Archive for the ‘Jockey Club’ Category

Several things stood out when the results were announced on Tuesday. First, I believe they represent a victory for continuing the trend toward transparency and openness for the organization. There should be no turning back to the days of secrecy with how the industry’s money is being spent at the Breeders’ Cup. Minutes to board meetings should be posted on the Breeders’ Cup web site, information about committees and subcommittees needs to be published, and decisions should no longer be made in a vacuum. I believe the board of directors, which has taken steps in the right direction over the last couple of years, has been put on notice in that regard during this year’s vote by nominators.

Second, I believe the results showed dissatisfaction with the status quo. Two members of the smaller operating board of directors, Don Dizney of Florida and Tracy Farmer, were not re-elected to the larger board of members and trustees. It’s that larger board that decides who to elect for the smaller operating board, and to be a candidate you have to be on the board of members and trustees. Dizney and Farmer will be replaced on the smaller board after having been defeated in the election.

Third, the results show the strength of stallion farms and coalitions, something I wrote about last year. I don’t think any one stallion operation has the votes to elect an individual to the board of members and trustees, but several farms working together can do so. And there was coalition building going on prior to and during this election process.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the leading vote getter among Breeders’ Cup nominees, Richard Santulli, is the same man rejected by a majority of members and trustees voting for the smaller board of directors last year. I wrote then that the members and trustees made a huge mistake in not electing Santulli to the board. He is a man with great energy, enthusiasm for this industry and great business experience that could be put to extraordinarily good use by the Breeders’ Cup. He is chairman of NetJets and often is mentioned as a potential heir apparent to Berkshire Hathaway’s Warren Buffet. Perhaps the “old guard” on the board of members and trustees voted against Santulli because NetJets dropped its Breeders’ Cup sponsorship, or maybe because he is closely associated with Thoroughbred Daily News Publisher Barry Weisbord, who can be a prickly critic of the status quo. It’s also widely believed that Santulli felt the Breeders’ Cup should have sought executive experience from outside of horse racing when current Breeders’ Cup president and CEO Greg Avioli was given the job in 2007. Putting him on the smaller board could add some discomfort to management.

Whatever the reason, the nominators in this election voiced strong disapproval of the vote to keep Santulli off the operating board. Let’s hope he still has the interest in giving his time, energies and insights to the industry and will submit his name for nomination later this month.

There are six open spots on the board of directors, and if dissatisfaction with the status quo and the old guard carries over into that election, we could have a significant change in philosophy on the operating board. As mentioned, the board positions currently held by Tracy Farmer and Donald Dizney are open because they failed to be re-elected to the board of members and trustees. The other four candidates that are up for re-election are Reynolds Bell, Don Robinson (appointed to fill out the remainder of the term held by B. Wayne Hughes, following the decision by Hughes to resign from the board earlier this year), G. Watts Humphrey and Bob Manfuso.

Bell and Humphrey are closely associated with Lane’s End Farm, owned by William S. Farish, the father of current Breeders’ Cup board chairman Bill Farish. For years, Humphrey and the senior Farish were the guiding force of the Breeders’ Cup executive committee, back when the organization practiced limited transparency and operated under the auspices of a self-perpetuating board.

While the old guard from the Jockey Club (Farish is a Jockey Club member, his father-in-law is chairman Ogden Mills (Dinny) Phipps and his father is vice chairman, Humphrey is a longtime member and former steward, and Bell is a member and current steward of the club) did maintain control in the last board election, their grip on power has been weakened. I expect the slate of candidates from opponents of the status quo/old guard to make a concerted effort to defeat Humphrey and Bell in the upcoming election. Sources say Bell, who does extensive bloodstock work for Lane’s End, has been hand-picked by the Farishes to replace Bill Farish as Breeders’ Cup chairman if Farish serves five years, the limit for a chairman under the organization’s current bylaws. He has served three years in that role.

There will be much more here in the coming weeks on the Breeders’ Cup board election, which takes place during a meeting of the newly elected members and trustees on July 9. Candidates seeking a position on the board have until June 30 to state their intention to run.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in the Paulick Report.

Support the Paulick Report. Make a donation today.

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick

It wasn’t until his one-time commanding officer flew to Lubang in 1974 that Onoda gave up the fight.

Waldrop, in his capacity as CEO of the National Thoroughbred Racing Associations, hasn’t fought as long as Hiroo Onoda did, but someone needs to tell him the war is over. The NTRA has about the same relevance and power as the Japanese Imperial Army did after the end of World War II.

