The California Authority of Racing Fairs (CARF) board voted unanimously Monday to rescind a proposed Golden State Racing meet spanning the first half of next year, plunging an already tenuous situation for the horsemen and women in the North of the state into a world of even greater uncertainty.

The decision was met with dismay and concern during Monday’s online CARF meeting, with several stakeholders in Northern California voicing fears that the move would also jeopardize the future of the California fair meets.

“I am in concert with Aidan Butler [1/ST Racing and Gaming president]. We both want racing to continue in Northen California because Northen California is the farm system. If you shut it down, it’s just a domino effect. Then in two to three years, racing’s done in California,” said CARF executive director Larry Swartzlander, who spoke to the TDN after Monday’s meet concluded.

Swartlander clarified, however, that 1/ST Racing’s advocacy for continued racing in Northern California extended to the fair meets rather than the resumption of Golden State Racing’s (GSR) operations.

“Do they advocate us reopening GSR? I cannot say that,” said Swartzlander. “If we rectify this business model and historical racing machines come online, sure, we would make an effort to revive racing in the North. But in saying that, we want to work in concert with Southern California too, to make them whole.”

The current Golden State Racing meet at Pleasanton concludes this Wednesday. The numbers from the meet have fallen way short of projections made prior to the meet’s start.

Monday’s vote now puts front and center a proposal by 1/ST Racing and Gaming–a business entity under The Stronach Group (TSG) umbrella–to maintain a stabling base at Pleasanton, and for a more suitable suite of races to be carded at Santa Anita to help facilitate NorCal horses. It’s a roughly 700-mile round trip from Pleasanton to Santa Anita.

1/ST Racing’s proposal, however, is currently short on specifics. Swartzlander said that he expected flesh to be put on the bones of the proposal over the next two or three days.

“The bottom lines are, we stay open for stabling and get x amount of dollars per day. You take care of the horsemen. You pay for their vanning. You give them stipends. If anybody wants to relocate there, they would assist them in their costs to relocate their entire stables to Santa Anita,” said Swartzlander.

“Those are the generic comments. Aidan [Butler] will probably talk to the CTT [California Thoroughbred Trainers] tomorrow, because everybody has questions about what exactly does that all mean,” said Swartzlander.

In a packet submitted before Monday’s California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) meeting, Golden State Racing proposed a near six-month meet running from Dec. 26, 2024 through June 8, 2025.

For the first three months, the proposal called for racing largely on Saturdays and Sundays only. Currently, Golden State Racing cards a three-day meet weekly, Friday through Sunday. According to the now rescinded proposal, the meet at Pleasanton would have returned to its three-day status at the start of April.

CARF’s decision to rescind the proposed race-meet for 2025 was made even after owner-breeders George Schmitt and John Harris offered to front Golden State Racing a line of credit to help weather their financial difficulties, said Swartzlander.

The $2-million offer by Schmitt and Harris was bound up with legal constraints about how it could be used, if at all, he said. And because it was designed to be used for the proposed 2025 meet at Pleasanton, it can’t be relied upon to help fund any possible future Golden State Racing venture.

“That money was earmarked for 2025–in other words, to make the 2025 meet whole,” said Swartzlander. “I can’t go forward with a multi-million-dollar deficit.”

When asked if Monday’s vote sounded the death knell to long-term Thoroughbred racing in the North (outside of the fairs), or whether Golden State Racing could be revived at some point, Swartzlander said such an enterprise would be incumbent upon California purses supplemented with revenues from things like sports wagering or historical horseracing machines–a tough ask in a state where the optics of horse racing is already on shaky public footing.

“Simply stated, racing cannot continue in California without, and I hate the term supplement, but that’s the way it is,” said Swartzlander. “Churchill Downs runs an allowance race for $120,000. Santa Anita run for $58,000. I run for $26,000. Simple numbers.”

More pointedly, Swartzlander voiced remorse that Golden State Racing wasn’t given more of a chance to find its financial footing, especially as it had to scramble resources together due to TSG’s abrupt announcement and closure of Golden Gate Fields.

“This was a new business. Every new business gets a business loan to start out. But you only give them three months before you shut them down? Usually they’re given at least a year,” said Swartzlander. “The financials didn’t support that.”

On Monday afternoon, 1/ST Racing, the Thoroughbred Owners of California (TOC) and CARF chairman Jerome Hoban issued a joint statement.

“On behalf of 1/ST Racing, I am proud that industry stakeholders have united to forge a sustainable future for California racing,” wrote Butler. “This agreement ensures stability for racing and training across the state while strengthening the overall product we present to fans and participants.”

The joint statement added little public specifics to the proposed plan floated for the North, other than that it provided “uninterrupted stabling and training at Pleasanton, along with vanning services for Northern California-based horses traveling to and from Santa Anita. Weekly races with preferences and restrictions for Northern-based horses will be carded with travel stipends to help support horsemen and horsewomen traveling to Santa Anita.”

Bill Nader, TOC president and CEO, wrote that this blueprint “represents the most efficient use of resources, building a stronger foundation at Santa Anita while addressing the unique needs of our constituents in Northern California. Utilizing Pleasanton as an off-site stabling and training hub ensures continuity for horses and staff. This agreement is a significant step forward for the future of California racing.”

According to Hoban, “This new structure has the potential to provide the best opportunity for fair racing in the North to thrive. By maintaining local stabling, we support our horsemen and horsewomen while optimizing purses at racetracks statewide during the off-season.”

The CHRB also issued a statement Monday, writing that the CHRB views this arrangement as “temporary, as well as an opportunity for all stakeholders to work together to pursue purse enhancements that are essential for California racing to remain competitive with the rest of the country. We are hopeful that should such supplements be realized, California will once again support two thriving thoroughbred circuits and offer purses equal to or above those in other states.

“Currently California offers beautiful venues, unparalleled safety protocols, and what we believe to be the best equine testing and research lab in the country at UC Davis. Enhanced purses would make horse racing in the state second to none. In the meantime, we will focus on purses, field size, and safety at all tracks in California, as well as ensuring a successful traditional fair circuit next summer.”