The Boondoggle that is the NTRA Safety Alliance

Tweet If you're a follower or occasional reader of this blog, you probably know that I have been an outspoken critic of the results of the NTRA Safety and Integrity Alliance. I had been wondering where this initiative, which commenced in October 2008, was headed after Churchill Downs pulled out of the NTRA earlier in 2010, and since I hadn't heard of any tracks achieving accreditation in recent months. Well, I found out through reading the Report of the Independent Monitor released yesterday by the Washington DC law firm Akin Gump et al.

While 55 tracks aligned to show support for the Alliance back in 2008, only 25 have actually ponied up and undergone the review of the Code of Standards established. Only five (5) went through the process in 2010, which had to be a very humbling statistic for the NTRA, and none since July. The report cites "economic challenges," wherein "tracks are struggling to remain financially viable." To the credit of the Alliance, a sliding scale for fees was implemented to entice the smaller or "B" level tracks to comply. However, none of these smaller tracks (other than Finger Lakes) appears to have jumed on that train.

The proof will be in the pudding in 2011, as the initial 19-20 tracks will be up for re-accreditation as the 2-year window expires (and we know Churchill won't be one of them).

The reasons for the program not catching on or increasing in breadth isn't earth shattering:

1) The Program Has No Teeth. - There is really no motivation for tracks to participate. In essence their are no prohibitive factors for not participating. Even the independent monitor states the obvious in its recommendations to "Create Incentives for Racetracks to become Accredited." One suggested option by the monitor included "engaging state regulatory authorities to consider requiring accreditation as a condition of licensure." Good luck with that.

2) The Program is Bleeding Cash. - One look at the NTRA's 2009 Annual Report shows that it lost over $500M (or $25K/track audited) in both 2009 and 2008 (all in start-up costs, no revenue was earned per the Annual Report). Again the monitor highlighted the budget issues in its report stating there is only one full-time employee and all of the rest of the monitoring/testing is performed by outsourced industry consultants. To have a fully rigorous process, you just can't get away charging the small fees that are being charged, and now a sliding scale can only lead to lower revenues. The program is clearly bleeding.

3) Safety > Integrity. - The entire program was a knee-jerk reaction (with no dedicated funding) to the Eight Belles incident and has had almost a 90% emphasis on safety. One read of the report shows that wagering integrity, which only was introduced into the Standards Code in 2010 (See Section III of the report), attained only two paragraphs in the entire 12-page report. And you're trying to endear yourself to the horseplayer how? The monitor calls for more education of fans to the Alliance's work, recommending that "if fans understand what Alliance accreditation means, they may only want to wager on Alliance facilities." Ok, Tommy, can I get some of what you're smoking?

I'll speculate that possibly 50% of the 2009 accredited tracks sign up for the next go-round, depending on the arm-twisting that surely will occur. Has it helped safety, yes, but at what cost? Most business plans and decisions are made with a cost-benefit analysis. Are there any tangible and measurable results from the process? The "independent" report has statistics, but it provides the economic excuses for non-participation showing declines in handle, purses and race days. How about how this program has increased safety, such as reduced on-track injuries or lowered workers compensation claims experience. Just give us something that shows results. Until that happens, folks like me will continue to question the overall program.

Whatever Happened to....

Tweet Some light lifting after spending a quick 3 hours and 45 minutes at the Ralph today. Can't remember the last time I was home before 4:30pm on gameday. Thanks to the Browns coaching staff for running the ball 300 times today to keep the clock moving in that horrid weather. I took my dad to the game today and watching the Browns I started wondering....

Whatever Happened To (we'll alternate between sports/pop culture & horse racing)...

- Brian Sipe? The leader of the Comeback Kids of the 70s for the Browns...

- The NTRA Safety & Integrity Alliance? Crickets. Shouldn't we be getting the annual propaganda report right about now? Too busy milking that Zenyatta thing, I guess.

- The Monkees? Hey, hey we're the monkees. Yeah, those guys. Where are they now?

- The National Pick Four? In case ya missed the earlier post....

- The Vuvuzela? Has there ever been another instrument that's fallen from grace faster than the vuvuzela?

- The marketing for the Beulah Park Fortune Six? I totally forgot about the 25 cent wager that captured my fancy last winter...has the wager lost it's luster?