It’s not Waldrop’s fault. He came into an untenable situation in December 2006 when the unraveling of the NTRA and Breeders’ Cup relationship was complete and the NTRA was left with little money and even less authority to carry out a mission to be the “league office” for horse racing. An organization that began in 1998 with high hopes and lofty goals of organizing and marketing a dysfunctional business that lacked structure, coordination and a strong central authority — the hallmarks of success for other sports — was, by 2006, a pale shadow of its former self.

What survived of the NTRA after its divorce from the Breeders’ Cup in 2006 was an understaffed press office and an industry lobbying effort in Washington, D.C., and not much more. Illusions of marketing grandeur or meaningful changes in how the sport was structured were gone like the budget the NTRA once had.

Eighteen months into Waldrop’s tenure at the NTRA, the Thoroughbred industry had a serious implosion. The filly Eight Belles died after the finish of the Kentucky Derby with millions watching on television in horror. Compounding the problem, Rick Dutrow, the trainer of Derby winner Big Brown, revealed one of our sport’s dirty little secrets, that anabolic steroids were in rampant use and, shockingly to many people, were perfectly legal. The public outcry was enormous, and the NTRA was ill-equipped to deal with it, because it lacked the authority to speak for the industry over which it had little control.

When hints of a Congressional inquiry surfaced, there was a scramble to react. The industry did what it always does: form committees and make recommendations. Foremost among those was a decision by Waldrop and the NTRA board of directors to create a new entity, the Safety and Integrity Alliance, which drafted an ambitious code of standards on a variety of safety and welfare issues for horses and jockeys. It was and is an admirable document, however meaningless it mostly likely will turn out to be.

Tracks that comply with the code of standards will be accredited by the alliance, sort of a “good horsekeeping seal of approval” that a track owner can frame and hang on his wall. And what about tracks that don’t comply? Well, they’ll have a little extra wall space. That’s the carrot and stick that Waldrop is armed with.

It goes back to something said during the Congressional inquiry held last June, when members of the House of Representatives repeatedly pointed out to Thoroughbred industry leaders how important it was for them to get their act together and establish a meaningful central authority unless they wanted the federal government to do it for them. After Alan Marzelli, the president of the Jockey Club, testified about some of the safety recommendations his organization was making to the industry, he was asked how the Jockey Club intended to have its recommendations adopted.

Marzelli’s response: “We believe in the power of persuasion.”

The power of persuasion (aka, committee recommendations) is what has kept this industry from realizing its potential as a major league sport. The harmless carrot and stick that Waldrop now carries in his briefcase is about as powerful as the army that Hiroo Onoda commanded on Lubana island for all those years after World War II.

Onoda survived, which I’m afraid is about all Waldrop and the NTRA and the rest of the racing industry can do with our current structure (or lack thereof). Maybe, just maybe, if enough tracks comply with the Safety and Integrity Alliance’s code of standards, we can stop the bleeding that’s been going on for some time, long before Eight Belles took her last breath or Rick Dutrow uttered his last insult. But stopping the bleeding is not a cure for what ails us.

What we have isn’t working. What we need are fewer organizations and fewer committees, more followers and fewer (but stronger) leaders. Why, someone pointed out to me the other day, do we need separate organizations like the NTRA, the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, the Jockey Club, the Breeders’ Cup, the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, the Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association and so many others? He answered his own question: because none of those groups is willing to cede authority and lose whatever little fiefdom they control.

Waldrop keeps fighting, seemingly against all odds. When racing’s obvious problems were brought up twice recently in the New York Times, first by sports columnist William Rhoden and then by turf writer Joe Drape, Waldrop fired back in a blog at the NTRA’s web site, defending the Safety and Integrity Alliance and pointing out progress that had been made since the death of Eight Belles. He even tried to incite an angry mob to join his army and attack the messengers at the New York Times for the audacity of their observations.

It was rather pitiful. I’m not sure that Waldrop, like Hiroo Onoda, is much more than an army of one.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Sign up for our Email flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.

Alan Marzelli, the Jockey Club’s president and chief operating officer, declined to comment when asked by the Paulick Report about the company’s possible entry into the tote business.

It makes perfect sense for the Jockey Club to take over yet another segment of the Thoroughbred industry, though it would be a move that is not universally supported. Would its entry into the tote business be a case of merely doing what’s right for the industry, or an opportunity for empire building by the Jockey Club, which already has six for-profit divisions? Those divisions are Jockey Club Information Systems (a data provider to industry publications, sale companies, and others); equineline.com (which sells breeding and racing statistical reports); Equibase (which sells past performance information to Daily Racing Form and for programs sold at racetracks and provides some free information to the public); TrackMaster (which sells customized handicapping information); InCompass (which bills itself as a technology solutions company for the industry and is involved in such areas as racetrack paymaster accounts); and TJC Technology Services (which provides technological infrastructure and support for the various Jockey Club companies).

