Starting the day after its Dec. 26 season opener, Santa Anita Park will drop its lowest-level claiming prices to $8,000 for maidens and $5,000 for other horses.

The downward class-level moves, along with the possibility that Southern California’s main meet could add additional dates and/or races to its upcoming six-month season that runs through June 15, are part of a negotiated effort to “give more opportunities for horses that have historically raced in Northern California,” according to a license application amendment request by Santa Anita.

The California Horse Racing Board (CHRB) unanimously approved that request by a 4-0 vote Thursday.

Those Dec. 19 decisions–which have the backing of the Thoroughbred Owners of California and the California Thoroughbred Trainers–were part of a multiple-stakeholder reaction to deal with Monday’s revelation that there will be no NorCal “anchor” track running for the first half of 2025 until the traditional fairs season starts in that region of the state in the summer.

On Dec. 16, the California Authority of Racing Fairs board voted unanimously (with one abstention) to rescind a proposed Golden State Racing meet at Pleasanton spanning the first half of next year.

That CARF vote came on the heels of discussion at the CHRB meeting back on Nov. 21 that the now-concluded autumn Pleasanton meet wasn’t living up to the business expectations that had fueled a hope that the former fairs-season-only track might be able to fill the NorCal void that occurred when The Stronach Group (TSG) closed Golden Gate Fields back in June.

TSG also owns the financially struggling Santa Anita, which has now taken on the responsibility of trying to create racing opportunities for NorCal horses.

Nate Newby, the General Manager at Santa Anita, explained how the new lower-level races came about and would be worked into the daily mix.

“In the last three days, we’ve had a lot of productive meetings with pretty much all stakeholders; racing offices from every group in the state [and the] CTT, and [we’ve] come up with this,” Newby said.

“Lowering the minimums, that was at their recommendation, and we were, of course, on board. And we’re ready to provide racing opportunities and do everything we can,” Newby said.

Newby noted that although Santa Anita’s first condition book for the meet has already been published, “the racing office put out ‘extras’ [on Wednesday] for the first week, and they’ll continue to put them out in advance.”

Newby continued: “And then those races will be included starting in Book 2. But they’ll be offered on race days starting the day after opening, so Dec. 27 will be the start of the new claiming hierarchy, he said.

Pleasanton will remain open as an 850-stall training facility before segueing into its fairs-season dates in the summer.

Details are being worked out to provide subsidies for shipping from Pleasanton, which Santa Anita management estimated at $1,000 per round trip.

Santa Anita’s supporting documentation also included the possibility that three-day racing weeks could expand to four days (and maybe five days on holiday or special-event weeks) if enough horses from NorCal swell the entries.

Santa Anita’s documentation for the changes stated that each day’s racing could consist of “between 7 and 11 races on weekdays and between 8 and 13 races on opening day, weekends, holidays, and closing week.”

Thursday’s subdued and generally somber monthly CHRB meeting lacked the impassioned (and often hours-long) stakeholder discourse that has hallmarked similar NorCal/SoCal discussions in recent years.

In fact, only one industry participant spoke during the public comments session to address Pleasanton’s decision (at least for the time being) not to continue after one lackluster two-month meet as the region’s anchor track, a situation that TSG’s 1/ST Racing first put into motion by closing Golden Gate Fields.

Ellen Jackson, a longtime NorCal-based owner and breeder who retired from a three-decade training career in 2023, asked a single, succinct question of the CHRB commissioners.

“My observation is [that] the flaw in this whole system is that once the 1/ST [Racing] group gets the Northern California simulcast money, what’s to keep them from just withdrawing the training at Pleasanton or the subsidizing of the transportation or the purse structure? I don’t see any guarantee for us,” Jackson said.

The CHRB’s chairman, Gregory Ferraro, DVM, answered in equally concise fashion.

“I think your guarantee is the board,” Ferraro asserted, referring to the CHRB itself.

“And you’re going to have our back?” Jackson queried.

“Yeah,” Ferraro replied.

“Absolutely,” added commissioner Dennis Alfieri.

Ferraro then provided more context.

“Listen, I know this is going to be a difficult period of time for this transition. We hope it works. If it doesn’t work, we’ll adjust it to make it work. And hopefully it’s a temporary thing and we can, if things and times get better, we can go back to where we were,” Ferraro said.

“But at this point in time, we really have no choice,” Ferraro summed up.