, CHRB staff hadn't had time to make the CDFA letter nor the revised fair race-dates schedule publicly available online beforehand. These eleventh-hour maneuvers also irked CHRB staff, voiced in no uncertain fashion by CHRB executive director Scott Chaney, who also vented his frustration at what he described as ongoing legal and financial question marks over the organizational structure of the proposed race meets. “Staff is tired. We have not had the opportunity to evaluate this brand new proposal. Frankly, the last one was sent less than 24 hours from when we were going to notice this meeting. In retrospect, I think agendizing the item in my view was a mistake. So, I just need to let the board know that staff cannot recommend considering a date allocation today simply because we have had not even close to adequate time to evaluate this proposal,” said Chaney. CHRB chairman Greg Ferraro agreed with a separate suggestion to put onto the calendar a February meeting to discuss this item alone, with a view to giving the fairs time to get their race-meet applications in (if indeed the board approves their race-date proposals). The next scheduled CHRB meeting was not until March. The typical race-meet application deadline is 90 days before the meet starts, though waivers have been granted in the past. Ferraro, however, was similarly exasperated by the behind-the-scenes scrambling just before Wednesday's meeting, and he gave the fair associations and the Bernal Park representatives a stern warning to get their proposals in order before February's meeting. “I would tell the three counties, get your paperwork together. Get your plan together. Get your finances together. Make everything very clear. We're going to check on the legality [of the proposals], because I'm not convinced we're not violating some kind of law,” Ferraro said. Proponents of a renewed racing program in the North argue it's needed to better support a NorCal breeding industry, as well as to provide better opportunities to keep and lure back horses to the state. A recent TDN analysis of the fate of former NorCal horsemen and women since the closure of Pleasanton for Thoroughbred stabling in March found that a significant number of barns had either left the state or called it quits altogether. The overall impression among barns that maintained a footprint in the state was one of an average 50% decline in both earnings and starts. On the flip side, proponents of the current consolidated program argue this existing system is needed to shore up the fragile California racing industry as a whole. Any overlapping calendar in the North, they say, would siphon off and dilute valuable resources (both equine and financial) needed to maintain recent upticks in things like purses and field size in the South. In terms of potential last revenues for the South, several speakers described as the “elephant in the room” the proposal to give the fairs “host-fee” status on 12 of their proposed race dates, four dates at each track. If the race dates are approved and the Northern fairs are granted host-fee status on those days, that could prove a significant loss to Southern California racing entities at a time when they're already struggling with purses that can't compete with other jurisdictions whose purses are heavily juiced by purse supplements. David Elliott, CEO of Bernal Park Racing, argued that Southern California would still retain the bulk of the host-fee race dates, and that the allotment of host fees to Northern California fair dates was needed to give stakeholders there a financial shot in the arm. “Southern California will still be the recipient of host fees for 40 weeks,” said Elliott. “We're just asking for 12 [days] and allowing us the opportunity to create some racing opportunities for owners that can't compete anymore and those folks that have left the state as well.” Sarah Andrew While the matter of who the race-meet licensees will be has been resolved, there still appear to be key funding and organizational discrepancies that need to be rectified before February's CHRB meeting. Benjamin Dickens, counsel for Bernal Park Racing, attempted to quell fears among board members about the financial aspect of the proposal (especially in light of the CDFA's letter). While Bernal Park Racing–a key funding mechanism for the proposed race meets–is not a nonprofit, “it will operate in such a fashion,” said Dickens. “Any profits that are realized by Bernal Park will be flowed back to the licensee counties and any losses will be absorbed by Bernal Park,” he added. Bernal Park has also apparently already invested $104,217 in track improvements to the Tehama County track to bring it up to par with state and federal safety requirements. Tehama County hasn't hosted an official race meet for decades. Chaney, however, maintained that there remains several key legal question marks hanging over the live race agreements or the MOUs between the fair associations and Bernal Park Racing, which appear to describe a profit-sharing mechanism between the relevant parties. “I think my attorneys probably want another look at the two operating agreements that you seem to have with the fairs plus the MOU with Alameda County Fair because there's lots of holes in them,” said Chaney. “I've thought of 10 questions that I'm sure the attorneys want to ask between now and next time that the board wants to consider dates.” As he wrapped up the agenda it–which ran for over 80 minutes, many of them characterized by pointed frustrations on both sides–Ferraro warned the NorCal stakeholders of the import of their request at a time when the future of the state racing industry has arguably never been shakier. “I hope you understand that failure is not an option. If you fail, you could bring the whole of California racing to an end,” Ferraro said. “We can't afford failure. It has to be successful.” The post CHRB Punts to February 2026 NorCal Fair Dates Decision appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions. View the full article

The 5 year funding guarantee is propping up the distribution to the 3 codes by approx $30m/year.This is the estimate by Grant Thornton who, under S60 of The Racing Act, were appointed to complete a 5 yearly Performance and Efficiency audit. Their report, which was published by the TAB in September last year, say that the TAB at the point of audit had 12 staff plus a Board of 6 directors. The report flagged a shortfall of funding to the TAB versus income Entain were actually making was approx $31.8m (per the attached note.) Assuming that greyhounds don't contribute a significant amount of GBR then this would have an impact to NZTR of approx $20m/year and to HRNZ of approx $10m/year. The full geonet impact is still a year away from being reported and should hold some upside. NZTR's annual report said that the geonet had been in place for one month when their report was done. Entain's new Australian CEO said that this gap was "closing" when asked by Mick Guerin last last year.  Realistically the only lever saving that magnitude of money, would be via a stakes reduction.