- Earl Weaver? I miss the Earl of Baltimore. Best sequence ever during one of his 97 career ejections as manager of the O's was yelling at an ump: "I'm going to check the rule-book on that" the umpire replied, "Here, use mine." Weaver countered, "That's no good - I can't read Braille."

- Charismatic's ESPN Movie? Tap, tap, tap. Still waiting World Wide Leader....

- Sports Challenge? Best. Game. Show. Ever. If you don't remember this show that aired in the 70s and pitted sports teams against each other in a trivia contest format with Dick Enberg hosting....you don't know what you missed.

- The Eclipse Award for Lifetime Achievement? Oh yeah, they don't have one of those.

That's all for now...the TBA 2010 Photo Contest is up and running and submissions will be accepted up through next Friday (the 17th), so send in your best photogs of 2010.

They're Baaack...

Tweet I noticed a link over at the Paulick Report the other day tucked away underneath the 3,000 Derby-related posts on horses, trainers, owners, breeders, ad nauseum about the Big Event. Congress is back knocking on horse racing's door. Letters were sent out last week by Senator Udall and Representative Whitfield, the congressmen on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce that has the responsibility for monitoring the industry and upholding the Interstate Horseracing Act.

You may remember two years ago in June 2008, hearings took place discussing the state of the industry, in particular, governance and horse safety. Integrity and horseplayer issues were largely ignored. The letters were directed to Waldrop at the NTRA, Phipps at the Jockey Club and Martin at RCI. It's comical that Congress keeps going back to the Barbaro and Eight Belles tragedies to lead into their questions of the industry. Funny, how they seem to show up always right around Triple Crown time.... At least, Waldrop can respond that he took measures and tell how great his Safety and Integrity Alliance is and how all the tracks (check that, the ones that participated) except Pimlico passed the rigorous independent testing to the Alliance Code of Standards. The RCI have established model rules and Racing and Medication Testing Consortium recommendations to protect horses and their riders. The Jockey Club....ummm....well Marzelli was the one adamant that horse racing can self regulate and didn't need central governance. Now Congress is back asking how they are doing with the "self regulation."

Responses are due back to Congress by May 14th....it'll be interesting to see if more hearings will result after the three respondents answer the questions posed in the letters (which can be found at the link above). The Clouseau in me thinks that is where Congress will go....

I wonder if Mr. Phipps thinks that....

By The Numbers

Tweet I have been stalking the Guidestar website for the release of several IRS Form 990 tax filings over the past few weeks and finally this weekend the non-for-profit website had the NTRA's 2008 Form 990 posted. While the information is over a year old now (they didn't have to file the return on extension for 2008 until November 15, 2009) it was filed on November 10, 2009 by the CFO/Treasurer of the NTRA.

So while most folks are interested in the salaries being made, I like to look for other clues as to what happened in the finances of the "marketing arm" of thoroughbred horse racing and to determine how solvent they are. I actually agree with DeRosa's post and theories on paying for a rainmaker. I, too, would rather pay key executives a half million bucks if he/she can deliver seven figure deals or pay him/her for attaining goals and incentives that meet the mission of the organization. Sometimes you have to spend money to make money. So I won't be harping on how much Alexander M. Waldrop made ($425K for those who want to keep score), but how he managed the finances and where the focus of the money spent was pointed.

So let's start with the "income statement" and compare it to 2007 figures. I know it's stale, but it's all we have to work with (so stay with me here).....with commentary to follow...



So what did we learn from this little exercise?

- The NTRA lost about $3.3M (~$800K from NTRA Investments) in 2008.

- Revenue decreased by $4.6M basically due to the significant drop in membership revenue of approximately $2.6M. Per the 2008-2009 Annual Report at the NTRA website, this drop was due to the NTRA Board of Directors approving a 43% drop in Membership Dues in 2008.

- The other significant factor in the revenue decline was the loss of Dodge as a NTRA partner, which provided significant membership fee revenue ($3M) and sponsorship income ($1.1M) in 2007. This figure was a big fat zero in 2008, due to the economic stress felt in the automotive industry.

