Interesting strategy - PETA buying into 4 racetrack-owning companies... Mountaineer, Charles Town, Mahoning Valley, Evangeline Downs, among others

From BH

Just days before the Breeders’ Cup, one of the biggest racing events of the year, PETA has purchased stock in four racetrack-owning companies—VICI Properties, Boyd Gaming, Penn National Gaming, and Gaming and Leisure Properties—in order to take its case for ending cruel practices straight to the boardroom.

PETA’s proposals will affect Mountaineer Casino, Racetrack & Resort and Hollywood Casino at Charles Town Races in West Virginia; JACK Thistledown Racino, Belterra Park Gaming, and Hollywood Gaming at Mahoning Valley Race Course in Ohio; Evangeline Downs Racetrack & Casino and Delta Downs Racetrack Casino Hotel in Louisiana; Retama Park and Sam Houston Race Park in Texas; Zia Park Casino Hotel & Racetrack in New Mexico; and Hollywood Casino at Penn National Race Course in Pennsylvania.

They want to replace dirt with synthetic, ban trainers with multiple med violations and ban whipping. They appear to be holding CA and KY as making effective changes.

Sounds good on the surface but I wonder how things will really play out.

@Where’sMyWhite Your thoughts are the same as mine. Superficially sounds positive but I am distrusting of PETA given their ideologies and tactics.

9 Likes

I agree, it sounds promising but… just knowing PETA’s history ((and unfortunately, histrionics) it could turn out to be a disaster. I guess a lot will depend on what their actual percentage of stock ownership is, are they major or even majority stockholders.

Anything for the benefit of the horses is good.

Anything for the benefit of PETA not so much! 👎

6 Likes

They ultimately will want to eliminate the racetracks altogether.

9 Likes

Their ultimate goal is to eliminate all forms of humans keeping animals for any reason or in any way, including pets. Back in the day they were much more open about it, now they bury that agenda under layer upon layer of stuff that seems reasonable so that many people don’t realize how batshit crazy they are and will send them money.

having PETA involved in any kind of reform effort is also going to make everybody dig in their heels and resist change.

13 Likes

I truthfully suspect their motivation is access and intel, not reform. PETA is vocally anti-horse racing. They aren’t going to be satisfied with small fish changes like polytrack and whip rules.

7 Likes

@Toblersmom is absolutely right, and PETA is nuts. On some level, I get what they are trying to do. Many people who own animals really shouldn’t. And we do have way too many unwanted/neglected pets in this country. And too many owners with no clue WTF they are doing. There is room for serious reform, IMHO. But total elimination of all forms of pets? That’s about as realistic as telling people they can no longer have children.

2 Likes

"Double, double toil and trouble; Fire burn, and caldron bubble". That’s what I think of PETA

4 Likes

I am baffled as to how PETA thinks that merely owning stock in a company will give them access to the boardroom. :confused:

1 Like

I don’t know how these specific corporations are structured but as a shareholder, they get ‘access’ for annual board elections (or assuming so) as a minimum.

This would be the toehold for further inroads to progressively shut down racing, IMO :frowning:

The biggest ‘I don’t see it happening any time soon’ is the surface replacement. Sure, replacing dirt with high quality synthetic would be, IMO, a good safety move. Do I realistically see it happening any time soon at the tracks in question given the current iffy state of finances of so many racing corporations with the hit they took this spring/summer in parimutuel wagering losses.

I don’t trust PETA. Supporting racing is totally counterintuitive to their corporate objectives.

As has been commented on other topics in other forums… got the popcorn popping and pulling the cork on the wine as we speak (type?) :lol:

I would replace the word “access” with “standing”. Not only can they attend stockholder meetings, but they can also have a voice. No one may care, but it is a foothold for them.

I am all for doing what’s best for animals, but these folks get more than a bit carried away. I agree that this is just step one.

Is this different to the synthetic grass I know? I do not see how it is better, would not the weight on little hooves put holes in it.

Buying a small amount of stock in a company allows you to attend the annual general meetings and make as much of a disruption there as the chairman will permit. It is a tactic used elsewhere by activist groups, I believe environmentalists. It doesn’t affect real change but can be useful PR and a media stunt, especially when it involves prominent corporations.

The goal would be to help turn public opinion against practices of these corporations.

2 Likes

What they want is to bankrupt tracks, having them bring up way too many regulations and expenses like changing track surface, unrealistically expensive ones, that will not really be worth as a safety improvement and who knows what else they have in mind.

A bit like the HSUS getting inspectors out of horse slaughter plants, so the meat would not be inspected and so de facto no market for it, and making one of their directors head of non-profit supervision in the IRS, so they could keep sleigh of hand moving money around, like to foreign banks, the husband of their director made USDA director to regulate animal agriculture, fox in the henhouse style, you name it, one way or another, they are getting more about strategic interference than wholesale work on eliminating all we do with animals.

The HSUS did say just that a handful of years ago, their goal now would be to eventually eliminate all animal use by humans by lobbying directly, using all those riches they have amassed from donations, so many still pouring in, from their main non-profit, HSUS and the many satellite other such groups they manage under other names.

Remember, they don’t have a time frame, they can wait it out, making more millions as they go with their donation drives and supporters, so many clueless what they are supporting.
They pulled back from the limelight quickly when the me-too movement exposed their chief executive as one more of those sexual predators as per some of his alleged victims, but that went away soon enough, now back to business as usual with their agendas.

There are many that are not aware of what animal rights extremists want, give them a pass, not really knowing what all they are about, even some here, on a horse training web site, don’t understand what eliminating all domestic animals, all we do with animals, means our horses and pets also.

1 Like

Didn’t several tracks switch to synthetic surfaces and they actually had more breakdowns and then switched back, at the cost of millions of dollars?

2 Likes

This is not synthetic ‘grass’… it is a synthetic composite material that races similar to turf but is ‘loose’ like a ‘dirt’ surface.

I don’t have stats handy but I believe the newer synthetics don’t have this same issue. Woodbine runs on synthetic and I believe have relatively good stats.

Golden Gate Fields (northern CA) also runs on synthetic and I haven’t looked for their stats.

If my uninformed ‘guess’ is all wet, please let me know :slight_smile:

I would be very interested to see the numbers, as well, if anyone has access.

I get that. My father sat on half a dozen boards. My husband, several. I have been to shareholder meetings. But I have never been to one where dissidents were allowed to take over the meeting. Nor, usually, are all (or even the majority) of the board members present. Most times, it consists of a report given by the company president or CEO with a short (controlled) Q&A after. So I still disagree that PETA’s puny stock holding is going to get them “straight to the boardroom” as was quoted in the original post.

PETA has never dealt in truth, however, so I probably shouldn’t have expected them to do so in this case.

1 Like

Yes, several big U.S. tracks switched to artificial surfaces–and their breakdown stats improved hugely. (Anecdotally, there were more soft tissue injuries however.)

The tracks switched back not because there were more breakdowns but because there was a feeling among trainers and tracks that the myth of the “great American dirt horse” had to be preserved. When Churchill Downs refused to change from dirt to artificial, a number of big trainers announced that they would only prep their horses on dirt. So tracks that had $$$Derby preps and artificial surfaces, ended up losing both money and prestige when the big horses ran elsewhere. After a few years of that, most tracks caved in and went back to dirt.

Wolverhampton Race Track in the U.K. has been using a tapeta (artificial) surface for 18 years. In that time, they have had zero breakdowns on the track.

3 Likes