And the differences between them were as wide as the distance between the East and West coasts of this great natural resource called America…before one of the multi-nationals began befouling it, that is.
The experiment at Monmouth Park this summer was the clearest example of how less can mean more, how the absence of something makes the heart and, by extension, the wallet, long for it even more.
However, the less-is-more concept at Hollywood Park and Buellton, California were, unfortunately, examples of how less should be taken quite literally, and where, for the moment anyway, bad news is the only thing that California racing has in abundance, the big mare notwithstanding.
Live racing was canceled at the Inglewood track for the second time this year due to insufficient entries. According to a Daily Racing Form story, officials were “guardedly optimistic” that they can complete the spring-summer meet that ends July 18 without losing another day of live sport.
Meanwhile, 125 miles to the north and west, up the majestic California coast line from Hollywood Park, Marty and Pam Wygod decided to shut down their River Edge Farm and move their entire breeding operation to Kentucky. Resultantly, 110 head, including 50 broodmares, will be sold at auction later this year.
What does that say about the present and future state of the game in the Golden State when California’s leading breeders for three straight years, 2006 through 2008, decide to take up stakes and get out of Dodge?
Wygod was one of the first computer whiz kids in the early 1970s who took an interest in racing while living in the New York metropolitan area. He developed a friendship with noted handicapper Mannie Kalish of the New York Post who introduced him to trainer Victor ‘Lefty’ Nickerson.
Nickerson, who mentored two California-based Hall of Fame horsemen, Ron McAnally and Richard Mandella, began training horses for the Wygods. Later, Wygod would start a new life in California, where he devoted his attention to racing and breeding full time.
Nickerson died six years ago and is best remembered, of course, as the developer of the great John Henry, whose reputation turned to legend soon after owner Sam Rubin moved the remarkable gelding to the Southern California circuit from New York.
Nickerson recommended to Rubin that McAnally should be ‘John‘s’ new full time trainer. Nickerson remained the trainer of record whenever the gelding would ship back to New York for occasional stakes foray.
Explaining his decision, Wygod told the DRF that “we’re going to focus on breeding in Kentucky. That’s where the top end of our stallions and broodmares [including 2009 Broodmare of the Year Sweet Life] are. We just reached a point after 35 years that it made sense to focus our interests there.”
Three of River Edge Farm’s four stallions, Bertrando, Benchmark, and Tribal Rule presently rank among California’s top seven sires. A fourth, Dixie Chatter, stood his first season this year.
As California breeders, the Wygods bred stakes winner Pirate's Bounty, later the state’s leading sire three times, producing 63 stakes winners, 44 of them born at the Wygod’s nursery.
Replicating a scenario that’s currently being played out in New York because of bureaucratic bungling in the Empire State, California is about to lose a breeding operation it can ill afford, such is the state of California racing.
At Hollywood Park, temporarily granted a reprieve from the shopping mall developers because of the current deep recession, the bad beats continue. Lopping off a handful of days at the beginning and end of the current race meet hasn’t worked because of a circuit-wide horse shortage.
“We thought we cut enough but maybe we didn’t,” Eual Wyatt Jr., vice president and general manager of Hollywood Park, explained this week. Despite the loss of two live racing days, two race-weeks shortened to four days, and eight-race programs, field sized has dropped, albeit marginally, to 7.86 runners per race.
A total of 49 horses raced on Wednesday’s eight-race program, attracting handle of $4,623,846 from all sources which, in better times, is the equivalent of a three-day Pick 6 carryover pool. Tonight’s popular evening program has drawn only 69 horses into the body of eight races.
This current reality is playing out against a backdrop of financial catastrophe in the state and the uncertainty of what will happen to date as a result of landlord Santa Anita kicking the Oak Tree Racing Association session out onto W. Huntington Drive.
By severely cutting back dates at Monmouth Park this summer, attendance there has increased nearly 21 percent over comparable 2009 dates through the first 11 days of racing. While it is far too early to tell whether the Monmouth’s success will extend through the balance of 2010, trends clearly are headed in the right direction.
Of greater import perhaps is the notion that the current perception of New Jersey racing is positive, not the doom and gloom being played out virtually everywhere else.
Whether or not perception is reality in this scenario, the shift of focus has created buzz. And if the current scene in New Jersey ever becomes reality nationwide, the mainstream might change its perception that racing is a dead sport.
Even with nationwide handle off 10 percent this year, the bottom line is that $12 billion will be pushed through the parimutuel pools by New Year‘s Day. That’s a number that cannot be ignored in today's economy.
The only way to change negative perception is to create a new one. Next week in Tarrytown, New York, a Gaming Summit will host industry leaders from throughout the state.
The keynote speaker will be Jeff Gural, prominent realtor, owner of Vernon Downs and Tioga racetracks, and part of a group with SL Green Realty Trust and Hardrock Entertainment bidding for the VLT franchise at Aqueduct.
