Posts Tagged ‘William S. Farish’

 

 

 

By Ray Paulick
Permanently disabled jockeys got a huge boost today with the announcement that the Williams Stamps Farish Fund has pledged $1 million to the Permanently Disabled Jockeys Fund, the organization currently assisting 60 former riders who have been seriously injured in racing accidents.

The president of the Farish Fund is William S. Farish, the owner of Lane’s Farm and vice chairman of the Jockey Club. His pledge, to be annualized with equal payments over four years beginning in 2009, was accompanied by a message of hope that others in the industry will also step up on this issue.

“I’ve made a lot of friends over the last 30 years who are riders,” Farish told the Paulick Report. “They are in a position that if something happens to them, they don’t have the support financially to move forward. There’s a void. I think this is something that everybody connected to our sport ought to be contributing to: owners, breeders, everyone who is involved in some way or another with racing. These are independent contractors, they’re not protected once they go down, and there’s nothing for them to fall back on.”

The PDJF was formed in 2006 with the assistance of the National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA Charities) and several racetracks, including those owned by Magna Entertainment and Churchill Downs Inc. A number of racetracks, owners, corporate sponsors and organizations have supported the PDJF.

It was necessitated after the former Disabled Jockeys Fund administered by the Jockeys’ Guild ran out of money during the disastrous administration of Wayne Gertmenian, who was ousted in November 2005 after virtually sending the organization into bankruptcy over the previous four years. The PDJF now stands alone as a 501(c)3 charity. Nancy LaSala is executive director of the Fund, overseeing its annual operating budget of approximately $800,000.

For more on the PDJF, click here to see the May 29 feature on the organization that was part of the Paulick Report series, Good News Friday Sponsored by Liberation Farm.

Farish said the PDJF has “been on my radar for a while.” There is a separate endowment, created by the Guild, that Farish hopes can be built up to $10-million to $12-million. It currently has about $2 million, but the money cannot be used until it reaches a certain level.

The Williams Stamps Farish Fund has actively supported numerous community and racing organizations, including Grayson-Jockey Club Research Foundation, the Maxwell H. Gluck Equine Research Center at the University of Kentucky, the National Museum of Racing in Saratoga Springs, N.Y., and the Kentucky Derby Museum, among others.

“I’m hopeful and feel like by putting our name behind this very, very important organization, we can help financially and draw attention to the need,” he said.

“We are deeply grateful to Mr. Farish for his commitment to the PDJF and the disabled athletes it supports,” said executive director LaSala said in a press release. “Thanks to his generosity and leadership the PDJF can now focus more attention on building the endowment that will ensure that financial assistance for our disabled riders will always be available.”

Contributions to the PDJF may be directed to: PDJF, P.O. Box 803, Elmhurst, IL 60126. All contributions are tax-deductible. For inquires contact Nancy LaSala at (630) 595-7660. For more information visit www.pdjf.org.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in the Paulick Report.

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

By Ray Paulick
For those of you wondering whether I’d gone into the witness protection program following the announcement of election results for the Breeders’ Cup board of members and trustees (where 10 of those elected were recommended here in an earlier analysis), fear not. As one of my mentors in this business often reminds me, family should be a person’s top priority, and I’ve spent the last couple of days carrying out his advice.

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

By Ray Paulick
“I’m often credited with the motto, ‘Only the paranoid survive.’ I have no idea when I first said this, but the fact remains that, when it comes to business, I believe in the value of paranoia.” – Andrew Groves, founder and former chairman, Intel Corporation.

“Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get me.” Anonymous.

There appears to be a mixture of both paranoia and rational thinking when it comes to how governance over the Breeders’ Cup has evolved in the last decade among the different camps that have fought behind the scenes to control this critically important industry organization.

For most of its 25-plus years, the Breeders’ Cup was run by a small executive committee headed by Jockey Club vice chairman and Lane’s End Farm owner William S. Farish, and later by G. Watts Humphrey, a Jockey Club steward and a partner in many of Farish’s equine interests. Board meetings were perfunctory events where self-perpetuating members of the Breeders’ Cup board did little more than rubber-stamp decisions made by the executive committee. Breeders’ Cup management carried out those directives.

Some breeders grew increasingly frustrated over this “private club” style of leadership and made demands for change: specifically, a more democratically elected Breeders’ Cup board of directors and one that isn’t controlled by a small executive committee. Significant change came in 2005 with amended corporate bylaws and articles of incorporation that allowed breeders who nominate foals and stallions to the program to vote for a board of 39 members and trustees. Those members and trustees would then elect a smaller operating board of directors to guide the organization.

