STRONACH SAYS SANTA ANITA WON’T GO BACK TO DIRT UNLESS…
In a complete surprise to most, Magna Entertainment boss Frank Stronach has announced he plans to keep the Pro-Ride surface at Santa Anita Park despite recent problems with draining the track that have caused numerous cancellations.
Stranger than the decision perhaps is the reason behind the decision. Throughout the bankruptcy process of Magna Entertainment, Stronach has insisted on maintaining ownership of Santa Anita through a different Magna company, MI Developments, despite unloading several other tracks recently. Yet he is saying he will not invest in a new surface until the industry changes its business model.
If he believes racing is broken and won’t do the things necessary to fix the situation at his own track (regardless of your feelings on synthetics, it’s clear there needs to be some sort of surface change at Santa Anita), why is he holding the Arcadia track and California racing industry hostage?
Then come back to the Paulick Report and let us know what you think
Tags: bradford cummings, Daily Bulletin, Frank Stronach, Magna Entertainment, mi developments, Paulick Report, pro-ride, santa anita
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:41 am
Why did Fabulous Frank want Santa Anita back?
Santa Anita will be a Museum with a Petting Zoo before long.
Great Leardeship Frank!
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:19 am
Ray, werent you saying the BC is moving there permanently? Is that still on?
It’s good for gambling. You toss out the most accomplished dirt horses, and play the synth and grass specialists
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:29 am
Perhaps the most telling statement in the article: “Stronach, who’s owned many top horses over the years, currently has none stabled at Santa Anita because he doesn’t like the track.”
It would be funny if this wasn’t a track (and sport) with serious and even fatal consequences from a lack of action.
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:15 am
Stronach is deranged and mentally incompetent.
The CHRB should simply dictate a return to dirt like they did a switch to synthetics.
If he wants to shutter the place then fine…that is the end result unless he sells or dies.
It took a true late life retard to devise the energy drink. Of course, his only objective was to nail the models.
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:05 am
He may have contributed but it is not Frank’s fault horse racing is failing. Where would we be if he didn’t play the game, I would argue a lot worse off.
I wish Frank would have said here is a business model for the industry instead of saying he will not invest in a new surface until the industry changes its business model.
Hopefully CDI and MID can work together again (HRTV) to propose a solid business model. I have faith.
It starts with uniformity.
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:41 am
from the linked article at The Daily Bulletin:
Santa Anita will stick with Pro-Ride for the time being until Stronach gets what he wants - the ability to run the track with less state regulations.
He told the trainers in a two-hour meeting that he won’t dole out the estimated $8 million to $10 million needed for a new surface without assurances he can race at Santa Anita whenever he wants, calling it “free enterprise,” and he also wants a partnership between the tracks and
horsemen.
___________________
Hey folks! Please listen carefully to what Mr. Stronach is saying.
For all of Mr. Stronach’s faults - he is indeed right on the mark on this one.
Horse Racing needs less state regulation. Not just in California but around the U.S.
The states give “permission” to run parimutuel races within their boundaries, but
the states give back little else and leaves it to the rest of the participants to rectify the the various issues in the industry.
As most of us want to see a modern dirt track installed at Santa Anita, at what cost?
Why isn’t the CHRB offering to pay of their mistake through their mandate?
Are they waiting for Santa Anita to request a higher takeout rates so the customers can cover the ineptitude of the state agency known as CHRB?
This is a national issue and an important one for the future of parimutuel racing in the U.S.
Let the racetracks be run the way other businesses are run. With a profit-minded goal.
The best racetracks should survive as supported by horse racing’s customers.
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:43 am
Santa Anita is having their safest meeting in the history of the track….what’s the problem here?
March 2nd, 2010 at 11:49 am
Balanced Brain, it’s easy to have less casualties when you have 4 and 5 horse fields.
Synthetic surfaces were supposed to help California have big fields for years to come and after 3 years where are they?
Think just a little bit about the stuff they tell you to believe!
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:04 pm
Andrew A -
Are you rooting for horse racing to fail at Santa Anita? What good is that?
Who cares what surface a horse runs on as long as it’s safe.
This stupid surface debate is clouding other important issues in horse racing.
For some reason meds & breeding practices are being pushed to the side.
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Kiss CA Racing goodbye. I truly beleive this could be the nail in the coffin for California racing. This is very sad. Nobody wants to run on these tracks. Look at the fields in California. There was a 3 horse race at Golden Gate last week!!