These Jockey Club companies are all inter-related. For example, Jockey Club Information Services and equineline.com require pedigree information, which is provided by the Jockey Club’s registration department. Racing results from Equibase are fed into TJCIS, equineline, and Trackmaster products for consumers and into software applications in racetracks. A bet processing or tote company and an account wagering division currently are missing pieces in a Jockey Club strategy to cover as many of the industry’s bases as possible. The various companies must pay for the data, but the money essentially shifts from one pocket to another.

Let’s look a little more closely at the state of the tote industry. The three existing companies – Scientific Games Racing (Autotote), AmTote and United Tote – each has roughly one-third of the North American market. All have been struggling for years, in part because racetracks have played one company against another in contract negotiations and have marginalized their business. As a result, they have not made the kind of profits that lead to substantial investment in research and development, and the end product has been one that is technologically inferior and suspect in its ability to maintain absolute integrity in wagering pools.

All three companies are for sale. AmTote, which Magna Entertainment acquired for $17.4 million in a two-phased purchase agreement in 2003 and 2006, is part of that company’s bankruptcy filing. Last month, Scientific Games, a company that makes most of its money in lotteries, hired a financial consultant to look into selling its pari-mutuel division, formerly known as Autotote. Youbet.com, an account wagering company that has not been profitable, paid $49 million for United Tote in 2005 (at least two times higher than the appraised value of some industry insiders). One year ago, Youbet.com officials said they were hoping to find a buyer for United Tote.

At this stage, a purchase by the Jockey Club of United Tote seems the most likely, and sources say a deal could be announced in the coming weeks. The company has contracts with the New York Racing Association, which walks in lockstep with the Jockey Club. United Tote also serves Keeneland, whose president, Nick Nicholson, was instrumental in the development of the “family of companies” strategy when he worked as executive director of the Jockey Club. United Tote has contracts with the other Kentucky racetracks, including Churchill Downs, which employs AmTote at the other racetracks it owns.

All of the uncertainty involving the three leading tote companies comes at a time when the integrity of the Thoroughbred industry’s pari-mutuel wagering systems is being questioned by racing commissions, track operators, and, perhaps most importantly, horseplayers. Autotote, in particular, has been at the center of several controversies, including the 2002 Breeders’ Cup pick six scandal when three of the company’s employees had the only winning ticket and were in line for a $3-million payout. It was discovered they hacked into the system and processed their pick six tickets after the first four races had been run.

Racing executives familiar with the tote business suggest that United Tote may have the best tote machines, while the back end or software infrastructure for AmTote is the most advanced. Scientific Games is viewed as the laggard of the three companies, from a technology standpoint.

SHADES OF EQUIBASE?
This all sounds a bit similar to when Equibase was created in 1990. The Daily Racing Form had been owned by Walter Annenberg’s Triangle Publications for well over a half-century when he sold it to Rupert Murdoch’s News America Corp. in 1988, ending what had been a very cozy relationship between the Form and the racing industry. Whether this upstart Aussie (whose publishing empire includes the New York Post, Fox and other major media outlets) upset Jockey Club pooh-bahs like chairman Ogden Mills (Dinny) Phipps or they were worried about price-gouging or additional changes in the Form’s ownership will probably never be known. But under the banner of the racing industry collecting and owning its own data (versus a private company like Daily Racing Form doing it), Equibase was established in the imposing shadow of the Jockey Club.

At the time, there were pronouncements that the industry needed to provide more information to fans. Alan Marzelli, then the chief financial officer of the Jockey Club, said the “promotion and betterment of racing is behind the decision” to start Equibase. David Haydon, a longtime Jockey Club employee and the first Equibase president, took it one step further, saying the new company would “address racing’s need for fan base expansion.” Jockey Club chairman Phipps himself said, “Everyone in the industry realizes we have to make a day at the races more enjoyable and less intimidating for the general public.”

Equibase has succeeded as a business. Now, instead of competing with the Daily Racing Form, which eventually closed its track and field data collection operations, the Form is its biggest customer, purchasing past performance information to provide in its daily newspaper and for its online products. Most racetrack programs now include past performances – at a fee to consumers.

But where exactly has Equibase succeeded in expanding the fan base or making the races less intimidating?

Other sports, from Major League Baseball to the National Football League, National Basketball Association, and the PGA Tour, provide extensive data at absolutely no cost to the fans. This information is used by fans to make watching the sports action that much more enjoyable, and allows them to be more informed, whether it’s for their own general knowledge or to participate in the fantasy leagues that have become so popular, especially with young people.