At first blush, it looked as though the individuals who had controlled the Breeders’ Cup (namely Farish and Humphrey) were acceding to a democratic system (or at least one based on one vote per $500 in Breeders’ Cup nominations). But a closer look suggests they may have found ways to tip the scales of the election in their favor. In fact, a Farish has been able to maintain control of the Breeders’ Cup under the new election process, but it’s William Farish’s son, Bill, who has held the title of chairman of the board since the new system was adopted and the first reconfigured board of directors elected in 2006. 

The "election" of Bill Farish as chairman was a fait accompli even before the new board had its first meeting. "We have decided to elect Bill…" several newly elected directors were told on the eve of that first meeting, at which there was little discussion about a chairman. Farish has two years left to be chairman (term limits prohibit anyone serving more than five consecutive years as Breeders’ Cup chairman or vice chairman), and ground work is said to already be under way for Reynolds Bell, who does bloodstock work for Lane’s End, to replace Farish as chairman.

Back to the election of members and trustees. There is a section of the bylaws that permits the standing board of members and trustees to veto anyone voted onto the board by stallion and foal nominators. That authorization hasn’t been used since it was incorporated into the bylaws, but why is it even there? Is it possible this may be used in the event the people in control of the Breeders’ Cup become paranoid and worry that their grasp on power is in jeopardy?

Another example: Why would the current bylaws allow corporate officers (including paid employees) to participate in the election for the board of directors? Whether you are paranoid or thinking rationally, you’d have to assume that the paid officers, if they wanted to keep their jobs, would vote to maintain the status quo. The same goes for the section in the bylaws that allows past presidents to vote in the board of directors election. Currently, James E. Bassett III and D.G. Van Clief Jr. are permitted to vote for the board of directors at the annual meeting of members and trustees. Whenever the tenure of current president and CEO Greg Avioli ends, he will also have the right to vote for members of the board of directors.

Would it be paranoid to suggest that these three officers and two past presidents would be considered “safe” votes for the incumbents, as, represented by Farish and son?

For this year’s election of the board, to be held in July, the three corporate officers have agreed to abstain from voting. That’s a good move to alleviate concerns over conflict of interest, but the clause permitting their vote should be stricken from the bylaws. Past presidents Bassett and Van Clief should also agree not to vote in the election, and there is no reason to include past presidents in this decision making process.

Then there is the matter of the Founding Members, those individuals who put up $10,000 apiece as seed money when the Breeders’ Cup was established. The current founding members are Brownell Combs II (formerly of Spendthrift Farm), William S. Farish (Lane’s End), Jim Friess (appointed by Claiborne Farm’s Seth Hancock, the actual founding member), Brereton C. Jones (Airdrie Stud), John T. L. Jones Jr. (director emeritus of Walmac Farm)and John Nerud. It may have seemed like a good idea at the time to give certain lifetime rights to these individuals, but at least two of these founding members are no longer active in the business and it makes no sense for them to be able to vote annually on the election of board members. This is especially true when you consider the individuals (Sheikh Mohammed, John Magnier, Robert Clay, Tom Simon, Duncan Taylor, among others) who have put up huge sums in nominations and have to stand for election in order to have a vote for the board of directors.

So what we have is a sort-of democracy. One that allows nominators to vote for members and trustees (whose sole authority is to elect a board of directors), but which also says the existing members and trustees can exclude whoever has been elected by those nominators. It’s a democracy that gives current and past paid employees just as big of a say in shaping the board of directors as people who have put millions of dollars into the program and have to stand for election.

To the credit of the Breeders’ Cup, there has been progress (click here to read the Paulick Report article on this year’s election), though it would not have been made without criticism, paranoid or otherwise, of how the current election system is shaped. The old guard that’s run the Breeders’ Cup has come a long way, but there’s more to be done.

Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report

Support the Paulick Report. Make a donation today.

By Ray Paulick
Satish Sanan has never been afraid to speak his mind, whether he’s at a Thoroughbred auction, the racetrack or a corporate boardroom. Still a relative newcomer to this industry (he and wife Anne bought their first yearlings at Keeneland in 1997 for his family’s Padua Stables), Sanan has been a proponent of greater transparency and disclosure in many facets of racing and breeding.

A native of India who was educated in England and is now a U.S. citizen and successful businessman, Sanan was first asked to join the Breeders’ Cup board in 2003. He was elected to the 13-member board of directors when the organization restructured its governance in January 2006. “I’ve seen the good, the bad, and the ugly when it comes to the Breeders’ Cup,” Sanan told the Paulick Report, “but I’ve seen a lot of progress lately.”

If there is progress in the future, Sanan might deserve a large share of the credit. He is head of a strategic planning committee that’s hired a world-class consulting firm to examine virtually every aspect of the Breeders’ Cup and present a strategic plan to the board of directors in July. The committee was his idea, after he criticized the organization for not having a five- or 10-year strategic plan, instead operating tactically on a year-to-year basis and making decisions on what Sanan called “knee jerk reactions” to events.

