Random musings from the week that was

Posted by noonante on March 19, 2013
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , , . Leave a comment

It has been a week in which two enormously out-of-touch institutions were in the forefront of news coverage.

The first, of course, is the Catholic Church.  I do not have an opinion as to whether the new Pope will be good, bad or indifferent and, indeed, do not much care.  But I find the pageantry and ritual fascinating, from speaking in Latin to the smoke billowing from a chimney on the Sistine Chapel.  In trying to determine whether the new pontiff will change the direction of an increasingly moribund institution, I found the composition of the College of Cardinals, as reported by The Boston Globe, fascinating.  Of the 115 cardinals eligible to vote for the new pope  –  they had to be under the age of 80  –  fully 37 lived in the Vatican.  One of every three cardinals lived in what has to be one of the world’s most insular environments.  And if reports about corruption and infighting within those hallowed walls are correct, the atmosphere is more Renaissance than Apple.  So I’m not looking for much of a change on same-sex marriage.  One great opportunity was missed, however, in announcing the new pope’s identity.  With a last name of Bergoglio, it would have been great to hear that soccer announcer yelling, “It’s Bergooooooooooooalio!”

Since we are on the subject of insular, moribund organizations, how about those Republicans?  When the Conservative Political Action Committee decided not to invite a politician as popular as Chris Christie to their annual event, but did have as speakers such has-been’s or never-were’s as Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin and Donald Trump, what does that say about the possibility of new ideas coming forth from the Grand Old Party?  I mean Sarah Palin’s idea of a political statement is drinking from a large cup of soda.  That event was followed by the Chair of the Republican National Committee delivering what he described as an autopsy for the party.  While the RNC is not a policy-making body, who is going to be setting the policy that will expand their appeal to a new generation of Republicans?  Rush Limbaugh?  Sean Hannity?  Ted Cruz?  While it’s obvious that attracting people from various minority groups such as blacks and Latinos is becoming increasingly necessary for a national party, the RNC report was not even dry before conservatives started attacking President Obama’s selection of Latino Tom Perez for Secretary of Labor.  His transgression?  Not bringing a prosecution against the New Black Panther Party when he worked in the Department of Justice.  Even though he was not in charge of the Civil Rights Division when that decision was made, the facts will not get in the way of what those on the fringes think is a good political argument.  So we have yet another nutty conspiracy theory (remember Benghazi?) targeting a Latino who did not prosecute a black organization.  So why is it, again, that the Republicans are not appealing to minorities?

If a political party is looking for a topic to focus on  –  and it’s not as though the Democrats are filled with great ideas  –  you could start with Steven Brill’s article in the March 4 Time, “Bitter Pill:  Why Medical Bills Are Killing Us.”  I have to admit that health care financing is not a topic I find particularly riveting, even though it is one of the most significant issues facing our country.  I haven’t finished reading the piece, but it is both riveting and troubling.  Brill took an approach of looking not at who should pay, but at why bills are so high.  I have always wondered why the uninsured  –  generally the poorest among us  –  got higher bills for the same services provided the well-insured.  I would like to think that this could jump start a serious discussion on health care costs.

Another worthwhile read is Lawrence Wright’s book on the Church of Scientology, Going Clear.  Scientology is not one of those topics that I have ever focused on  –  I hope I am not displaying a remarkable lack of curiosity here  –  but this book is as revelatory and disturbing as the Brill piece, albeit for different reasons.  Wright is a regular writer for The New Yorker and well-aware of the Church’s practice of commencing costly litigation against critics.

The snow is pouring down here in the Spa  –  the biggest storm of the winter  –  but Oklahoma opens on April 8, so spring is just about here.

Still waiting for the new NYRA

Posted by noonante on March 6, 2013
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics, Uncategorized. Tagged: , , . 7 Comments

Last Wednesday was the third meeting of the Reorganization Board of the New York Racing Association and, quite frankly, there is not much going on with this group.  When a NYRA press release is reduced to identifying a highlight of the meeting as approval of the minutes from the prior meeting, it is time to start wondering when the new Board, appointed five months ago, is going to start dealing with the important issues facing New York racing.

If there was a newsworthy event coming from the meeting, I guess it would be the recommendation of the Board’s Compensation Committee to pay the new CEO a base salary of $300,000 with a another $250,000 available in incentive payments for meeting goals that have yet to be identified.  A consultant to the Compensation Committee had advised that a position of this nature would warrant a salary of between $600,000 and $1.1 million, but Committee Chair Vincent Tese was leery of a “quasi-public” entity such as the new NYRA paying that level of compensation.  It perhaps goes without saying that the talent pool available for the NYRA position is going to be reduced significantly if the available candidates are limited to those willing to accept a guaranteed salary that is only half of the minimum amount the position is worth.  And it may only be a two-year job since the current Board is supposed to transition to a new entity by October of 2015.

While the salary is one issue, I think an even bigger one may be the Board’s lack of anything resembling a big picture vision for the future of New York racing.  When Governor Andrew Cuomo decided almost a year ago that he should be in charge of thoroughbred racing in New York, it was not clear to me what he intended to accomplish by seizing control.  Part of the reason for the uncertainty is the simple fact that he failed to articulate a reason for his action, and seemed to rely on a general sentiment that the old NYRA was somehow out of control and needed to be replaced.  Setting aside whether that perception had any merit  –  and I do not think it did  –  the lack of a concrete positive agenda appears to have continued to this day and has clearly affected the level of activity on the government’s hand-picked new Board.

