-
Available Subscriptions
Trotting Chat
3,036 topics in this forum
-
- 16 replies
- 388 views
-
- 18 replies
- 921 views
-
- 9 replies
- 596 views
-
- 8 replies
- 1.4k views
-
- 25 replies
- 1.1k views
-
- 24 replies
- 842 views
-
- 0 replies
- 124 views
-
- 22 replies
- 976 views
-
- 5 replies
- 486 views
-
- 19 replies
- 830 views
-
- 9 replies
- 436 views
-
- 13 replies
- 804 views
-
- 9 replies
- 1.2k views
-
- 18 replies
- 784 views
-
- 16 replies
- 930 views
-
- 9 replies
- 728 views
-
- 11 replies
- 610 views
-
- 43 replies
- 2.3k views
-
- 5 replies
- 536 views
-
- 9 replies
- 885 views
-
- 6 replies
- 423 views
-
- 42 replies
- 1.5k views
-
- 0 replies
- 156 views
-
- 20 replies
- 1k views
-
- 112 replies
- 10.3k views
Announcements
-
Posts
-
By Wandering Eyes · Posted
A pair of jockeys made significant moves up the championship table, a premiership-winning trainer continued his red-hot start to the year and Ka Ying Rising smashed more records in February. The SCMP analyses the jockeys and trainers who had a month to remember or one to forget, as well as the most outstanding victory and winning ride. Who’s hot? It was a rare month when Zac Purton didn’t return the biggest winning haul, with Jerry Chau Chun-lok and Andrea Atzeni sharing that honour with nine...View the full article -
All the programmer/handicapper has to do, for example, is put in a condition that, for example, in a rating race, any horse that has won more than 10 races, or a certain amount of money cannot start. Seems it's too hard. -
There is no perfect handicapping system, never has been, never will be. If you set it up to advantage one group of horses, you disadvantage another group. The answer is in innovative programming, which can be done under any system, including the current one.
-
personally i think you hit the nail on the head. the current system,if applied properly could work much better than it currently does. I've always thought the handicappers for many years simply haven't done a good job. theres always been groups prioritised over others and theres also been inconsistencies in how they treat everyone over the years. Not just recently,but it goes back for quite some time. Why don't they run more races where not only ratings,but money won in the last 6 starts,or money won in the last 12 months,or a combination of that and the number of wins,etc. if HRNZ were to do that they would spread the money won and races won out over a greater % of horses and their connections and that incentivises people to keep going. . Currenly the big winners are the horses who in the past would have been in about the 4 win grade. They simply win,get driven quietly for 3 runs,drop back to about r 39,put a claiming junior on,win,then 3 or 4 more quiet runs,then they are back in the same r39 grade they had won in, so they quickly win again and the whole cycle just carries on. and of course the 2 and 3 year old winners have always been advantaged. HRNZ's focus on the juniors is another example of prioritsing one group over another.. its hrnz doing what they always do,looking at a problem,saying well we don't have enough of this group or that group. Just as they do with the 2 year old racing,their solution is to introduce systems that prioritise one group over another. and thats what they have done with the juniors. They give them free gear ,free this and that ,licence fees,concession wins,more penalty free wins ,blah ,blah blah,chnage the criteria for being a junior to include people much older than there used to be,blah,blah,blah. the people cross subsidising the juniors include the small time licence holders who train and race their own horses who are battling to keep going already.Like duh.. When people think they are being undervalued and the system is stacked against them,they recognise that and it contributes to how they see the industry and whether they have better things they should be spending their time and money on.Its not rocket science to recognise that although currently those in charge seem even less aware of that factor than in the past. -
By Wandering Eyes · Posted