Racing, or more specifically Equibase, insists on charging its fans for some of the most basic data. Lifetime past performances of a single horse cost a consumer $8; lifetime stats on a jockey or trainer cost $7 on Equibase’s sister site, equineline.com. If you want career statistics for a baseball player, just go to Google and type “Barry Bonds stats” and you’ll have a plethora of choices for free.

If you want to look at a simple race chart that’s more than a few days old, Equibase charges you $1.50. You want the box score of an NBA game from last month? Go to NBA.com, and click on scores. They’ll provide you with more stats on the game than you could possibly ever want – at no charge.

“It is symptomatic of our industry being a step behind,” said one racing executive who has grown wary of Equibase’s profit-driven motive and thinks the company has strayed from its original mission. “It’s short-term thinking. If our objective in racing is for the horseplayers to win, we should do everything we can to help him, and increase the churn. That’s where the revenue for our business should come from, not from the statistics the horseplayer needs.”

Hank Zeitlen, the current president of Equibase, said fans can get deals for free past performances from some of the account-wagering companies (which, of course, have to pay Equibase to buy the data) and there is often past performances for “feature races of the week” that Equibase makes available at no charge.

 “If you look back to 1990 and see what information was available and how it was made available, we’ve accomplished a lot,” said Zeitlen, who added that it’s unfair to compare racing with other sports. “The economic models of other sports are different than ours,” he said. “Each of those leagues has revenue coming from television. We don’t have that. And Equibase is not a handle-driven business.”

Zeitlen overlooked the fact that the tracks in the TRA that own two-thirds of Equibase (the Jockey Club owns one-third) are handle driven businesses.

JOCKEY CLUB’S THIRST FOR PROFITS
Perhaps it’s this thirst for profits that makes more than a few people wary that the Jockey Club may be getting into the tote business. There are some in that industry who say the Jockey Club, despite its claims, is not a very savvy technology company, and that its entry into the business would not be a giant leap forward – particularly if they wind up with a monopoly. Others believe the Jockey Club should focus on its core business, registering foals, and let private enterprise take care of other segments of the industry.

It was 10 years ago that Tim Smith, then commissioner of the National Thoroughbred Racing Associations, tried to forge a deal between the North American racing industry and IBM Global Services, which promised to modernize the tote system. An IBM executive told the Jockey Club Round Table in 1999 that he had never seen an industry so far behind in technology. The IBM proposal was blown up by some tracks who didn’t see the need for change or improvements in the industry’s tote and simulcasting technology.

Ten years later, we’re even farther behind. It’s clear something must be done to guarantee that the process of handling wagers is improved. If not, the industry will continue to lose the confidence of horseplayers, many of whom are convinced that past-posting of bets and tampering within wagering pools is all too common.

Is the industry ready for the Jockey Club’s family of for-profit companies to grow? Do we really have a choice?

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Support the Paulick Report. Click here to make a donation today.

Sign up for our Email flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.

One of the first projects that landed on my desk when I joined the Thoroughbred Times as managing editor in 1988 was a feature story on the Jockey Club, the organization historically entrusted with registering Thoroughbreds and being the keeper of the Stud Book. The article was accompanied by a lengthy mail-in survey of Thoroughbred Times readers. The story and the survey results were of great interest, for at the time I had no idea how broadly the Jockey Club reached across the entire industry and how unhappy rank and file breeders then were with the organization’s service, pricing and activities.

It should be noted that there was an agenda to the article. The Thoroughbred Times was then owned by Richard F. Broadbent, whose Bloodstock Research Information Services was facing new competition from a subsidiary of the Jockey Club. There were questions about whether a tax-exempt breed registry like the Jockey Club should create a subsidiary to compete with a private enterprise company like BRIS, which supplied statistical data to breeders, owners and various publications. A few years later, the Jockey Club helped form another for-profit company, Equibase, which competed with the Daily Racing Form to collect racing results (the Form eventually closed its track and field operations and became Equibase’s biggest customer). The Jockey Club has since started other for-profit businesses.

One of the things that struck me was the comparison between how the Jockey Club and the American Quarter Horse Association conduct their business. The Jockey Club is clearly a breed apart from its Quarter Horse counterpart. The AQHA, then and now, is a relatively transparent organization, one whose membership is open and whose leadership is democratically elected through regional and national elections. There is a board of directors, from which comes an executive committee and elected officers. The AQHA has term limits that prevent individuals from maintaining longstanding control of the organization. The AQHA web site publishes a great deal of information about its governance and membership rules, which can be read here.

