Well, I think we can count on one thing-she has the horses’ best interests in her heart and mind. I don’t give a flying leap if she can ride well or not. Although the tide seems to be turning, most of the so-called “experts” of the racing industry have been an embarrassment at giving their meal tickets some basic protection. Anybody who thinks otherwise needs to spend their next vacation enjoying the sights at their local dump auction meat pens and play “Name That Thoroughbred.” That should keep y’all occupied for a while.
[QUOTE=gwenrowdy;3367958]
Well, I think we can count on one thing-she has the horses’ best interests in her heart and mind. …[/QUOTE]
I appreciate the ‘tisk tisk’ of your posting.
What seems to be lost is what exactly the board is that she’s joining: the California Horse Racing Board (CHRB). This is not some advisory board exclusively tasked with the wellfare of racing horses.
The seven-member racing board supervises horse racing and pari-mutuel wagering at racetracks in California, including enforcing laws and regulations and sanctioning violators. For that I do think someone joining the board should be savvy with not just post-racing interests of horses but perhaps more critically the on-going aspects of racing, wagering, and enacting restrictions.
If you have a weak link on the 7-person board who isn’t focused on the business end of the sport then there very well will be a silent voice (and potentially a tie breaking one at that) on such matters due to a lack of knowledge.
I agree her ability to ride isn’t at the issue - although folks, me included, on this BB do have a good time with a little ribbing - however I’d far prefer to have someone who has owned, bred, and campaigned race horses brought onto the CHRB. A person like Jerry Moss (a “celeb” in his own right) for example would be a far more effective member in my view.
John Harris is on the board, to what effect I have no idea. While I’m sure you’re familiar with his operation, you may not know that his former (?) general manager shipped broodmares to slaughter on a regular basis, “especially if he didn’t like them or they had bad feet”, according to one of the former veterinarian employees.
Andreni breeds “for the market”. His other business interests are vinyards and insurance brokerages. He states that his focus is to make horse racing more lucrative.
Moss is already on the board, and for those who don’t know, breeds horses. He also heads the Moss Foundation, which contributes primarily to environmental causes. (I found no mention of contributions to horse welfare.)
Choper is, in addition to being a reknowned law professor at UC Berkeley, a gambler who likes to play the ponies.
Shapiro, who is chairman, is primarily a real estate developer.
So you have 5 guys on the board who made (or inherited) their money someplace else, got involved in horse racing as a whim or afterthought, and they’re running the show.
Bo Derek’s credentials don’t look that bad in comparison. 
I agreed
[QUOTE=I’m EBO;3367192]
Bo Derek presents herself well, is articulate, and is a true advocate for animal welfare. What part of that rubs y’all the wrong way? Or is it that men’s eyes still tend to bug out when she’s in their presence?
Would you prefer another Dutrow or Ivarone?[/QUOTE]
I agree altho I wasn’t a fan of her movies. It’s called using a figurehead/spokesperson to get attention, she was also interviewed at one of the triple crown races about the slaughter issue. While she’s not a race horse owner or trainer, she does know racing from the standpoint of those of us who love racing.
My favorite for the position would have been Brigette Bardot even though she lives in France. She once went down the road and took a neighbor’s donkey to vet and had him gelded.
besides, there is a precendent: W ran an oil company, ran the Texas Rangers baseball team, and ran this country. the first 2 almost failed but his father’s friends bailed him out. No sight of that for the USA.
[QUOTE=I’m EBO;3368212]
So you have 5 guys on the board who made (or inherited) their money someplace else, got involved in horse racing as a whim or afterthought, and they’re running the show.
Bo Derek’s credentials don’t look that bad in comparison. [/QUOTE]
Seriously? Come one, you’re faulting the other members of the board b/c you don’t like the way they got involved with racing? The point is, they have been involved. CHRB, like Glimmerglass pointed out so much more eloquently than I, is a group that deals with the regulatory issues of RACING - not rescue. So, your demands for it to be populated by people who agree with your position on rescue and retirement is absurd.
I’m a big proponent of horse welfare, but c’mon people - give it a rest!
