CALIFORNIA TO OUT-OF-STATE OWNERS: IOU
Oh, the joys of sending a horse to race in California. Some owners with horses participating in last year’s Breeders’ Cup on the Pro-Ride surface at Santa Anita Park believed running on that track was a crapshoot if it was their horse’s first time on synthetics. Obviously, it worked out for some (Raven’s Pass in the Classic was the most notable first-time synthetic winner), but not for others (Curlin finished fourth in the race, and trainer Steve Asmussen and owner Jess Jackson blamed the racing surface).
But that wasn’t the end of the surprises for out of state or foreign owners. Those who were lucky enough to get a share of the Breeders’ Cup’s $25.5 million in prize money had 7% of the purse they won withheld by the state of California for income tax purposes. They were told the money could be refunded after filing a tax return with the state. California is apparently one of the only states to withhold purse money awarded to out-of-state owners.
Well, guess what? Since the Breeders’ Cup was run, the state of California has fallen into a huge budget crisis and, for all practical purposes, is out of money.
So what did those owners get from the California treasury after they filed a state income tax return? An IOU, or a “registered warrant” as the state calls it, that may be worth something “on or AFTER” Oct. 2, 2009.”
As we like to say in the hospitable South, “Y’all come back now, hear?”
The Breeders’ Cup does indeed return to Southern California this Nov. 6-7. And some owners are wondering why.
Tags: Breeders' Cup, california iou, california racing, california tax returns, california withholding, Curlin, Paulick Report, raven's pass, Ray Paulick
July 15th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
I think many owners, trainers, bettors, fans, casual fans, etc…are wondering why, to ask dirt horses to run on that surface is not by any means in the best interest of racing. Perfect example, Tiago beating Curlin, come on, I personally like Tiago but his finishing ahead of Curlin proves the surface was the difference.
Good article on this subject at: oddsonfavorite.blogspot.com
July 15th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Even though the discussion here is about the budget mess, it always comes back to our synthetic surfaces. All horses run easier on synthetics. It’s not that Curlin doesn’t run well over them, it’s that his competition struggles more on dirt than he does. Put them all on synthetics, and he is no longer quite as superior to them, and good horses like Tiago can beat him. Well Armed is another example of a horse who doesn’t struggle much on dirt. He still runs well over synthetics and can win on them, but so many other dirt horses move up on synthetics that the competition becomes tougher. It evens out the playing field, which makes better sport of a race. But the bottom line is that synthetics are kinder and safer to horses, and to riders, and that should be the only consideration.
July 15th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
You can’t make this stuff up. Nobody would believe it.
Hey, I know what! Let’s have the Breeders Cup at Santa Anita on the Pro Ride (hocus pocus junk in my opininion) every year!
July 15th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
“All horses run easier on synthetics.”
Ah, so that’s why I Want Revenge ran better in NY than CA, NY’s synthetic tracks helped him run easier than he did on those California dirt tracks. I knew there had to be a reason.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
Of course all the problems in California are the result of synthetic surfaces. Goes right along with synthetic breasts, synthetic racetracks and now synthetic dough.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Where is Priscilla? All horses do not run better over synthetics. Further, the attrition rate of young horses precludes a great number of them ever seeing the races.
These tracks have been catastrophic to California. I seriously doubt another will ever be installed for racing purposes in the United States. Certainly not a Pro-Ride.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Priscilla,
Spare us the PR on synthetics. They’ve created a third and inferior surface in a sport that lacks depth as is. California racing is great, with the impending closure of prestigious tracks, purse earnings being withheld and a second BC which will lack the best horse in the country (Rachel Alexandra), the best sprinter in the country (Fabulous Strike), and will even question the entry of the best female sprinter in the land (Indian Blessing)
Synthetics embellish second class horses. That’s why you have horses like I Want Revenge and Papa Clem becoming top tier types once they leave the synthetics. The only great horse that synthetics have produced is Zenyatta, but if you bothered watching her performance in the Apple Blossom last year, you’d see even she would be even more dominant on a dirt course rather than synthetics.