Gural’s philosophy is that there’s too much racing, that other sports have seasonality, and that tracks like Saratoga work because it’s fun to go racing there. Among the topics on the agenda is “The Troubled State of Horse Racing and Off-track Betting in New York.” Good or bad, there will be no shortage of examples.


18 Jun 2010 at 03:43 am | #
The installation of synthetic surfaces was supposed to result in larger fields, east coast stables setting up west coast divisions.........
Hmmmmm---guess not huh??
Boy was Richard Shapiro a genius!
18 Jun 2010 at 03:59 am | #
Barry,
Would have to think that what was, in the main, a failed experiment with synthetics--mandated by the state, remember--the loss of handle as many bettors avoided synthetic surfaces was a contributing factor.
Thanks,
JP
18 Jun 2010 at 07:23 am | #
JRP,
There is no substantive evidence I’ve seen which shows California handle is down any more than the industry as whole.
If there is any factual data showing Cal has dropped more than NY, Florida, or Churchill Downs (all dirt venues), I’d love to see it.
I believe management at Golden Gate would argue your point about “failed...synthetics.” It is my understanding the Tapeta has worked well and horsemen their like it. To my knowledge they have not had any cancellation problems ala Santa Anita.
18 Jun 2010 at 07:55 am | #
Nick,
Maybe GG had a cancellation or two but that’s besides the point, Tapeta has had the most success vis a vis the horsemen and it delivering on the promise of being relatively maintenance free. Of course, that was the big lie regarding all synths.
Actually, handle at Hollywood on balance has been quite good, comparing favorably with Monmouth’s in fact. But California is a rare animal; the racing fans love to bet out there. No one can approach their zeal, say, when there’s a sizable carryover to chase.
Meanwhile, I never really made a point that the handle was any worse in California than anywhere else in the country. The phrase above was “this is being played out against a backdrop of financial catastrophe in the state...” Did I need to add state of California?
The focus was on the contraction going on within the industry, whether it be the result of a horse shortage, decling revenues or whatever. Tracks that refuse to adapt their models in the next two years won’t be around in the future, pure and simple.
With further contraction and a paradigm shift that includes entertainment divsersity, and with tracks marketing the racing presentation and off-site venues and the Internet acting as distribution arms, racing will survive and eventually prosper again. There’s nothing wrong with this product at its best. But races as betting fodder just won’t work anymore.
Thanks for checking in,
JP
18 Jun 2010 at 08:08 am | #
JRP,
When I read your last sentence, “races as betting fodder just won’t work anymore,” I could hear the whir of Wendell’s computer booting up. Stand by.
18 Jun 2010 at 08:33 am | #
Mr Kling, Mr Pricci,
You turf writers just keep spreading your lies.
Watch the 3rd race at Yavapai and tell me you can tell any difference between that and Zenyatta’s race at Hollywood Park. You can’t. A race is a race and if you promoted tracks such as Charlestown, Mountaineer, Finger Lakes..... and told people of the fine product they offer, the game would have more fans. Need to get back to my form gentleman. 10 big ones at Evangaline tonight!
18 Jun 2010 at 02:34 pm | #
Nick, I believe the handle is so bad at Golden Gate they don’t even publish it anymore.
Greg Gilchrist retired a while back and this is the article with a quote from him about the state of racing in Northern California.
http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/56862/greg-gilchrist-retires-from-training
Excerpt:
“It’s not so much that I want to quit training horses, because I love it,” said Gilchrist. “But here in Northern California, this isn’t even horse racing anymore. Fields are short; races don’t go. You can’t count on a first-level allowance going. I really wonder about the viability of racing up here.”
Racing in California is in huge trouble. Make not mistake about it.
Tapeta Shmapeta. LOL
19 Jun 2010 at 12:32 am | #
Andrew,
You must not look too hard for Golden Gate’s handle. It is published every racing day on the Equibase charts.
http://www.equibase.com/static/chart/pdf/GG061310USA.pdf
I read the Gilchrist article, and he makes no mention of synthetic surfaces.
While there is little doubt synthetic surfaces have contributed to California’s problems, it is only part of a larger issue which includes high costs for horsemen, competition from other forms of gambling, and its isolation from other racing venues, which prevents horses from shipping in and out for everyday racing.
Most people with whom I’ve spoken hope Santa Anita returns to dirt, as do I. However, anyone who thinks that is going to stem the tide in California is whistling up a rope.
19 Jun 2010 at 01:17 am | #
Nick, do those charts tell you how much the handle has decreased since they put in Tapeta?
When is the last time you’ve seen a press release anywhere talking about the handle being up or down at Golden Gate? You know what I was referring to (may fault for not being specific).
When you write “It is my understanding the Tapeta has worked well and horsemen their like it.” You perpetuate a big lie and for some reason quite a few people believe it.