I don’t demand that members of the regulatory board echo my sentiments on race horses, but it’s nice to see that one, finally, does.
Mr. Andrini is a proponent of slot machines. Mr. Choper is primarily interested in betting the exotic bets. Neither of those projects have much to do with regulating horse racing, now do they?
Our Arnold really could have done lots worse.
You’re kidding, right? They have everything to do with racing. Do you not realize horse racing is gambling? Where do you think the money comes from?
Explain to me what acting, anti-slaughter legislation, and high-end pet products have to do with horse racing…
John Harris is loathed … loathed … by the majority of racing TB breeders in the state. They would be very, very happy to see a giant hole open up and swallow him. They blame him for the huge downturn in the California TB world and place a lot of other ills at his door.
Which is why I said, I wonder how Derek plans to deal with major TB entities in the state that are engaged in open warfare with the CHRB. It is not a pretty situation. (And to whoever said that she has “star power” … er, not so much anymore. There are plenty of people involved in show business who also happen to be involved in horse racing, but they don’t necessarily share the governator’s politics.)
As far as the slots go, the tracks in California are desperate to get them. Ahhhhhhhhnold is in bed with the Indian casinos, so it ain’t gonna happen. We are losing tracks left, right and center out here because of the competition from the Indian casinos. Horse racing purists might like to think that the tracks are all about the horses, but the bottom line is that from the gamblers’ perspective – and they’re the ones who pay the track’s bills and the purses, whether you like it or not – the races are merely another game of chance. If they really “cared” about seeing the horses run live, simulcasting wouldn’t be such a big deal out here now, would it? 
The way the tracks see it, having slots would bring in more people who’d sit their butts down and spend money. That would help recoup the millions and millions of dollars that California tracks have lost to the Indian casinos. But under the current governor, that ain’t gonna happen, and that’s killing the tracks. Derek is wading into a mess, and she is, as Glimmer so aptly pointed out, going to be perceived as a weak link.
MassageLady, several presidents have been elected and reelected with more than 50% of the vote, and they’ve hailed from both sides of the aisle. So I’m not sure what your point was in citing that statistic. But again, what does an old dead guy’s politics have to do with this thread? As Artillery Hill so wisely said, there’s a big difference between being a has-been-actor-turned-politician and a has-been-actor-turned-political-appointee.
And since I’m in the camp that politics doesn’t belong in this forum, I’ll stop posting about it, save for how it applies to Derek’s (very) political appointment to the CHRB. :winkgrin:
[QUOTE=I’m EBO;3368581]
Mr. Andrini is a proponent of slot machines. Mr. Choper is primarily interested in betting the exotic bets. Neither of those projects have much to do with regulating horse racing, now do they?[/QUOTE]
Yes they do - direct or otherwise.
The CHRB, again, from their own mission statement page:
The Board, currently a seven-member commission appointed by the Governor, supervises all race meetings in the state where pari-mutuel wagering is conducted. Principal activities of the Board include: protecting the betting public; licensing of racing associations; sanctioning of rule violators who participate in horse racing; designating racing days and charity days; acting as a quasi-judicial body in matters pertaining to horse racing meets; collecting the state’s lawful share of revenue derived from horse racing meets; and enforcing laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to horse racing in California.
The state’s revenue from horse racing is principally derived from fees based upon a percentage of the pari-mutuel wagering pools, breakage (the odd cents not paid to winning ticket holders), and unclaimed tickets. Additional revenue is derived from licenses issued to horse owners, trainers, jockeys, grooms and others, and from fines imposed.
I bolded the wagering pools part at that ties into the aforementioned “wagering exotics” said to be unrelated. As for slots, the CHRB is to protect the wagering interests of horse racing. California, like other states, is seeing the threat of native american tribe casinos as taking away said revenue. So I’d expect someone on the board to raise the issue of slots - good or bad.
I didn’t appoint the existing folks on the Board further my remarks on Bo Derek were such that it is doubtful to result in the changes “her groups” want and I predicted that her status with said groups will not remain in tact. She perports to be a fan so I don’t forsee her being the successful advocate that others may thing she’ll be.
