Santa Anita Race Meet Agreement Negotiations Ongoing

Though the winter-spring meet at Santa Anita is already underway, the new race meet agreement (RMA) between the California Thoroughbred Trainers (CTT) and The Stronach Group (TSG) concerning both of the company's California racetracks–Santa Anita and Golden Gate Fields–has yet to be inked with both parties still to reach an agreement over certain aspects of the contract following prolonged negotiations.

In a two-page Q &A distributed among trainers, the CTT wrote that TSG is seeking to alter portions of the existing race meet agreement in order to expand the latitude it has to “exclude trainers, to deny stalls to applicants, and adopt new house rules and regulations without the consent or in some cases even the involvement of CTT, which represents all licensed trainers.”

The current 2018-2019 agreement expired Dec. 25, but according to the CTT's fact sheet, negotiations remain ongoing, and in the interim, the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) has extended that agreement until Jan. 17.

According to Aidan Butler, TSG's chief strategy officer, the situation as presented by the CTT is “absolutely not the case.”

Butler added, “we understand how important it is to have a good trusting relationship and a fair process with the horsemen, and I think everything I've done since I've been here has been with that in mind. At any point, if any one of the trainers wants to have a look at what's gone on, I'll be more than happy to walk them through it. I totally disagree with the trainers' stance that we're trying to take power away [from the CTT].”

In its fact sheet, the CTT wrote that provisions in the current race meet agreement, affording the CTT say in the process of potentially barring licensed trainers from the grounds of Santa Anita and Golden Gate Fields, are necessary to prevent its members from being excluded arbitrarily “for any reason the track deems appropriate.”

According to the fact sheet, “TSG didn't respond to the CTT's suggestions early in 2019 when we expressed strong reservations and critical opinions about the management and condition of the main track and turf course at Santa Anita. It also developed new rules and procedures, in some cases without even the involvement, mush less the agreement, off CTT on behalf of the trainers.”

The CTT originally suggested the current RMA remains in force for the 2020 race meetings. “TSG declined to consider that language and suggested their own, which would strip away most of the previous, longstanding protections for trainers,” the fact sheet states.

At the last CHRB meeting, the newly-minted CHRB vice president, Oscar Gonzalez, was afforded the task of mediating negotiations. Gonzalez told the TDN he was unable to comment officially on the ongoing process.

In provision five of the agreement, related to stall applications, it is stated: “Track may, at its discretion, establish rules, regulations, and security procedures that may limit or eliminate Applicant's ability to participate in racing or training activities at Track or any auxiliary training facility, subject to the agreement of the CTT. The agreement of CTT shall be a condition precedent to any execution of a decision by Track to limit or eliminate Applicant's ability to participate in racing or training activities at Track.”

Then, in provision six, pertaining to stall assignments, the current agreement reads: “Track will not discriminate in any way against any trainer by reason of membership of any trainer in the CTT, or by way of any arbitrary or capricious conduct by Track. If any trainer asserts that Track shall have so discriminated on such ground or grounds, then the trainer claiming to be so aggrieved may submit his claim to Track or to CTT examination, and if CTT shall then believe the claim to have merit, CTT shall be entitled to present the merits of the grievance on behalf of such trainer to Track. If the dispute is not settled, Track and CTT agree that the matter is to proceed immediately to arbitration before a hearing officer.”

The disagreement arose from actions TSG took earlier this year against trainer Jerry Hollendorfer. Back in June, TSG barred Hollendorfer from Santa Anita after his fourth horse had been fatally injured at the facility since Dec. 26, 2018. The CTT has maintained that TSG took that action against Hollendorfer without their consent.

The hearing for Hollendorfer's preliminary injunction against TSG–seeking to permit him to once again train and race at Santa Anita–was scheduled for Dec. 24 at the Los Angeles County Superior Court, but the hearing was canceled.

Prior to that, Hollendorfer submitted in writing a number of concessions to the TSG in an “effort to assist The Stronach Group and the CTT to reach an agreement,” and to protect his employees from any action by the TSG. The concessions included withdrawing his request for a preliminary injunction, and an offer to desist from applying for stabling “and/or participation in racing or training at the 2019-2020 winter/spring meets conducted by The Stronach Group.”

In a text, attorney, Drew Couto, wrote that Hollendorfer “did not want to directly or indirectly harm his colleagues or CA racing industry in general so agreed to withdraw the motion and remove it as a perceived/possible impediment.”

As it stands, state rules give the racetracks broad discretion over the matter of who's permitted on their grounds. CHRB rule 1989 (b) allows that at any association, fair or simulcast facility, “any person may be removed or denied access for any reason deemed appropriate by the association, fair or simulcast facility notwithstanding the fact that such reason is not specified in the rules.”

The CTT's fact sheet explains that the race meet agreement is needed to more narrowly define the process by which racetracks exercise that right. “This rule could conceivably be interpreted to give the track the right to exclude anyone,” the fact sheet states. “A horseman's RMA is needed to shield licenses from the potential application of that interpretation of this rule.”