Synthetic surfaces are the biggest fraud in the history of Horse Racing in the United States. How have they benefitted the sport? Has the road to the Triple Crown been enhanced? Has the race for HOY been enhanced. Turf horses on the Pro Ride at the Breeders’Cup? Oh boy!
California is about done and there’s nothing on the Horizon to change that.
Everyone speculates as to why this happened and they all come up with about the same reasons.
The truth is that if California wasn’t so badly mismanaged over the last 20 years they could have weathered this storm. I’m not only talking about the money and goodwill they blew on the junk surfaces either. Most of the poeple who have run things in California have done so with their own self interest and the interest of their own little kingdoms (Hollywood vs. Santa Anita vs. Del Mar) as their priority. This is the result when the CHRB doesn’t act in the best interest of racing as a whole and caters to individuals and their egos.
The biggest ego of them all will be on center stage at the next CHRB meeting. He holds the cards and will probably drop the hammer on the State to get what he wants. The thing is, with everyone leaving, he may be sitting at Santa Anita by himself in the Directors room betting on Tracks like Monmouth and Oaklawn and Sunland Park or Charles Town. LOL
19 Jun 2010 at 02:10 am | #
Andrew,
It might surprise you to know I agree with most of what you said. However, you diminish your argument when you exaggerate.
California’s premature and ill-advised mandate on installing synthetics was a symptom of the bigger problems in the state’s racing industry, not the cause.
Synthetic surfaces have been flawed, no question about it. Calling them “the biggest fraud” is a bit out there.
Given the cost and problems associated with maintenance of some of the synthetics, it is unlikely any more will be installed until the final results are in.
The bottom line? No matter what you or I think about synthetics, their future will be determined by racetrack management as more data comes in.
19 Jun 2010 at 03:50 am | #
Nick, can you name a bigger fraud?
How many of the claims made by the people who put together the synthetic infomercial have proven to be true?
Soon Santa Anita will go back to dirt. Arlington and their wonderful Polytrack will probably dissapear. With the Breeders’ Cup at Churchill for the next two years and no Triple Crown race on synthetics how relevant will these junk science surfaces be?
As far as being “out there” I would say that you might want to do a little more due diligence when you make declarations about synthetic surfaces. Your perspective is naive to say the least. Forming an opinion based on what TVG or HRTV tells you or listening to guys like Steve Finley will get you nothing but propaganda.
Wake up damnit! Wink… LOL..
19 Jun 2010 at 04:34 am | #
Andrew,
A bigger fraud?
Try this—that racetrack management, regulators, and horsemen have a clue what should be done to keep racing’s current patrons in the game, and try to get a few new ones.
If racing survives, it will be because people love horses and the chance to bet, not because anyone in a position of leadership knows how to right the ship.
21 Jun 2010 at 08:04 am | #
All I know is I’ve bet more at the current Monmouth meet than my entire racing wagers for the last two years combined. Why - large fields, no apparent “super trainer” presence (well except for Dutrow, but he’s easy to figure out), and solid payoffs if you’re able to stay away from so many of the badly overbet horses.
The only thing that could make the Monmouth meet better would be if they ran at night. But I dig the 3 days a week format. It keeps me fresh by not having to bang at it 5-6 days a week. Betting has never been easier for someone like me who focuses 90+% of my action in the exacta, double, and triple pools. I can watch from home and bet through an offshore book that gives me a 7% rebate on all those wagers. If there is a better way to attack this game, knock yourselves out.
Hopefully the Monmouth model works out in the long run. The upcoming 6-day-a-week 40 day Saratoga meet should serve as a legitimate comparison model as to what direction the future holds.
23 Jun 2010 at 04:05 am | #
I feel that your article misses the point as does Mon racetrack. The main people to benefit from the changes are the owner, trainers, and jockeys. The bettors are helped slightly by the larger fields. What hurts most at Mon are the on track patrons who bet less that $100 per person per day. We don’t truly know, if you remember some of our past conversations re what % Twinspires, TVG and others contribute to the track. Furthermore, do tell me when the last time you saw less that 10,000 at Sar on a sunday afternoon? Opening sunday saw only 8,000 patrons. Last saturday saw 12,000 and the on track handle was $79. per person. The folks at Sar bet about $180 per person per day including the picnic folks in the pine trees. Even by some miracle both tracks had the same handle 3 days a week, Saratoga makes 400k per day more because the average purse is 400k at Sar and 1,000,000 at Mon. Don’t worry about full fields at Saratoga: the racing secretary is adept at doing what the trainers want. I had also heard that a trainer was denied stall space at Sar this year despite the fact that he had 5 starters last year.
So my words of wisdom would be: bring back Barry Schwartz’ ideas re lowering the take out. Also NYRA needs to use a $1 pick six, a 50 cent pick 3 and 4. They also need to allow internet betting from “out of state”. IMHO they would do serious damage to all the internet wagering outfits. So please talk more about the bettors and less about the owners and trainers.Sorry to bend your ear. We only have 4 weeks to wait,and I’m getting anxious. don oasis