But while Sanan has been critical of some aspects of the Breeders’ Cup, he strenuously objected to the tone and content of an editorial written by owner-breeder Peter Blum that appeared in the Thoroughbred Times of Jan. 10, 2009, and was referenced here in the Paulick Report. Sanan wrote a rebuttal to Blum that was published in the Jan. 24 edition of the Thoroughbred Times, citing a series of changes and improvements to the Breeders’ Cup since the new board was elected three years ago. (Neither Thoroughbred Times commentary is available online.)

“I felt the (Blum) article was all negative and non-factual,” Sanan told the Paulick Report. “He is objecting to a number of things, but doesn’t back it up with anything, and I tried to go through it step by step and back it up with a lot of data.”

Sanan said there are some who will criticize “whatever the Breeders’ Cup board and its management do. The perception is that it’s still the ‘old guard,’” he added, “that (board chairman) Bill Farish runs it and his dad (William S. Farish of Lane’s End) tells him what to do. But the reality is a lot of people on that board are pretty damned vocal and will say what they want to say. From operations to communications to financial management to the whole structure, I tell you it is so much better than it was five years ago.”

The younger Farish and chief executive officer Greg Avioli worked closely with Sanan in the early stages of the strategic planning process, beginning in August and September. “We asked for volunteers (among the 48 individuals on the Breeders’ Cup board of members and trustees) and got a very positive response, with more than 15 committee members,” Sanan said.

During a personal trip to London, Sanan scheduled an appointment with Spectrum Value Partners, a global consulting firm that was referred to him by Malcolm Glazer, owner of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers of the National Football League and majority owner of the English Premier League football giant Manchester United. Spectrum Value Partners offers strategic advice to a number of telecom and media clients worldwide, and also has a roster of sports clients, including several teams in the English Premier League. They also have had some horse racing clients, according to Sanan, including At the Races television, the Melbourne Cup and Victoria Cup. Click here to learn more about some of the sports consulting done by Spectrum Value Partners.

“We needed a firm that can take a 500,000-mile view and help us put together a five-year plan,” Sanan said. “The Breeders’ Cup needs to put a plan in place, like NASCAR did 10 years ago, something that says, ‘Here is where we want to be in five years, or 10 years.’

“They did a terrific presentation to the board, and the process has started,” Sanan said.

The first step was development of a lengthy questionnaire distributed to the 48 Breeders’ Cup members and trustees. The nearly 70 questions cover considerable ground, including sections on governance, nominations, perceptions about the Breeders’ Cup, comparisons with other sporting events, international issues, external challenges, and expectations about the future. The consulting team from Spectrum Value Partners, led by partner William Field and assisted by Janice Hughes, Richard Mooney and Sam Evans, will then conduct one-on-one interviews with roughly 50 major industry stakeholders from around the world. It will also gather information from racetracks and horseplayers, Sanan said.

In the midst of this, a two-day retreat for the strategic planning committee will be held in South Florida in February.

“One of the things I’ve been critical of is that we rely on one-day of revenue (now two days) with the championship races and on stallion and foal nominations,” Sanan said. “Breeders’ Cup needs to find alternative forms of revenue and not be dependent on foal nominations from breeders, but to somehow do more for breeders. Should we consider multiple cities for the event, like the World Cup does in soccer? We are in the baking stage, but I believe something good is going to come out of this.

“Whether or not it will be implemented remains to be seen.”

Putting together strategic plans is something Sanan has done in all of his businesses. “If you can put together a five-year plan and execute it, it’s very helpful,” he said. “You may have to adapt the plan each year, tweak it a little because of external events, but we’ve always executed these plans in my businesses. For some reason, a lot of people don’t do it in this (the Thoroughbred) industry.

“There is a big difference between running a business and building a business,” he added. “It’s in building and growing and transforming that you learn a great deal. The Breeders’ Cup is a great entity with a good brand name. We should be able to generate a couple hundred million dollars worth of revenue. This can be transformed into a huge, international, highly successful organization. Whether we can get there or not, I don’t know. But as part of the process, I’m going to give it a go.”

Copyright © 2009, 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.

By Ray Paulick

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.

The Jockey Club is also a rich organization, one that is exempt from federal taxes but also has several wholly owned for-profit subsidiaries. The Jockey Club’s 2006 IRS Form 990 states that it registered 37,300 foals that year. The Jockey Club generated $13.2 million in revenue in 2006, the most recent year the figures are available. It claimed $32 million in total assets, including $21.6 million in investment securities. Click here for the Jockey Club Form 990.

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.