The California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) on Thursday voted down a pair of dates allocation requests for spring and summer meets at Red Bluff (Tehama District Fair) and Ferndale (Humboldt County Fair), meaning that no Thoroughbred racing is likely to occur in 2026 on the state's once-vibrant Northern circuit that has been dark since December of 2024. “As much as I'd like to see them do well, they have no chance of success,” the CHRB's chairman, Gregory Ferraro, DVM, said prior to the first of two separate votes that each went down in defeat by 4-2 margins. “There's just no market for 'em up there,” Ferraro said. “So you're going to end up destroying all of racing in California to bet on a no-chance situation in the North. “There will come a time when the North will be ready for racing. But it's not right now,” Ferraro said. Considering that the CHRB has repeatedly rebuffed attempts to revive the circuit over the past two years (meets at Ferndale, Fresno and Pleasanton were nixed in early 2025), proponents of NorCal are likely left wondering if Ferraro's “now” might be morphing into “never.” As recently as two summers ago, NorCal boasted a year-round rotation of racing anchored by one commercial track, Golden Gate Fields, and five fairs venues. That quantity of lower-class racing opportunities in the North dovetailed well with the better-quality race meets in Southern California at Santa Anita Park and Del Mar Thoroughbred Club (with shorter meets at Los Alamitos Race Course filling in seasonal SoCal gaps). But an existential North-vs.-South rift was blown wide open in 2023 when The Stronach Group (TSG) announced plans to shutter Golden Gate, then the last-surviving commercial track in NorCal. TSG also owns Santa Anita, and together with Del Mar, the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC), and the California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT), those entities have since lobbied hard for centralizing all of the state's racing and simulcast revenues on a single circuit in the South. Together, those pro-SoCal groups have asserted that the South's racing would be “cannibalized” by what they have characterized as unrealistic, not-well-organized, and tenuously financed attempts to make a go of race meets in the North while the entire state is dealing with a rapidly thinning Thoroughbred population and no source of purse revenues other than pari-mutuel betting. NorCal interests, on the other hand, have consistently argued that they have both the horses and the financial backing to pull off successful small meets, and breeders, owners and trainers based in that region remain firm in their belief that it's a mistake to concentrate the entirety of the state's racing in one urban area in the South. The North's proponents have also articulated complaints that the TOC and CTT aren't representing their interests, and that the CHRB isn't extending support to smaller-scale racing outfits that haven't been able to compete at Santa Anita or Del Mar. They also claim that if NorCal slides off the grid, so too will the state's alarmingly diminishing foal crop, because the North is where the bulk of the breeding farms are. The CHRB, meanwhile, is caught in the middle, and its board members seem collectively mindful that they made a mistake by greenlighting a risky venture by an entity called Golden State Racing that failed to conduct a financially viable extended NorCal meet at Pleasanton in the autumn of 2024. In fact, in April 2025, Ferraro described that Golden State Racing decision by the CHRB as “unwise at best or disastrous at worst.” In direct opposition to Ferraro, the CHRB's vice-chair, Oscar Gonzales, has been a staunch, outspoken supporter of keeping racing alive in the North over the course of the last several years, and he has consistently advocated for and backed every proposal aimed at propping up the North since TSG pulled the plug on Golden Gate, which last had racing in June 2024. Prior to the votes on Thursday, Gonzales zeroed in on California's “foal crop that is nosediving,” which he pegged at “right around 800” and said is “just going to keep going down” if the CHRB didn't do something to revive racing in NorCal. “The breeding that goes on in California is primarily in the North,” Gonzales said. “And what I have heard loud and clear from the breeders is that they're literally getting out because there is nowhere for them to kind of spread their investment across the table. “So I find it very interesting that trainers would be very much in favor [of a single circuit in the South], especially when we just don't know what the future is for Santa Anita or TSG,” Gonzales said. “We see what [TSG has] done in Maryland [where TSG is exiting the Thoroughbred industry by turning over control of Pimlico Race Course and Laurel Park to the state]. We see what they're doing in Florida [where TSG is pushing for legislatively “decoupling” live racing at Gulfstream Park from its casino there]. But we're willing to put all of our chips [in the South] rather than spreading them out?” Gonzales asked rhetorically. Instead, Gonzales suggested, the CHRB should be “keeping some presence in the North, even