- Not only did the NTRA have a fall in revenues, but they also increased expenditures by almost $2M. I can pinpoint the majority of the increases related to marketing, advertising and promotion and the start-up of the Safety Alliance. I'll be looking for the Annual Report release for 2009, to see what they actually spent on the Alliance as the fee revenue of $15K per track will probably be a pittance in comparison to the expenses incurred.

- The Travel number of $400K seemed a bit high to me, but this is totally a gut feel.

Ok, let's take a look at the balance sheet next.....



Balance Sheet Highlights:

- Obviously the loss ate away at the cash balances available ($10M) and we'll be sure to see more come the 2009 statements with the Safety Alliance going full steam ahead.

- It would be interesting to see what the 5 year plan is as with a continued burn rate that they've been experiencing I'm more convinced than ever that they do have some serious financial issues and cash flow issues to deal with.

- The Annual Report consolidates its for-profit partner, NTRA Investments LLC which has over $5M of debt related to its 1999 acquisition of Winnercomm, Inc. (purchase of racing libraries, broadcast rights etc.).

- A mistake of about $246K was discovered in 2008, dating back about 7 years wherein 401K matching contributions were not properly made on bonus and commission pay in accordance with its plan document. Thus the 2007 financials had to be restated for this error (whoops Ernst & Young - paid $240K by the way for its audit and tax services) and the funds put into the shafted employees 401k accounts.

So that's a lot to chew on for one evening. The NTRA is not without its challenges. A drop in fee revenue, new expensive programs to tout and overall sponsorship revenue drying up due to the current state of the economy. What direction is the NTRA Board going?

We'll keep an eye out for the 2009 Annual Report and dissect the numbers when the annual audit report is issued. Stay tuned.

Where's the Beef?

Tweet I spent Thursday evening reading the Assessment by the NTRA's Independent Monitor on the first year of the NTRA Safety & Integrity Alliance. It's not a quick read or an exciting one for that matter, but I managed to get through it. It was actually a tad more exciting than the Steelers-Browns game. Now you know if you've been reading this blog, that I have been skeptical of this program from the get-go. Maybe it's because all but one track has been fully accredited. Maybe it's because they have made it more of a PR thing to stave off the wolves after the Eight Belles and Barbaro tragedies (first four tracks included the triple crown tracks). So what did we learn from the Assessment of the first year by the high powered (see: expensive) law firm of Akin Gump?

- We learned that the Accreditation process is thorough and costs way more than they are charging the tracks ($15k). However, they don't disclose what the average cost of a track audit is.

- The extent of the findings weren't earth-shattering, here are some examples: (1) some gates needed to be padded; (2) some outriders weren't wearing their helmets or safety vests; (3) one track strengthened its rule on safety helmets and vests; (4) one track stepped up a medication rule and; (5) some track vets weren't updating the Injury database.

- Thirteen tracks were accredited with two pending. (55 tracks were involved in the onset of the program).

- Akin Gump was hired to be the independent monitor and no less than four lawyers were involved with setting up the Code, monitoring accreditation results and performing onsite monitoring.

- Participation in the program is lacking in two categories: (1) It appears only the high end tracks have completed the application process and gone through the reviews; the lower end tracks have been silent and not very active in the process and (2) Funding is lacking. Several industry factions have not jumped aboard from a monetary perspective, leaving the NTRA reeling from the high cost of the program.

- The report makes several recommendations in the closing pages, summarized as follows: (1) an annual review of the code and the standards should be performed; (2) follow up "surprise" or monitoring audits should be required for accredited tracks to ascertain they are upholding accreditation and the standards; (3) the Independent Monitor should increase his presence in the audit process; (4) enhancement in communication is required to the general public and stakeholders to distribute results of the reviews; (5) form a working group to enhance participation from some of the member tracks; (6) industry needs to find a funding mechanism; and (7) expansion of the mission to handle the integrity aspect.

So the above raised the following questions and comments from the Space Station:

- How much was Akin Gump paid and how much did the entire program cost? With only $15K/track in revenue, this had to be a tremendous cost center for the NTRA (who is cutting their budget by 25% in 2010). (Of course, their 2008 Form 990 still hasn't been posted to guidestar, so we have a year to wait to even find out through public disclosure)

- What did the average audit cost?