By comparison, membership in the Jockey Club has always been by invitation only. Click here for an explanation about membership. It is "governed" by a rotating board of stewards, though that term is used loosely since the Jockey Club has been under the firm control of just two men since 1982, when Ogden Mills “Dinny” Phipps was named chairman and William S. Farish became vice chairman (pictured left). Click here to see the current list of Jockey Club members, stewards, and officers.

The AQHA is a huge organization that maintains the registration of more than five million Quarter Horses, with 135,000 registered in 2007 alone. There are nearly 350,000 AQHA members. According to Internal Revenue Service Form 990 for tax exempt organizations, the AQHA generated $54.4 million in revenue in the 2005-06 fiscal year, the most recent year available. At that time it had $73 million in total assets, including nearly $49 million in investment securities. Click here for the AQHA Form 990.

The AQHA, like the Jockey Club, maintains pedigree records, but also promotes the Quarter Horse breed through horse shows and publishes three magazines (the Quarter Horse Journal, the Quarter Horse Racing Journal, and America’s Horse) that had total circulation of over 400,000 in 2006.

The AQHA charges as little as $25 to register a Quarter Horse foal if done within seven months of birth. The organization is based in Amarillo, Texas, and its highest-paid officer, longtime executive vice president Billie G. Brewer, earned an annual salary of $424,928; treasurer Lee Callaway was paid $221,965 (both figures are from the IRS Form 990.) The two executive salaries represented 5.5% of the AQHA’s total payroll of $11,725,124.

In addition, the Jockey Club claimed that its subsidiaries generated over $25.7 million in income for 2006 ($13.7 million by TJC Holdings Inc. & Subsidiaries, which is engaged in information services and software solutions; $4.9 million by The Jockey Club Racing Services, for the collection of Thoroughbred racing data; and $7.1 million by The Jockey Club Technology Services, Inc., for its technology services). Click here for more information on those subsidiaries, which include shared ownership in the data collection company Equibase, and full ownership of TJCIS (The Jockey Club Information Systems  and data supplier Equineline), and InCompass Solutions, which provides software systems for racetracks.

The Jockey Club’s IRS Form 990 lists its annual Round Table Conference in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., publication of its Fact Book, and providing financial support to other industry organizations among reasons for its tax-exempt status, in addition to its breed-registry responsibilities.

The Jockey Club charges $200 to register a Thoroughbred foal, considerably higher than the AQHA’s fee. Its last increase was in 2000, when it was upped from $175. The Jockey Club, which for many years was known as the “New York Jockey Club,” relocated its registration department from New York to Kentucky in 1988. 

Its highest-paid officer is president Alan Marzelli  (pictured, left), who earned $672,796 in 2006, 58% more than the AQHA’s top executive. The Jockey Club has three executive vice presidents: James Gagliano, with a salary of $256,885; Daniel Fick, $243,546; and Laura Banllaro, $243,804. IRS Form 990 also lists but does not itemize another $542,776 in 2006 pension plan contributions for those officers. The salaries represented 39.1% of the Jockey Club’s total payroll of $3,626,092 (exclusive of its subsidiaries, each of which have its own executive staff and employees).

The Jockey Club’s 2006 tax return came to light recently when an entity called “CTBA Boardwatch” (which generally concerns itself with the inner workings of the California Thoroughbred Breeders Association) distributed IRS Form 990 to numerous individuals. A number of those people contacted the Paulick Report and were outraged over the salaries paid to Marzelli and his three executive vice presidents.

I don’t know the going rate of executive compensation for a tax-exempt company in New York, where three of the four Jockey Club officers are based (only Dan Fick, a former AQHA executive, is located in the Lexington offices of the Jockey Club). Perhaps those numbers are perfectly in line with other non-profits. I would imagine, though, that the going rate for an executive staff is higher in New York than it would be in Kentucky.

It does seem strange to me that the Jockey Club continues to maintain a nicely appointed office in the high-rent district of midtown Manhattan, on 52^nd Street just off Park Avenue. I doubt that it’s gotten many walk-in customers seeking to register their foals since the registration department was moved to Lexington more than 20 years ago. It is conveniently located near the headquarters of Bessemer Trust, the Phipps family-run wealth management firm whose offices are just a few blocks away on Fifth Avenue.

I asked Jockey Club communications officer Bob Curran why the Jockey Club continues to have a New York office 20 years after the organization’s primary function was relocated to Lexington. A few days later I received the following statement from Jockey Club president Marzelli: “Beginning in 1989, when the first of our commercial subsidiaries was incorporated, The Jockey Club has created and developed a group of for-profit subsidiaries and strategic partnerships, each designed to serve specific segments within the industry by utilizing highly efficient, state-of-the-art technology platforms. We have built and managed this growing list of technology-based companies with a corporate office based in New York and operations centers in Lexington, Ky., and Mountain View, Calif.”