The Horsemen and Horseplayers must get together to do one of two things: Either present a petition to Mr Stronach with thousands of signitures demanding a new surface be put in.
The second idea would be to write to Mr Jerry Moss requesting him to purchase Santa Anita. We need somebody that truly has a vision for racing and Mr Moss has the passion as well as the smarts to turn CA racing around.
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:25 pm
“A group of about a dozen Southland trainers showed up at Santa Anita on Monday to discuss the track’s racing surface with owner Frank Stronach”
This is bizarre. What planet are these trainers living in? The track surface issue is trivial. Take a look at NJ. How many horsemen in NJ are going to be out of job next spring if they move to a 50 day $50 million season? Where are the low and middle level claiming trainers going to go? Will they retire, more to Philly or just pick up unemployment checks?
What’s happening in NJ is because of a broken business model. Why are the trainers in CA so dumb should be my next question? Can’t they see beyond their own noses?
If the business model is not fixed the track surface will be the least of their problems.
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Why should he pay for a new track? Let Shapiro pay for the new track, hes the buffoon that forced a mandate of that junk. Racing is so backwards, somebody should be held responsible and its not Frank Stronach
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Well, I think all players at this point need a reality check. Regardless of what we say or think about everything that’s wrong in racing it’s out of our reach to change anything. We won’t at any time influence the Stronach’s of the industry or the corrupt politicians in every state. Our complaints go back many years now and they all fell on deaf ears and nothing has changed in that respect. We think we are being heard but all we get is lip service. Don’t think for one minute the tracks and ADW’S won’t continue to cater to whales and the elites. What tracks that are left standing anyway and forget about getting a takeout reduction. The whole industry is and has been totally disconnected for a long time now. Creating a central body would be “like trying round up the ants after you stepped into their nest.” Self interest and greed runs ramped in the whole industry.
Think about the obscene purse structure in the Blossom, Monmouth offering a million dollars a day cutting their racing dates in half. Santa Anita forking out five million to Zenyatta’s connections. Will that purse be structured like the Blossom, when they can’t afford to fix the drainage problems they have. Just enter a horse in the Blossom, run dead last and collect a hundred grand. Get the picture? It’s very clear to me, the elites are sucking out as much money as they can like always. Then think about the minipulation of the breeding industry.
There’s no way in hell my money will feed those greedy suckers and I don’t care who wins the Blossom, won’t change my opinion on either horse. Both tracks will lose money and they know it.
We should close our wallets on those races, including Monmouth just to let them know we exist! Ah, that won’t work, players are as divided as the industy with no leaders. Those that profess to be looking out for us have their own agenda. They are all wall street types and computer junkies and have no clue what racing is all about. 2009 got their attention, two great horses made them aware racing is all about the horse. Where the hell have they and the industry been for the last 30 years?
March 2nd, 2010 at 12:34 pm
Brian 5 horse fields and they miss 10 days of racing. Should be pretty safe you boob
March 2nd, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Just a few facts… Frank pulled his horses out of Santa Anita long before synthetics, claiming the dirt track was unsafe. Check back in DRF, when Biancon was his private trainer.
Field size is still increased from the dirt days. Inventory has shrunk 33% with the economic disaster, yet field size is up in So. Cal anyway.
Considering that the track was put in wrong from drainage base to Cushiontrack to ProRide, it is the safest meet in history for SA. What if it had been put in correctly?
Turf Paradise has a dirt track. They have lost 8 racing days to the rains. Why would it be different if we had dirt here? Last time they cancelled on dirt here, they had to watch a horse break down in the first race to be convinced it wasn’t safe. Is cancelling before that happens so wrong???
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:51 pm
Santa Anita’s surface is safe and consistent, and does not need changing.
Stronach is out of his mind. The quickest way to racing extinction in Ca is to operate tracks simultaneously.
Jerry Moss doesn’t know what he is talking about. He says you can’t build strength on synthetics and can’t transfer form to dirt, yet that is exactly what all his horses have done.
And the stupidest thing I heard from him is that he thinks it’s a good idea to have betting facilities at movie theaters! God help us.
March 2nd, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Howard Zucker inquires:
What if it had been put in correctly?
_______________________________________
A: Pro-Ride would still play like grass.
If the current main track is not complementary to the existing turf course,
why not simply put in sod for the main track?
Traditional main track racing must be brought back to Santa Anita.