- Where in God's name do they think they can fund this from? Who's not kicking in?

- The word "Integrity" is not addressed in the Code at all. Where is the horseplayer protected?

- The findings (a couple safety helmets and a padded gate?) seem a little light...where's the beef?

- The report talks a lot about audit rigor, but only one track "failed" (Pimlico) which if my memory is correct, was due to a technicality relating to a state law. Doesn't this seem odd?

- Can they really do anything to the lower level tracks to force their participation? Why aren't they completing the Alliance applications? Who are the lower level tracks they speak of in the Assessment?

My skepticism remains....I posted a few of these questions over at Waldrop's blog...maybe we'll hear something.....but don't hold your breath.

RUI: Does It Happen?

Tweet I'm no expert on this subject, but I tried to delve around to find out what kind of protection horseplayers (and the horses) have against jockeys riding under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol or with a major hangover (wherin a blood alcohol level is still registering) on raceday. I had some trouble finding out whether or not there is any random drug or alcohol testing performed, but again it looks like each jurisdiction is different (shocker, why would there be uniform rules or regulations, that's just silly), but it does appear in most states that the testing does take place. I find it odd that you rarely hear of any positives being reported. There is a famous 1986 court case on the topic, Shoemaker v. Handel, wherein the US Court of Appeals found in favor of the NJ Racing Commission and upheld a previous decision allowing drug and alcohol testing in that state. Maryland also appears to have a random, suspicionless testing program.

The judge in the Shoemaker case cited the following:

“Public confidence forms the foundation for the success of an industry based on wagering. If participants in horse racing are under the influence of, or addicted to, illegal drugs, or are more amenable to involvement in corrupt practices in exchange for access to drugs, the public perception of the integrity of horse racing – its very life-blood – would quickly dissipate. The loss of integrity would result in a severe and drastic downward spiral effect: The public would wager less money, result in smaller purses to be earned by the horsemen; smaller purses would result in owners’ and trainers’ racing their horses elsewhere for greater financial reward; fewer horses would result in small fields, which are less attractive to the wagering public; as a result, less money would be wagered; less money wagered would mean smaller purses, in perpetuation of the downward spiral."

I found it very interesting that the group of jockeys (I assume with Jockey Guild backing) tried to use the Fourth Amendment to try and stop the random testing in the Shoemaker appeal. If I were a clean jockey I would also want protection against another jockey riding under the influence who could potentially injure me catastrophically due to reckless driving. Think of the innocent driver who is injured or maimed by a drunk driver...

What made me interested in this topic was the recent arrest of jockey Norberto Arroyo Jr. in the Springs for cocaine possession. That and the fact that in some social media circles you can see posts by prominent (and not so prominent) jockeys proclaiming they are going out on the town, posts at early morning times, etc. Now I'll probably lose a few facebook friends over this, but who wants to bet on a horse the next day when his/her jockey has been tripping the light fantastic the night before? The NYS Racing & Wagering Board immediately suspended Arroyo's license to ride in New York. I also found that other countries definitely randomly test jockeys for drugs and alcohol. South Africa, the UK, New Zealand and Australia all perform some sort of random testing (breathalyzers for alcohol) of their jockey colonies.

Maybe we have a bunch of clean jockeys riding across the country and it's a non-issue. But what if it's not? Shouldn't it be something that's tested or monitored as part of the NTRA's Safety and Integrity Alliance Code of Standards since it appears that most jurisdictions (if not all) are currently performing testing? They are supposed to be the watchdog to ensure the safety and integrity of each track, why not add it to the code?

What Would the Commish Do?

Tweet "Does all of this excitement "save" racing and bring us back to our glory days? I don't think so—because racing doesn't need a savior."
~ The NTRA CEO in his latest post Thoughts from 35,000 feet

My retort: Nope, we need just a commissioner, with some backbone and who has authority to make decisions for the well being of the sport. Why Hollywood Park for the next accreditation, a facility that most likely will be condos this time next year?? Does that make sense?

In addition to my comment, 15 other brave souls also commented. What would the over/under on a blog post by NBA commissioner David Stern be during the NBA Finals? Certainly more than the 16 generated by racing's CEO during Triple Crown season. But I digress. The two main chords that were struck here are: (1) Why the heck did the NTRA accredit Hollywood Park with all the turmoil and unknown that track is currently facing and; (2) Do we need a commissioner with authority?