That didn’t really answer the question “why a New York office is necessary” although it did tell me something I didn’t know; namely, that the Jockey Club now has a division in California’s high-tech Silicon Valley town of Mountain View.

The bigger question is who is the Jockey Club accountable to. Is it simply Phipps and Farish and their hand-picked stewards? Is the breeders who have paid registration fees over the 100-plus years of its existence? Is the Thoroughbred industry at large? If there is accountability to the industry, why isn’t there more transparency in the operational and financial activities of the Jockey Club and its various subsidiaries? Why is its membership so restrictive and its governance so secretive?

James Gagliano, one of the aforementioned executive vice presidents, touched on some of these questions, during the Jockey Club Round Table in August in which he discussed some of the activities of the Jockey Club and its affiliate for-profit companies. Click here to read Gagliano’s remarks.

Are you satisfied that the Jockey Club is properly and responsibly representing the best interests of the Thoroughbred industry? Let us know in the comment section below, or take the Daily Paulick Poll about the Jockey Club and its activities, located on the left-hand column of the Paulick Report home page.

Copyright © 2008, The Paulick Report

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary.

“How do you corral 30,000 horses, having taken them off the range where they lived, and just say ‘night night’?” asked Madeleine Pickens, the animal-loving wife of billionaire T. Boone Pickens and better known in Thoroughbred racing circles as the former Madeleine Paulson, who with her late husband, Allen Paulson, developed one of the most successful Thoroughbred breeding and racing operations of the 1980s and ‘90s. Allen Paulson died in 2000, and she remarried in 2005.

In recent years, Madeleine Pickens has spent sleepless nights agonizing over the plight of the American West’s wild mustangs, which have been rounded up and held in pens in increasing numbers over the last eight years by cowboys hired by the federal government’s Bureau of Land Management after complaints from cattlemen that the horses were depleting grazing areas. As federal funding for the wild horses was squeezed and the number of people interested in adopting them declined, BLM officials were faced with an unpleasant option: allow the horses to be sent to slaughterhouses or perform mass euthanasia.

The story of these wild horses – “America’s animal” she calls them – hit Madeleine Pickens’ radar screen at a time when she was putting considerable personal resources of time and money into efforts to end the slaughter of all horses. She studied the issue, then hired a polling company to gauge public opinion on the slaughter of horses for human consumption, finding out that seven in 10 Americans oppose the practice. She then paid for anti-slaughter advertisements in the New York Times, lobbied members of Congress and worked with other groups and individuals. Ultimately, however, those efforts ended in frustration because, she said, the pro-slaughter lobby, assisted by the cattle industry, was simply too entrenched with Washington, D.C., powerbrokers. Anti-slaughter bills passed by the U.S House of Representatives were stopped in the Senate. And she was outraged that so many Thoroughbred industry leaders failed to help.

“I would lay in bed, crying, and say, ‘How can we stop this? What can I do?” she told the Paulick Report. “I’m not a religious person, but a spiritual one, and I swear to God that I prayed for an answer.”

One night, she said, the answer came to her. “Why not buy a ranch and give every horse a home?”

Pickens’ plan for a horse sanctuary would be similar to how cattlemen got access to millions of acres of federal land, she said. “This is how the cattlemen got going,” she said. “They got the BLM land attached to their ranches with sweetheart deals. They pay a very low lease for it, and most aren’t even using the land now.”

Pickens has a private foundation in the formative stages, a key to which will be tax credits for donors, she told the Washington Post. She met with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, where half of the wild horses are held. Pickens isn’t prepared to say how much she needs to raise for an endowment to make the plan work, but she is confident she will be able to make it happen. She envisions corporate sponsors, campgrounds and cabins for tourists to come and observe the horses. “There is so much support for this right now,” she said. “It’s amazing the number of calls and emails I’ve received from people who want to help or go to work there.” (Click here to see the official Madeleine Pickens Web site.)

She estimated that she will need upwards of a million acres, and is currently in negotiations on three different properties. She took her plan to BLM officials, who leaked the story to the Washington Post, prematurely, in her opinion. “The story got out way too early while I’m working on the land deal,” she said. “The land people may suddenly say, ‘Ohhh, deep pockets,’ and become unreasonable. I’m trying to  be responsible and do the right thing here. I’m very confident that next year this whole thing will be in place.”

Pickens said she felt like someone who’s been trying to walk through quicksand the last couple of years and can’t seem to get out of it. “Nothing was happening, and you can’t believe the idiocy of it all,” she said. “Why do people not get it?”