But who should pay for it ?
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:34 pm
Who should pay for the new track? The Breeders Cup. Frank should cut a deal with the BC and get them to pay for the dirt track. In doing so, the BC can run its event at SA forever. It is going to come to this anyway. Belmont and Churchill are the only other true candidates and they are out with the weather. Guaranteed one of the next two BC’s (at Churchill) will be a cold wet day with soft turf course and a muddy main track. Santa Anita is perfect for the venue long term and the BC should come in and help.
March 2nd, 2010 at 3:41 pm
So Cal offers a crappy product. The racing is bad, the surface is junk, and the stewards are the worst in the country. Probably in any country.
They have rained out more days in the last couple months than I remember them cancelling since I havce been alive. Thats 63 years.
If I wanted to see slow grass horses win races of merit I would move to Ireland.
March 2nd, 2010 at 5:01 pm
Frank Stronach likes the drama………..he’s an old eccentric. Sooner or later, the track surface will be discussed w/the trainers, and I believe he’ll eventually change the surface…but he will do it in his good time. With regard to BC being held forever at SA……..No way! I think it’s only fair to “spread the wealth” and allow other tracks that can handle the BC crowd and have well-maintained tracks….. host it…such as Belmont, one of the best maintained tracks in the country, and Churchill Downs…among a few others. Hopefully, Keeneland will be able to host it if and when this economy ever turns around…they have already done studies and I’m sure would love to host the BC and I do enjoy going to Keeneland. Been to the BC at Belmont in 2005, the 2006 BC at Churchill Downs and the 2007 at NJ/Monmouth. Of the three, only the Monmouth BC had weather problems, primarily on Friday. Belmont is one of the best tracks in the country and deserves to be in the rotation to host a BC. I would never travel to SA for a BC….don’t enjoy air travel these days. Also, I believe the BC should be ONE FULL DAY of racing, not two…tired of all the other races they throw in…it takes away from the truly exceptional races and exceptional Thoroughbreds. Belmont 2005 BC was the best….one day only!
March 2nd, 2010 at 8:39 pm
Howard Zucker:
Please don’t obscure the preconceived illogical conclusions of the synthetic haters with cold hard facts! Facts don’t fit their agenda.
March 2nd, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Stronach wanting to run ‘against’ Del Mar and Hollywood just goes to show you that Stronach is all about Stronach and doesn’t care about the overall health of the Southern California product. He’s not interested in making California a great racing state, he’s all about him.
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:03 pm
Zucker #15.
Bettors don’t like synthetics. Its got nothing to do with safety. Synthetics have not shown they are safer, there is no proof either way. Plastic has been in California for what, 3 years now and the field sizes and quality of the racing is as poor as ever, not to mention the betting handles are suffering because a lot of large players have left for real dirt.
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:11 pm
stilriledup–would you state your reasoning that “there is no proof either way”. give us the stats that have led you to this conclusion.
March 2nd, 2010 at 10:24 pm
All the numbers I have read show a 50% reduction in fatal breakdowns. If it’s safer for the horses it must stay.
Why with all his money and his love of his very expensive horses would Sheik Mo use Tapeta for his track in Dubia?
I believe Franks installation of the drainage system under the Pro Ride surface was done incorrectly as he tried to save money. Tapeta never gets rain out a Golden Gate. He should repair his own shoty workmanship.
March 3rd, 2010 at 12:48 am
The synthetic haters continue to spout a series of myths that have no basis in fact. Here is one glaring example:
Myth: “Bettors don’t like synthetics.”
Oh, really. Then how do you explain the following? According to a recent report in Thoroughbred Times, the opposite has been true. While handle through 2009 had increased 1.28 % at synthetic tracks (not including Presque Isle) since they made the switch, combined handle at all North American tracks in 2009 was 9.9 % lower than in 2008 and 16.68 % lower than in 2006.
March 3rd, 2010 at 1:52 am
#26 very interesting stats. Probably just means some very noisy bettors don’t like synthetics - as I’ve said before - logically it shouldn’t make much difference to them. The best horse on the day should still win most of the time, just as the best horse on the day wins most of the time whatever the conditions. If the way races are run alters then the way of defining the best horse in the race alters. As a bettor you are supposed to calculate which one seems to be the best, and in the event your selection had never run on synthetic yet, and everyone else had, then you could exercise your preogative to not have a bet in that particular race.