Here are some of the better comments that touched on the Hollywood Park issue:

"I agree with other posters, why spend the time and resources accrediting Hollywood Park when its days are numbered? According to what I understand for accreditation, Hollywood Park spent $15,000 and the NTRA spent an additional $15,000 to perform the site inspection and other essentials. Why? Isn't that simply throwing away $30,000? Where was the NTRA or anyone else for that matter when the Inglewood City Council held public meetings to decide whether to pass the environmental impact report for the development? The minutes even show that the city council specifically said that the leadership of horse racing should have been present. It's likely that in a year the track will be a rubble pile much like Bay Meadows is now." ~Concerned in CA

"I'm very concerned about the future of Santa Anita given the track is about ready to be auctioned. What are the chances that racing will continue there after 2009 if ownership changes? It's already bad enough that we are going to lose Hollywood Park. " ~John Tucker

Concerned in CA's comment was right on point. She gets it. Why weren't racing's leaders at the public hearing? Makes no sense to me. What is our sport's position on losing a prestigious track such as Hollywood Park? Perplexing that only a grass roots effort is being put forth to save the track. (There is a website which outlines the issues and what you can do to help at savehollywoodpark.com.)

My commissioner comment also received some traction with others:

"Alex, my friend, as much as I respect and deeply admire you, you are the candy-man incarnate. Gene the Machine is spot-on: only one thing will save this sport, and it's the same thing that saved baseball after the Black Sox scandal; saved football from the AFL and basketball from the ABA; saved hockey from itself; and helped propel the PGA Tour to heights unimagined -- a Commissioner! As of this writing, only two "major" sports remain without a Commissioner -- horse racing and tennis, and both are on their proverbial death-beds. Jeez, Alex, how much more history do you need? Or, as my Dad liked to put it, "Whadda need, a building to fall on you, or wot (sic)?" And, please, don't tell me it can't be done. Don't give me all the "too many independent jurisdictions ..." and "too much state involvement" song-and-dance. With giants like Bob Lewis and Jim McKay before their deaths ... and more recently Gary Stevens, Jerry Bailey, Randy Moss, Andy Beyer, and others all on public record crying-out for a Commissioner, why does our game's (arguably) most powerful and influential figure -- YOU -- continue to dodge the concept like the plague? Where is that blog?" ~Octave-the-in Rave

"When I hear talk about "saving the sport", it usually strikes me as very self-serving. I'm a fan, in no way connected with the industry........if you're serving yourself instead of me, don't ask me to save you. If the sport were to become truly motivated by what was good for the public, then the public would become motivated to support it." ~Screamingbird

"I cannot agree with your statement that racing doesn't need to be saved. It does; from its leadership that continues to remain apathetic towards its customer and unyielding to work together for the benefit of all. Horse racing's future is anything but rosy. Betting is everything in this game and the average age of the bettor is getting older and older. Perhaps you were serendipitous in finding a twenty something who knew about horse racing. Most young people have no idea and no interest in the sport because at some point the sport stopped trying to get their attention. Horse racing gave up a long time ago on its customer and became too self-absorbed. Now we're feeling the effects of that. Horse racing will always exist, what form though depends on what actions and what lengths the leadership is willing to take." ~Concerned in CA

"This sport needs a central authority, central marketing, international connections, modern track facilities to draw a younger audience, art events, music, so much could be done! One successful Triple Crown season cannot do enough for the sport - we can learn from the NBA how it is done. One Michael Jordan was not enough to make the NBA what it is today, either." ~Angelika Hala

"Thanks for wanting our input: 1. Get a Commisioner (sic): racetracks are like teams, they need to co-ordinate the rules. Get a commissioner and "they will come." ~Rachel A. (for real!)

Hmm...even though there were only a couple handfuls of commenters, the theme was ringing loud and clear. Do you think Roger Goodell would squander money on a track that could go dark, or would he be out fighting for the track to survive? Bud Selig suspended Manny 50 games for drugs....how powerful an example is that? So, what would a real commish do...go accredit a track being turned into mixed-use development or go to the meeting to try and prevent its demise?