Yesterday Ms Derek was at the opening day of Del Mar’s meet and was in the winner’s circle for the winners presentation in the first race to the claimer Kilderry. His saddle cloth was none other then 10.
Good grief, you folks who’ve spent years in the racing industry must be damned tired of how everybody and her sister now know more about the sport than y’all do. And are thus qualified to regulate same.
That said, I cheerfully admit I don’t know beans about the sport either, which is why I love to come in here and read the threads, in hopes of learning something.
Although I’m impressed with Bo’s CV - she seems a very accomplished woman. But not in TB racing.:no:
FWIW, I’m a yellow dog democrat, but I did love to see Mr. Reagan sit a horse. Remember when he went riding with the Queen? snort Reckon the Shrub would have to ride alongside in a golf cart.
As I interpret it, the mission of the CHRB is to regulate horse racing, and (2nd paragraph) to make sure the state gets its cut from the players, and other sources of revenue. I don’t have a problem with either paragraph, but I don’t get the interpretation that gambling is the only reason to regulate horse racing at all. Perhaps my ability to read between the lines is faulty?
They will never, ever, ever get slots at the tracks until the tribes repent ALL the $$$$$ they’re making at their casinos or if/until the tribes decide to build their own tracks. (Not a bad idea. They have money coming out their ears and plenty of land where nothing will grow.) I don’t think it makes any difference at all who’s governor; tribal pockets are too deep to allow any politician to flip them off.
It really doesn’t matter to me what the other members of the board did before they got religion; my point is that not a single one of them was born on the backside and didn’t come to racing until they were grownups, established in another career, and Very Well Heeled as a result of that career.
Bo Derek is not the anti-Christ. She may be the token woman on the board, she may be the token animal welfare proponent, but, pending approval of our asshat legislature, she’s on the CHRB. She may do a good job; she may not. As for how she makes a living, pet products probably have as much to do with horse racing as do vinyards and music companies and UC professorships.
Texarcana wrote:
Explain to me what … anti-slaughter legislation,… have to do with horse racing…
On the slight chance you’re not joking, pm me and I’ll send you some statistics.
Beezer, why do the other TB breeders hold John Harris responsible for the fall of the CA tb world?
this is my favorite forum on COTH. However, I have not been able to get past the clean up I have had to do after I read Glimmer’s Paris Hilton and Bo comment/picture link - OJ and a little vodka all over my keyboard :lol:
But again, what does an old dead guy’s politics have to do with this thread?
I already answered that, but I guess you didn’t read it.
They are both ‘actors turned politicians’-and Reagan did a great job-first Governor of CA from 1967-1974, then Pres for 2 terms, he must’ve done something right!
<<several presidents have been elected and reelected with more than 50% of the vote, and they’ve hailed from both sides of the aisle.>>
Exactly, and that’s not taking into account that when MassageLady said “half the country,” she evidently wasn’t remembering that, voter turnout being what it is, the percentage of people who voted for Reagan didn’t constitute “half the country” at all. Voodoo math, I suppose Bush Sr. might have called that. But then I guess some of us have a lot more tolerance for voodoo than others of us do.
But back to horses … Bo Derek’s appointment to the panel was bound to be controversial, though she does at least have experience with horses, if not racing. In my experience, racing commissions–being politically appointed–often have a member or two that seems an odd fit. I suspect that Derek’s lack of experience in matters related to wagering and regulation will, in the long term, prove less of a concern to the state’s racing industry than her link with groups like the Animal Welfare Institute, which racing interests are likely to see as having an animal-rights agenda (and therefore anti-racing).
Kentucky had a similar situation when it turned out that the Republican-appointed commission chairman, Connie Whitfield, was a vice-president of Humane Society of the United States. I’m not sure how that wasn’t known from the start, but she was chairman for quite a while until the recently elected Democratic governor replaced her and a number of others. Curiously, the HSUS link had only become widely publicized some months before during the Eight Belles aftermath, and a tremendous number of people in the Bluegrass racing industry were shocked to discover that the commission chairman had such close connections to HSUS. Her replacement certainly was partly due to politics in the party changeover, but I think a lot of it was infuenced in this case by that HSUS title, too. Even state Rep Damon Thayer, a very conservative Republican, called Whitfield’s role at HSUS a conflict of interest with her chairmanship of the commission.