She grew weary of trying to work for a solution in Congress. “The people in the racehorse industry weren’t on board and we had all those cattlemen against us,” Pickens said. “We really couldn’t win. I give the people who have been fighting this for so long a lot of credit.

“I think this will work because I came up with a private-sector solution rather than trying to put a bill through Washington where politicians could have their way and destroy it. When the bureaucrats do it, it costs too much and doesn’t work. With private individuals, you’re not indebted to every group or compromised by lobbyists.”

Her proposal has been widely applauded, within the BLM and the general public. While her husband, a well-known corporate raider, oilman and philanthropist, has been a highly visible proponent for a plan to make America energy independent, Madeleine Pickens became an overnight celebrity because of her desire to save the horses. The week her plan went public, ABC’s World News Tonight named her “Person of the Week.” Some outside of the horse business remembered her as the heroine (pictured, left) who rescued hundreds of abandoned cats and dogs in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina.

“I knew people cared, but I was somewhat stunned at the way this story took off like a wildfire,” she said. “It surprised me, but it really shouldn’t have."

A PLACE FOR EX-RACEHORSES, TOO
Pickens said the ranch will not just be a refuge for wild horses. She wants it to be all inclusive for different breeds, and especially ex-Thoroughbred racehorses that often end up unwanted or sold to killer-buyers who send them off for slaughter in Canada or Mexico. There are no remaining horse slaughterhouses in the United States.

“We’re going to have enough land where I don’t know how we can say no to anything,” she said. “It won’t happen overnight. But I want to give the Thoroughbred industry an opportunity to do something here, and to make people feel that they are being responsible for the animals in their sport. I’m going to ask the industry for their support. It’s going to be difficult for the racing industry to change their way of thinking. With this, I hope they can say they have an exit strategy for their horses.”

Pickens is still angry over the National Thoroughbred Racing Association’s refusal to support recent anti-slaughter legislation in Congress. She was one of a large number of major industry participants to sign a letter written by owner-breeder Josephine Abercrombie to members of Congress stating their support of anti-slaughter legislation and their disapproval of the NTRA’s position. “The NTRA had to compromise themselves with Goodlatte (Virginia Rep. Bob Goodlatte, former chairman of the House Agriculture Committee and now ranking member), who has helped them with gambling legislation but has close ties to the cattle industry,” she said. “By getting behind my proposal, they won’t have to worry about the threat of someone like Goodlatte.”

The Jockey Club is another group that has disappointed Pickens. “They register 35,000 horses a year and they say those horses are worth millions and millions of dollars,” she said. “And they come up with some plan where people can give a few dollars when they register a foal and the Jockey Club says they’ll match up to $200,000 a year. This is the same old b.s. — $200,000 is a peanut. How dare they say this is all they’re going to put into a retirement fund for all the horses who don’t make it. It’s all part of what makes the system not work.

“In every business it’s leadership, and we’ve had horrible leadership in racing. Will Farish (vice chairman of the Jockey Club and owner of Lane’s End Farm, where Pickens retired Grade I winner Rock Hard Ten to stud) can be a good guy. He’s head of this and head of that, and people look up to him. But here’s a man who won’t go against slaughter. Why? Is it because he’s from Houston, where so many of the cattlemen are from?”

Pickens, who said she has withdrawn from the racing business largely because of its inaction on this issue, said she thinks the Thoroughbred industry can learn a great deal from how her proposal has been embraced by the public.

“Racing people can learn that they have a chance to endear the public to them,” she said. “They get a few gamblers here and there, but they are in trouble because they seem to have lost sight of the animal who is the athlete. They have too many fatalities and too many injuries that happen in public on national television. When that happens, it exposes the fact they have no exit strategy for the horses.

“Again, there is no leadership. Those who have been in it for a long time have done nothing to endear people to the business. Now they have an opportunity like the BLM has to try and resolve one of their problems.”

I asked Pickens why she is doing all this, what is driving her to take on a project so big?

She told me of how she emigrated to the United States from Iraq in 1969 because she wanted “to come to a new world and do something with my new country.”

But then she confessed to another reason, something that haunted her when she first learned about the horrors of slaughter: “Maybe it’s because I’m ashamed that I was in the industry for years and never knew there was a slaughterhouse for so many horses at the end of the day. I’m so ashamed I never knew. And people who know about it and aren’t doing anything, they should be ashamed, too.”

Copyright © 2008, The Paulick Report

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world. 

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick

Bob Evans, president and chief executive officer of Churchill Downs Inc., said during a Friday morning press conference at the company’s flagship track in Louisville, Ky., that the CDI board of directors discussed the possibility of reducing the field size of the Kentucky Derby during a regularly scheduled meeting in New Orleans last week.