if it's just [fairs meets in the] summer, [because that's all] the breeders want.” Gonzales continued: “We know the Cal-bred program is going down, and a big reason they're going down is because there's no place for them to train or race. I don't understand [and] I just don't really see a strategy here by completely eliminating Northern California racing. Because when you do that, you're eliminating breeding. And if you're eliminating breeding, guess what? You're eliminating the Cal-bred program eventually… “By having these little fairs, you're sending a message to the breeding community in Northern California [that] they matter, and that there's going to be a place for them to compete,” Gonzales said. “After today's meeting, if, in fact, we do not approve of these fairs, these breeders are going to be really sending their broodmares out [of state], and we will start to see a foal crop down in the 600 to 700 [range], which we might as well just throw in the towel at that point,” Gonzales said. Ferraro was quick to respond to that last point by Gonzales, interjecting that, “I hate to be argumentative, but the way to improve breeding for California-breds is to breed better horses, not breed horses for the fairs.” Thursday's meeting had been specially added to the CHRB's calendar after the board, at its January meeting, had tabled a proposal for 19 weeks of fairs racing at three different tracks (Pleasanton, AKA Alameda County Fair, which asked for dates last month, did not come back with a new proposal along with Red Bluff and Ferndale). Red Bluff proposed an Apr. 29 to May 26 meet. Ferndale wanted dates from Aug. 5 to Sept. 1. A CHRB staff analysis that was prepared for the Feb. 26 meeting indicated that there were several outstanding financial, bureaucratic and logistical questions about the proposed race meets that needed to be rectified under a tight timeline, particularly for Red Bluff, which has not hosted a CHRB-licensed meet in some four decades. A CHRB safety steward visited the bare-bones remains of Red Bluff's former half-mile oval Jan. 23 and noted that there were “a large number of updates/improvements that need to be made to the track before it can pass an inspection.” Ferndale last raced in the summer of 2024. “At least with Tehama, I think in no way, shape or form are they ready to start a race meet and be successful at it,” Ferraro said. Commissioner Dennis Alfieri said it was his opinion that the SoCal statewide consolidation plan is still in its formative stages, and thus shouldn't be tinkered with by diverting simulcast revenues and horses to the North. “We're finally doing so well in the South,” Alfieri said (with Gonzales openly scoffing at that statement). “But it's fragile, right? It can break like an egg. And so I am still not convinced that granting race dates [in the North] is appropriate or smart. My belief [is] it's not the time to experiment, [and] this is high-risk.” Commissioner Brenda Washington Davis said she saw both sides of the issue, and asked other board members to consider that giving the North some leeway with regard to racing might help get NorCal stakeholders on board to help lobby for new forms of gaming revenue that could be legalized to subsidize purses statewide. “I understand the impetus for consolidating and not dragging everybody down by compromising purse sizes and field sizes,” Washington Davis said. “[But] I think every time the Southern California circuit takes a position that they don't want the North racing, [that] puts us farther from that Northern element that could help with getting [purse subsidies legalized]. “And frankly, in my concern, it's fragile in the South because we don't have the subsidy. And I think the South would go down anyway at some point, the way things are heading,” Washington Davis said. “So it would just make more sense to me, instead of hounding on the fact that [race dates, horse population and simulcasting revenues are] a zero-sum game, to say, 'Let's give the North something,' and put that pressure on ourselves to work harder and get [gaming legalization] that you all know we're going to have to have to keep racing healthy in California.” Voting “no” for both versions of the NorCal meets (and the simulcast privileges that would have gone with the dates) were Ferraro, plus commissioners Alfieri, Damascus Castellanos and Peter Stern. Voting “yes” to advance the NorCal meets were Gonzales and Washington Davis. Commissioner Thomas Hudnut was not at the meeting. The post CHRB Again Votes down Attempts to Revive NorCal Racing appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions. View the full article
-
-
Topics
-
