Racing Pays Its Way and Then Some

Your tax dollars at work, pari-mutuel tax, that is:

In 1989, California horseplayers paid $143,661,416 in state takeout for the privilege of betting against each other at sanctioned race tracks and simulcast outlets. That represents about 5 1/2 cents out of each of the $2.6 billion pushed through the windows last year.

In return, the state kicked back all of $7.8 million to operate the California Horse Racing Board. The relatively meager sum was supposed to cover the policing of 24 race meetings and 27 simulcast sites during the 12-month period, paying for stewards, staff, postrace testing and security.

Another $35.4 million went directly to the state fair and exposition fund, which on the face of it sounds like a healthy chunk of change to spend on upgrading facilities at the smaller tracks and their simulcast betting rooms. With few exceptions, however, most of the fairs have plowed the money into exposition facilities, giving priority to the amenities for blue-ribbon sheep and hogs before taking care of the gambling patron.

That leaves the state government a net profit of about $100 million on the operation of racing, a tidy sum that buys an awful lot of highways, bridges and malathion. Is it any wonder, then, that the vast majority of the state’s legislators adopt a hands-off approach to the racing business? Why mess with success?

A recent roster of 34 Assembly and Senate bills pertaining to horse racing included 23 written by either Sen. Ken Maddy (R-Fresno), a former hotwalker for trainer Mel Stute, or Assemblyman Richard Floyd (D-Carson), a die-hard horseplayer. Many of the bills are merely updating or fine-tuning existing state laws, but several tackle significant issues.

Floyd has resurrected a bill, AB 2671, that would standardize the selection process of all race track stewards. In originally proposing the bill, Floyd was reacting to a 1987 report issued by the state auditor general that criticized the inconsistent manner in which steward candidates were interviewed. In addition, Floyd’s office had compiled a list of complaints about the hiring of stewards.

“We heard stories of interviews that lasted only five minutes,” said Jeffrey Ruch, Floyd’s legislative assistant. “Stories about interview questions that had no bearing on the position whatsoever. And we wondered why there are no black stewards.”

An earlier version of the bill passed the legislature but was vetoed by Gov. George Deukmejian in 1988. Floyd has removed a couple of fiscally offending passages and passed it out of his Governmental Organization Committee. The bill now awaits consideration by the assembly Ways and Means Committee.

Another Floyd bill proposes to bring accommodations for those persons living in track stable areas up to the very minimum standards required by the Department of Housing and Community Development. Curiously, race tracks are specifically exempted from such standards, which include:

--Not less than 50 square feet of room space per occupant.

--A minimum mean temperature of 70 degrees in the living quarters.

--No domestic animals or poultry running at large.

Most of California’s race tracks have attempted to elevate the living standards of grooms and hotwalkers who choose to reside in the stable area, free of charge. But there still are severe problems, according to Floyd’s spokesman, Jerry McFetridge.

“There’s no reason why decent living standards can’t be maintained in all stable areas,” McFetridge said. “I’ll be visiting several race tracks with an inspector from the housing department soon. That will give us an idea just how much still needs to be done.”

Finally, there is a Floyd bill in the hopper that would disqualify a person from membership or employment with the California Horse Racing Board if that person’s parents, siblings or non-dependent children own part of a race track or does business with a race track or the racing board. Current law is concerned only with spouses or dependent children involved in such potential conflicts of interest.

Of course, only one particular sibling comes to mind: Albert Foote, who owns the company that supplies electric carts to racing board personnel at various race tracks, is the brother of retiring CHRB Executive Secretary Len Foote, the target of heavy criticism by both Floyd and Maddy in recent months.

Asked if the bill was written with the Foote brothers in mind, a Floyd staffer replied, “What do you think?”