The Derby’s maximum field size of 20 is under scrutiny in the wake of the death of the filly Eight Belles in last year’s Derby, even though her fatal injuries occurred after the finish and apparently were unrelated to the number of runners or trouble she may have encountered in the race. The Derby traditionally has the largest field of any race in the United States. No Derby starter has fallen during the running of the race since 1970, when Holy Land clipped heels and fell going into the far turn.

By contrast, Breeders’ Cup fields are limited to 14 starters.

Maximum field size of 14 horses and the prohibition of fillies running against males were considerations in an original discussion document circulated by the National Thoroughbred Racing Association to industry leaders who formed what ultimately came to be known as the NTRA Safety and Integrity Alliance.

Field size or sex limitations were not part of the final recommendations of the NTRA Safety and Integrity Alliance Pledge, which can be viewed by clicking here.

Evans said CDI has devoted a great deal of time and resources to examine a wide range of safety issues since the death of Eight Belles and has adopted all of the safety recommendations made by committees formed earlier this year by the Jockey Club and Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association.

The CDI board discussed the reduction of the field size, Evans said, though he gave no indication whether a change will be made. “For now, it’s the way it’s always been,” he said. Nominations to the Triple Crown races, including the Derby, state that the size of the Derby can be “up to 20 horses.”

A reduction in field size might not be greeted favorably by horse owners and trainers who throughout the winter and spring closely follow whether their 3-year-olds are in the leading 20 contenders, based on money earned in graded or group stakes races. Churchill recently announced a marketing agreement with Kempton racecourse in England that will guarantee one spot in the Derby field to the winner of the Kentucky Derby Challenge Stakes, a 1 1/8-mile race on Polytrack, on March 18.

Handle on the Derby would also decline in the event of a reduction in the field size. Evans said Churchill has researched Derby handle in relationship to field size but would not say how much handle might fall. A reduction from 20 to 14 starters would also cost Churchill Downs $300,000 in lost entry and starting fees ($25,000 to enter and $25,000 to start).

Evans discussed the Derby field size and other safety measures following a media briefing announcing that Oaks and Derby ticket prices, with a few exceptions, would be frozen in 2009. “Our slowing economy is having a pronounced effect, and many of our customers have been affected in various ways as well,” Evans said. “Although the Kentucky Derby occupies an elite spot in the world of sports and tickets are typically in high demand, we want to keep our price points at the same level to help our customers in this challenging economic climate.” Click here to read more about the ticket price freeze.

The only exceptions will be scheduled price increases in the 30-year personal seat license program, which are coming off a three-year price freeze; some luxury suites and Marquee Village accommodations; and reserved seats in the infield.

Churchill Downs is also offering the opportunity for on-track customers to buy Derby reserved seats in a sweepstakes running each day from tomorrow (Saturday, Nov. 22) through Nov. 29. Individuals whose names are drawn will be eligible to buy two Derby tickets ranging in price from $88 to $207. (Derby tickets range in price from $88 for infield reserved seats to $693 on millionaire’s row.) One thousand of the tracks 55,000 seats are being offered in the sweepstakes. For more details, click here.

Copyright © 2008, The Paulick Report

Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world. 

Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick

Investors haven’t been wild about Churchill Downs stock (CHDN), which closed at $46.45 Friday and hasn’t seen $50 a share since May 1. It’s 52-week high, $57.55, was achieved last December.

CEO Bob Evans and the TrackNet Media Group that was formed with Magna Entertainment to broker simulcast deals has refused to talk seriously with the Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Group, which is negotiating account wagering contracts with racetracks on behalf of local horsemen’s groups such as the Kentucky or Florida Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Associations. In fact, Churchill has filed anti-trust lawsuits against the organizations. Evans may be hoping that the longer he puts off dealing with the THG, the less resolve the horsemen will have to stick together in attempting to forge a better contract on account wagering.

That strategy doesn’t appear to be working. To the contrary, it looks more like Churchill Downs’ partner in TrackNet Media is bailing. Frank Stronach, the chairman and acting CEO of Magna Entertainment, sent out a press release a couple of weeks ago saying that Magna recognizes the THG as a beneficial national organization and is negotiating with THG.

SPEAKING OF WAGERING, hats off to Bloodhorse editor Dan Liebman for calling out the Jockey Club after it capitulated to Evans and to Churchill Downs’ biggest shareholder, Dick Duchossois, and decided to no longer provide the trade magazine with meet ending pari-mutuel handle figures. Churchill tracks under Evans and Duchossois have said that handle is no longer a meaningful statistic. Oh, really?

The decision by the Jockey Club to no longer provide this key economic indicator was disgraceful, but I wouldn’t hold out any hope the poobahs there will change their mind.