Things That Make Me Go Hmm...

Tweet I wasn't that big of a C&C Music Factory fan, but for some reason that song was in my head today, and after searching the lyrics I remembered why I wasn't a big fan (I'll spare you all the link)...but certain things do make me go hmm when it comes to racing:

- The guy at my neighborhood corner newstand adds a quarter to the stated DRF price...

- NYRA has started to reach out to racing bloggers with media reports and press releases....

- The NTRA Safety & Integrity Alliance slipping in a visit to Delaware Park before reviewing Belmont Park. This after following the Triple Crown trail with two of its first three accreditation reviews being Churchill and Pimlico...

- The quinella bet has always made me go hmm...

- After the Derby, the ALL button makes me go hmm....

- Mike Smith pitching Chantal to ride Mine That Bird in the Belmont definitely makes me go hmm...

- The first time a turf horse tries the poly makes me go hmm...

- Seeing a tail bunched and tied up in the post parade makes me go hmm...

- Only betting Canadian money at Fort Erie (they no longer will be taking USD at the windows) this year makes me go hmm...

- Seeing Javier and/or Julien on a longshot on the turf always makes me go hmm...

- Zenyatta vs. Rachel (in either Classic) makes me really go hmm....

Superstitious Saturday

Tweet

Before my high school basketball games my mom would always do a chicken dinner for me (15 game winning streak, all five starters went on to play college ball, '81 Onondaga County league champs) as I was very superstitious not to change my ways during the streak on the way to a school record winning percentage, winning streak and cracking the NYS rankings. Of course my pregame routine also included listening to Styx and Journey on the 8-track, but that's a story for another time and place. In college, well, I can't say what I did before each game to get the nerves out, but let's say it was like clockwork. So when I heard that Ahmad Zayat was pooped on by a bird pre-Derby, (said to be good luck)...hell, after publicly punting PoTN I was spooked into using him.

Why is this relevant? Well, of course, it's not, but it makes a nice intro to discussing the lucky 13 post for Rachel Alexandra. It goes beyond all of my superstitious being to jump on number 13, but hell, she's damn good. Heck, I rocked my newborn daughter in 2003 through two Syracuse Final Four games that led to a title (no way I was letting go of that kid, sometimes the little things help). Personally, I think it's the best possible outcome for her. Just like Big Brown used in last year's Derby to swoop to a perfect tactical position into the first turn, I think this will serve RA well. It will also avoid the potential bumping and jostling she could endure with a middle post position. The other thing that benefits her is the 5 lb handicap the boys will be spotting her this afternoon. She will be carrying 121 lbs to the boys' 126. This is like giving Tiger Woods shots.

For more on supersitions, make sure you stay away from the dandelions (see third from bottom).

I still haven't decided my play yet and probably won't post it (bad luck!), but I'll tell y'all who I'm leaning towards: I think Musket Man will hit the board, PoTN should be there, too. I love Big Drama, but that could just be sentimental, as he'll be forced to take the early lead. I really like that he's got Johnny V in the irons. Could this be Gomez' day in the sun? Let's say I'll have these three in my mix come late afternoon along with the filly. I'm live in the Susan/Preakness double after Payton D'Oro finished off a winning P4 ticket for me w/MM, PoTN, RA and FF.

I gotta give props to the NTRA for not rubber stamping Pimlico with full accreditation via this week's Safety & Integrity Alliance review. While I correctly predicted an announcement this week, I was semi-shocked at the provisional accreditation. I am willing to admit when I'm wrong. I am still a little curious about Tommy Thompson's law firm, Akin Gump, (compensated?) involvement as an "observer." What, pray tell, does this mean and how does this make him independent? It appears Pimlico's shortcomings were documentation-related and not "safety-related," and they will have to adhere to a specified timetable (30 days) to cure the violations per the definition in the Code. Per the DRF article on the provisional accreditation, "Pimlico would need to "advocate" for changes to Maryland's racing laws regarding the characteristics of regulation whips and press the Maryland racing commission to begin conducting out-of-competition testing and to freeze postrace samples within the next 30 days." It was very interesting to me that the whips "issue" was completely left out of the NTRA post. Anyways, I'm satisfied that this isn't just a total PR gig.