It “evens the playing field” at the expense of good horses. Have fun watching the BC this year while its “evens the playing field” for Euro’s and turf horses at the expense of the traditional American dirt horse.
How anyone can see synthetic racing as anything other than a bad experiment, is beyond me.
July 15th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Zed, very funny and true. Bummer on the IOU’s. Who the heck would want to go back there?
July 15th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
The way things seem to be going synthetics in California won’t be an issue. Pretty soon there won’t be any racing in the state, period.
July 15th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Let’s see, Bay Meadows gone, Hollywood going, Del Mar on the block by the state, Santa Anita in Magna bankruptcy. That leaves Golden Gate Fields, Fairplex, Los Alamitos and the fairs. Kinda sounds like the racing circuit in, well, maybe Oklahoma. I sure hope those folks committed to California racing have another business or hobby, and I wonder what’ll become of bthe people who depend on California racing for a living.
(Relatively) glad that I race ion New York
July 15th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
I agree with the posters above regarding Priscilla’s opinion about synthetics. And I’ll add that while Tiago isn’t a bad horse, even on synthetics his record is mediocre considering he’s won 5 of his 19 total starts. And he’s never won at distances longer than 9 furlongs regardless of the surface.
How does the goofy outcome of him finishing ahead of Curlin at 10 furlongs make for better sport? Do you also believe that trashing PPs in favor of throwing darts or flipping coins to handicap a synthetic race makes for better sport, too? I approached synthetics with an open mind but they’ve proved so ridiculously unpredictable that I won’t even try to handicap the exotics on that surface any more. Racing is unpredictable by nature but synthetics makes it far worse.
As for the subject of Mr. Paulick’s post - how can SA expect anybody decent to show up at the Breeder’s Cup this year if the connections have to worry about a significant chunk of their purse being essentially stolen by the CA government?
July 15th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Priscilla, consider this - my cheap claimer hates the poly but likes the turf and off track!!!
As far as it being safer for the riders - have you spoken to any of them after taking a spill on the ever so forgiving synthetics? A rider who has been riding for 40+ years took a fall on the poly surface and his comment was that he had never fallen harderd, it felt like hitting blacktop. . . now that’s a forgiving surface . . .
July 15th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Standing on head…..I want revenge did race better on the dirt in New York.
He also broke down with a torn ligament in the right front ankle, running on the dirt in New York. SO YES HORSES DO RUN EASIER ON SYNTHETICS.
Get off your head the blood is rushing
July 15th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
i believe that we are missing the point here. The fact that out of state horses running in the BC are subject to a 7% withholding is a serious matter even with the option of filing for a rebate. Once again we have a direct reflection on the BC management in not providing a due diligence to discover, negotiate and alert the participants to these type of caveats. The fact that we have lawyers running the thing brings additional scrutiny to mind as to what in the hell are they are thinking. The prosecution rests !!!
July 15th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
What crap! If these guys owed the State of California you think they could send them an IOU? Bull!
As far as the surfaces, horses are not man made and neither should the surface they run on. Funny how so many of the “inovations” turn out to do more harm than good.
Why would anyone want to go to Cal. for the Breeders Cup, and pay an unfair 7% tax, plus get an IOU and a BAD surface?
July 15th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Can someone define “RUN EASIER”? Less injuries or what the heck does she mean?
July 15th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Dirt enthusiasts need not worry. Pro-Ride received an IOU for their services and is repossessing the ground up corn flakes. See, everything works out in the end.
July 15th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Come to California for the 2008 Breeder’s Cup!
Win Big Cash!
(Small detail: And be coerced into making a NON-INTEREST BEARING LOAN that does not bear an exact maturity date to the state of California in the form of “withholding taxes” - despite NOT being a resident of the state.)
Come to California for the 2009 Breeder’s Cup!
Win Big Cash!
(Small detail” Be coerced into making a second NON-INTEREST BEARING LOAN…)
July 15th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Funny how every BC-related topic immediately becomes another round of surface-bashing.