Generally, when people associated with these kinds of groups get too close to the heart of racing regulation, racing industry insiders get worried. The upside could be that this proximity will force the racing industry to confront issues it has done little to correct in the past, but the downside is that true animal-rights groups are often opposed outright to the entire sport of racing, so putting them near a regulatory center can also wreak havoc. Derek, it should be said, doesn’t appear on the face of it to be opposed to racing itself, but I don’t claim to know her philosophies in any great detail.
Interesting to see how this plays out in California.
He WAS a great President. Now if Bo can do something similar for racing…
[QUOTE=VirginiaBred;3371199]
He WAS a great President. Now if Bo can do something similar for racing…[/QUOTE]
You mean, like, bankrupt it? Or do you mean increasing the wealth of corporations and the rich? Or a ballooning budget and a huge deficit? Voodoo economics? Or maybe you just mean a lack of accountability.
I don’t think racing will benefit from any of these things, including Bo Derek.
This is what we call ‘stunt casting’ in the movie business. It’s an attempt some PR with a name that can stir up some tabloid headlines and controversy, like having Britney Spears on your TV show.
:lol: :lol: :lol: And really, not much different than the current despot.
This is what we call ‘stunt casting’ in the movie business. It’s an attempt some PR with a name that can stir up some tabloid headlines and controversy, like having Britney Spears on your TV show.
Well, maybe she can upgrade the current mindset of racing being a “cheap” entertainment and attract a better class of fan. You know, the type that won’t think paying more than $2.00 for admission a huge burden. :rolleyes:
And, just maybe she’ll be able to put some real focus on the welfare of the horse. One can only hope.
Exactly, and that’s not taking into account that when MassageLady said “half the country,” she evidently wasn’t remembering that, voter turnout being what it is, the percentage of people who voted for Reagan didn’t constitute “half the country” at all.
Voter turnout isn’t my problem-so those that actually care who’s running the country did vote. You don’t vote-you dont’ get to complain.:winkgrin:
So…those who care…half voted for him-TWICE.:yes:
Because fans of Bo and her work are really such a step up?
I liked the movie ‘10’- it was funny!:lol:
<<so those that actually care who’s running the country did vote. You don’t vote-you dont’ get to complain>>
Or those who were well-off and influential enough to have an adequate number voting machines in their precincts, rather than having to stand in a three-hour line and miss work and then have their hourly wages docked for it. I am not at all surprised that these people would not enter in to MassageLady’s equation. But I digress. Happily for MassageLady, I’m sure, I did get to vote, so I do get to complain, and I certainly hope that Bo Derek manages to do a far better job for racing than Reagan did for the nation at large. If she doesn’t, then racing will be in for quite a recession. But comparing Reagan to Derek is hardly moving the ball forward in this discussion. Like him if you feel you must, but at least tie him in to the discussion at hand in some germane way. I, for one, promise henceforth to drop that particular discussion on the grounds that it is irrelevant!
To return to the matter at hand, I’m not convinced Derek’s appointment is a tragedy for the CHRB. There certainly were more informed choices, from the point of view of understanding nuts-and-bolts racing regulation. But she is at least a horse owner and not someone who has never had any experience with racing or the animals that carry the sport. It will be most interesting, in my view, to see what sorts of welfare issues she might champion and how the rest of the board and racing’s participants will respond. It’s striking to note the mood about racing these days, after Barbaro and Eight Belles. Racing’s leaders seem to be looking quickly for ways to appear, or sometimes even actually be, more “animal welfare-friendly.” Here’s hoping the moves in that direction are truly well thought-out, useful, and not just window-dressing or knee-jerk reactions, and that racing and its participants will all be better off for any changes.
