LOS ANGELES — In a stunning rebuke of Santa Anita's letter threatening to close or sell the track, the California Horse Racing Board voted to grant racing dates for a meeting at Pleasanton in Northern California at the end of this year.

Six commissioners were present to vote Thursday to grant the dates to Golden State Racing, which is essentially the same group that runs the fair circuit. The meet will last 10 weeks from Oct. 19 to Dec. 15.

But not all hurdles were crossed. The Northern California group will have to be granted a license, which means any major hiccups to get the track ready could derail the effort. This is true of any racetrack. The expectation, if things go well, is the track also will be issued a license for the winter and spring of next year. One huge disadvantage is that the Pleasanton track, located at the Alameda County Fair, does not have a turf course. The operators promised a grass course in one or two years.

The meeting was held at Cal Expo in Sacramento with more than 250 people attending, the overwhelming majority in favor of continuing racing in Northern California. The hole in the schedule happened because the Stronach Group, owner of Santa Anita, is closing Berkeley's Golden Gate Fields in June. This was the only agenda item of substance and discussion for almost 3 1/2 hours.

The Pleasanton presentation by Larry Swartzlander, executive director of the California Authority of Fairs, was short on facts and the questioning by the board made it seem as if its hopes for racing dates were not good.

But when 1/ST Racing, a subsidiary of the Stronach Group, made its presentation, the board seized on a letter that Craig Fravel, executive vice-chairman of 1/ST Racing & Gaming, sent in which he said the Stronach Group would do "an analysis of alternative uses for Santa Anita." In short, it was a threat to close or sell the track if it didn't get its way. The letter was first reported by The Los Angeles Times.

Commissioner Wendy Mitchell scolded Fravel for his evasiveness on what purse cuts there might be if the Northern California proposal was passed. She also pointed out that if this issue was so important to Southern Californi, why didn't Los Alamitos send a representative to the meeting? She also wondered why Santa Anita made no effort to reach out to the Northern California group to come up with a solution that would work for everyone.

Commissioner Thomas Hudnut bristled at the thought that it was up to the CHRB to help fix the problems of Santa Anita.

"Setting up the CHRB as the determinant for you to go out of business is really unfair," Hudnut said. "Because if you go out of business, it's because of mismanagement, not because of this board."

But it was commissioner Damascus Castellanos who offered the most stinging assessment of Santa Anita's strategy.

...continued

©2024 Los Angeles Times. Visit latimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.