I can’t recall any European horseman who ever bitched to this extent about the fact that the BC was marketed as a “World Championship†but regularly forced overseas contenders to compete on notoriously speed-favoring tracks such as CD, Monmouth, or the old SA. And they would have had more of a point.
Breaking News: In-form horses routinely finish in front of out-of-form horses who were a class above them when they were in top-form. That’s a basic handicapping truism which, one would assume, everybody of those “Tiago could never finish in front of Curlinâ€-screamers accepts every day of the year, except for last year’s BC Classic.
Never mind that the other results were perfectly logical, or that there is no 11th commandment reading “The BC must always be run on a speed-favoring track, because everything but an extreme speed-bias isn’t really racing†- if Curlin didn’t win, there obviously must be something wrong with the surface.
I guess there was some weird kind of pre-Pro-Ride in place the day Upset beat Man o’War.
July 15th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
“Plastic” was a toxic and expensive experiment mandated by the CHRB to apply fresh paint onto the crumbling walls of CA racing. Plastic was mandated to avoid exposing obvious causes for the high breakdown rate and the guilty parties which in some instances were themselves or closely related to commissioners and state employees. Plastic was mandated as a quick fix which didn’t tap into the CHRB budget. At the time it avoided confronting drug-loving horsemen and vets and delayed difficult but unavoidable reforms.
I believe that as many horses are suffering from season and career ending injuries on plastic than on dirt. Genuine fatality figures should include all injured - retired horses that were euthanized after 72 hours following injury, those that failed to recover from surgery and others sent to slaughter. To produce true fatality numbers, racing would need the will to discover and face the truth and the Jockey Club would need to assist with tracking all injured - retired horses for six months.
July 15th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Since dumping on California’s financial stupidity is now a nationally recognized and encouraged sport, let’s not let our friends in Pennsylvania chortle too loudly over their legislatures moves to take $100 million out of the Racehorse Development Fund, AKA Slots Cash, to throw at their budget mess. While you can fault California for lots of things, don’t think that it’s the only place suffering from the parliaments of whores.
July 15th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
ghostzapper:
priscilla said, “All horses run easier on synthetics. It’s not that Curlin doesn’t run well over them, it’s that his competition struggles more on dirt than he does.” This means she thinks all horses run better when running on synthetics, but that some horses, like Curlin, who don’t ’struggle’ on dirt as much show less improvement. Her point is silly. I Want Revenge struggled on synthetic, and improved on dirt.
As far as IWR’s injury goes, tell me, what dirt track were The Pamplemousse and Pioneerof The Nile running on when they were injured? Oh wait, they were running on synthetic. If their injuries don’t sully all synthetics, then I Want Revenge’s shouldn’t diminish the dirt.
July 15th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Ray - Doesn’t this qualify as an act of criminal theft from funds being held in escrow?
Numerous lawyers in private practice go to jail for doing this.
If they couldn’t return the money because it had been (illegally) spent, that’s what it looks like.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:52 am
I did know Cali place fast and loose with money won in events in ((that)) State–We won A Hockey Championship in ((that)) State– Our team had A Big Surprise When Our checks came in.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:11 am
It has been common knowledge for months that California is out of money. We were advised before our tax returns were filed that California would issue an IOU for the money they withheld from the Breeders’ Cup purses. This IOU may (or may not) be paid at some future date.
Since this time, the Breeders’ Cup Board reconsidered whether to move the 2009 Breeders’ Cup to another state. They chose to keep the races at Santa Anita Park in California.
Unless the Breeders’ Cup has an understanding with the State of California that this problem will be corrected immediately and will not occur again, I do not understand how they could decide to keep the event in California this year. The Board definitely was not protecting the interests of the owners who are major supporters of the Breeders’ Cup program.
The Board is very concerned about funds for its programs and the level of purses, and yet they let California borrow or possibly keep 7% of the purses won by out-of-state owners who participate at their major event. What was the Board thinking when they left the event in California? Obviously, they were not thinking about the owners.