While the big race is in Baltimore on Saturday, a fine little sprint will be taking place at Churchill Downs, the Matt Winn. I had put Cash Refund in my watch list after watching him romp on the Derby Trial Stakes undercard during my Churchill visit. He will be facing Capt. Candyman Can and three others going 7 furlongs under the twin spires. Keep an eye on this one.

Happy Preakness Day and good luck everyone!

Cornering the Turn

Tweet Spreadsheet updated: Check

ADW Account Loaded for Bear: Check

Chips, Beer, Soda, Juleps Stocked: Check

Phone number for NTRA/Blogger Conference Call: Ummm....Huh?

Be ready for the Pimlico Safety & Integrity Alliance announcement next week. Sorry, couldn't help myself. Wonder if this morning's accident at Churchill could have been avoided by, ironically, the track that received the first Safety accreditation. Seemed to be a lot of concern on behalf of the trainers that were on hand.

So it's kinda ironic that our NASCAR neighbors grab the headlines for safety issues the week of the Kentucky Derby. Man, that crash looked hellacious and it's a good thing no fans got seriously hurt (as well as Carl Edwards). Let's hope they all come home safe this weekend so these folks don't get any more ammunition than they already have.

I'd be lying if I didn't say I'm disappointed that Wednesday's Derby Draw live on 4th Street won't be televised this year. While some may think it was boring television, I found it intriguing when Big Brown's connections were left with the 1, 19 and 20 posts to choose from last year. There was a little drama that was fun to watch and then hear the confidence of Rick Dutrow in saying the 20 post wouldn't be an issue for his horse. Anyways, I'm sure it didn't make any economic sense for ESPN or NBC to televise it (especially for an hour long show), but I'll miss it nonetheless.

CanGamble posted today (yes, I got past the Chantal picture) that Fort Erie won't be taking US dollar wagers this year at the windows, but they'll be happy to exchange your American dollars for a loonie or two. Wow, now that's customer service. I'll be using my ADW account, thank you very much. I found it to be extremely convenient to be able to bet in USD last summer, regardless of how much I was getting skewered via the exuberant exactor takeouts.

It's too bad that Quality Road had to scratch, I really feel for James Jerkens as the type of horse he had doesn't come around every year. I remember walking out of the Superdome after Syracuse lost to Indiana in 1987, thinking man it's hard to get this far and not win (and it took another 16 years to win it).

It goes to show you that Derby Future Wagers can be quite the risky endeavor, indeed. I have one Pool #3 exacta box with IWR, Chocolate Candy and Regal Ransom and one Pool #2 exacta box with Friesan Fire and all others, which ends up being with Regal Ransom, Square Eddie, Musket Man, Hold Me Back, Win Willy, Advice, Mine that Bird, Flying Private, Mr. Hot Stuff, Join in the Dance and Summer Bird. My only future win wager was in Pool #1, where I have Friesan Fire at 19-1, which is nice value considering he'll be around 7-1 on Derby Day, if not less. We'll start formulating exotics after the post draw on Wednesday. I don't know another US race where post positions come more into play than this one, so best to wait to see what gates they'll be in come Saturday. I also enjoy playing the Oaks/Derby double, which may not be as expensive due to the lack of challengers to Rachel Alexandra. I also understand there will be a Pick 3 featuring the Oaks/Woodford Reserve Turf/Derby wager available also that could offer better value than the aforementioned double.

Time to get busy.....we"re almost ready to turn the corner..

Blogospheric Pressure

Tweet As a little kid, my mom always used to buy the Farmers' Almanac, so she knew what the weather was going to be like. I haven't looked at this since I was a little kid, so I checked to see if they had some info on Louisville, say around, the first week in May. Looks to be sunny and warm according to the Free two month outlook here. Good to know whether to dedicate any time to the Wet Tomlinsons...

Garret Gomez will announce his decision on Sunday for either Pioneerof the Nile or Dunkirk (holding breath) per his NTRA blog. I'm saying he goes with the Cali-based PoTN over Pletcher's, and also that it's a mistake if he does. Interesting how he compares both horses and trainer's styles in the post. Good reading, no mention of monkeys in the blog though.

Here's a shocker. The NTRA Safety and Integrity Alliance announced the Keeneland accreditation today in Lexington. The article was a bit more descriptive about the rigor of the audit (wonder why they decided to do that?) and that it covered more than just a one day onsite visit. At least this time they actually conducted the review during an actual meet. Amazingly, the next two stops appear to be Pimlico and Belmont. Must be some big races coming up at these sites.

Looks like Mafaaz is going to drop out of the PDI next week, well unless Joe Drape continues to put him in his top five. You have to give his connections (Mafaaz' that is) credit for gracefully bowing out, and not taking up a spot in the Derby from Mr. Hot Stuff, Flying Private or whatever other 50-1 shot is looming out there. Check out the TBA's morning line prognosticators on the homepage.

Starting to gear up for next week's trip to Lexington and getting pretty excited about our first visit to Keeneland and a quick trip to Louisville for Churchill's opening day card and the Derby Trial Stakes. Any tips on what to see or do in Lex would be appreciated. Drop me a line or comment.

I've also started my 2009 Derby spreadsheet, which will share some interesting data all in one place. I did it last year and sent it over to the Saratoga Resident, who distributed to all his Albany buddies. Last week he emailed me saying he was asked about it in two separate meetings on the same day and just shook his head. It's in Excel, but I'll try and figure out how to post it in the Google Docs thingy on my sidebar.....halfway home....

Timing is Everything...

Tweet It's the skeptic in me, I promise. Granted, I do have some pretty good instincts when it comes to things like accreditation, based on my 23 years of being an auditor and participating in certification of standards. The big announcement came down today from the hallowed halls of Lexington's finest trade group that Churchill Downs has received FULL accreditation from the NTRA Safety and Integrity Alliance. Now, first, let me go on record to state that I think that the Code of Standards ("the Code") they have put together, and first circulated to the member tracks seeking accreditation on February 25th of this year, is an EXCELLENT document and that the end result is one worth striving for and the Code itself is a positive step for the safety of the racehorse.

BUT, wait for it, here it comes....

I just don't buy that CD could become FULLY accredited in less than two months. Let alone before their spring meet even takes place. This smells of wanting the timing of the release to coincide with the runup to the Derby when the sport is on the front burner....but that's just me. Being someone who has certified companies to a rigorous standard (and one that was newly designed), I can tell you that Rome doesn't get built in a day (or two months for that matter). Of course, the definition in the Code for full accreditation is that Members must satisfy "substantially all conditions.....provided Member continues to adhere to Alliance standards during that time period." The key word in that definition being substantially, which does not constitute ALL. It begs the question, "Were ALL of the conditions met, or were substantially all the conditions met?

I was actually surprised to hear that CD achieved full, and would have expected "provisional" or "probationary" accreditation (as defined on page 4 of the Code) wherein certain future implementation or a curing of deficiencies would be necessary. If the accreditation was truly a rigorous audit, I would think some findings or deficiencies would have been noted, of course this wouldn't have made such a public relations splash. Some of the conditions (yeah, i read the doc) require reporting, and CD has not conducted a meeting since the Standards were released, so I wonder how they could prospectively test for compliance? For example, Standard 1A states that upon adoption of this Code, Member shall immediately commence reporting injuries sustained and fatalities suffered at a Racetrack Members' racetrack(s) during any Race Day. Are they retroactively testing for the these items? I would think this would put you in a provisional category, pending the CD spring meet reporting requirements? You?

They call former Governor Thompson, an independent monitor, but is he really independent when he works for the NTRA? I do commend them for using non-NTRA personnel such as Jennifer Durenberger, DVM and racing official Richard J. Lewis to conduct part of the review, I assume neither has a dog in the hunt.

Typically when testing for compliance to a standard you have two main thrusts to test. One being approach and the other being deployment. Approach is typically defined as the processes, practices and procedures used to meet a standard. This, I would think could be easily audited and/or tested and I would venture to guess are in place at Churchill. Deployment is how extensively these approaches are used or implemented in practice. This is where I question how they could grant full accreditation when the spring meet commences on April 25th. Could they actually be testing data prior to the actual adoption of the Code in February? Seems odd to me.

I sure would love to get my hands on the report, it would probably answer a lot of the questions posed here, but I just have to question the timing.