It has also been almost a year since the former CEO was fired, and it has taken this long for the new Board to authorize the hiring of a search firm to look for a replacement.  So what is the response when candidates referred by the search firm to the Board’s interviewing committee ask for the Board’s vision for NYRA going forward?  I suppose one answer could be that the Chairman David Skorton has appointed a committee on developing the long-term vision and they are expected to make a report by July 1.  But other than a legitimate focus on health and safety matters, I cannot think of a single other matter advanced by this Board that represents a change from the past.

At the recent meeting, Board member Bobby Flay said he had been approached by Breeders’ Cup officials about whether there was an “appetite” to bring the 2014 Cup back to New York for the first time since 2005.  One member identified what had been obstacles in the past, neither one of which Flay thought was a “deal breaker.”  There was a discussion of the Lasix issue, a matter that has now been “fixed” by the Breeders’ Cup announcement that the Lasix ban would not be extended beyond the two-year old races.  But there was no discussion about the desirability of bringing the Cup to New York.  No discussion.  Even though a decision by the Breeders’ Cup on the 2014 site is expected to be made within weeks, Chairman David Skorton decided that a NYRA bid was “not a decision we will make today” because of his stated need to get educated about the issues.  For all practical purposes, that means he did make a decision and the 2014 Cup will not be coming to Belmont Park.

This is typical of a pattern that has emerged clearly at the first three meetings of the Board.  If the Chairman does not approve of a matter, it will not be brought to a vote.  When there is a vote, it has always been unanimous.  Even though the Board is comprised of successful professionals and business people, there is a desultory aspect to these meetings that is both surprising and dispiriting.  There are Board members who bring a passion and insight that is valuable  –  Rick Violette of the Horsemen’s Association comes to mind  –  but for the most part there is little meaningful discussion taking place.

There are things going on, but aside from the safety and health matters  –  and I do not mean to minimize those efforts  –  what is being done was begun by former CEO Charlie Hayward and his successor Ellen McClain.  (Even the heavy lifting on the health and safety matters was done by the Task Force that reported on them last summer.)  NYRA has a new web site, plans to bring OTB back to New York City, and has plans to construct a grandstand at Saratoga’s training track that will allow the public to watch morning workouts.  Such projects not only enhance the appeal of NYRA’s product, but are the kinds of things that will help bring desperately needed new fans to the game.

One advantage of the new NYRA is that Board meetings are open to the public (and are available as a video on the web site).  At the last meeting, a self-described railbird asked me why McClain was being fired.  I could not come up with an answer, and had to speculate that it was for unknown political reasons because she has impressed me as being competent and knowledgeable about both racing and the business of racing.  The same can be said about other NYRA officials from my observations.

He is not the last person who is going to question where NYRA is going.  Governor Cuomo has said he does not know much about horse racing, but there is also a fear that he doesn’t really care about it and would not mind if the sport withered away.  While the NYRA Board consists of well-intentioned people, there has yet to be any indication that we are going to get the leadership from them that New York and the sport need.

Is this Governor Cuomo’s idea of integrity?

Posted by noonante on February 26, 2013
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , . Leave a comment

On his website, Governor Andrew Cuomo identifies the hall marks of his administration as “Performance, Integrity and Pride.”  We will concede the “Pride” part.  I doubt anyone will ever accuse the Governor of lacking sufficient self-esteem. “Performance” is a characteristic we have discussed in the past, and will continue to do so.  This post deals with the “Integrity” of the Cuomo Administration,  a word the Oxford English Dictionary defines as “the quality of having strong moral principles.”

We are looking at this because of an interview with Howard Glaser by WGDJ-AM’s Frederic U. Dicker this past Thursday.  Glaser is one of the most important figures in Cuomo’s Administration, serving as the Director of Operations overseeing all state agencies.  The sole topic of the interview was what had been a minor controversy over the forced retirement of Mike Fayette from the Adirondack office of the Department of Transportation.  One would not think this was a matter of such import for a person in Glaser’s position, except for the fact that Fayette told the Adirondack Daily Enterprise that he was forced out of his job for giving a previous interview to the paper that was not authorized by DOT.

Glaser began the interview  –  which actually seemed more like a soliloquy  –  by sanctimoniously criticizing the media for sometimes getting only half the story because of deadline pressure, although in this case he thought they got less than half the story.  He expressed his hope that he media would obtain the full facts to correct the “misrepresentations” and “misleading information” they had published.  Glaser then proceeded to blatantly distort the facts of this case.

I have listened to the interview three times, and replayed several portions of it several times to be sure I understood what Glaser was saying.  (You can hear it on WGDJ-AM’s web site as a podcast from Dicker’s February 21 program.  It is Dicker’s headline feature, and the segment with Glaser begins around the 45-minute mark.)

If you only listened to Glaser’s narrative  –  and believed him  –  you would come away with the view that Fayette’s threatened termination was the result of an inappropriate sexual relationship with a subordinate employee that was facilitated on state time with the use of state-supplied equipment such as a car, Blackberry and computer.  Indeed, Glaser used the phrases “inappropriate sexual relationship” and “theft of services” so often, I thought it must have been a goal for his performance appraisal.  He assured us that speaking to the media would never be grounds for termination if that was the “only” reason.

Fayette had been guilty of the conduct described by Glaser.  It was not, however, the impetus for the threatened termination that forced his resignation.  He had already been disciplined for the behavior with a two-week suspension without pay in early 2011.  The immediate controversy began with a notice of discipline dated September 14, 2012, informing him “if you are found guilty of the charge brought against you, the penalty exacted against you will consist of termination.”  What was the single charge?  “You disobeyed a written directive … not to speak with the Adirondack Daily Enterprise.”  (The first page of the letter was printed in the on-line Times Union of February 21.)  The letter did mention his prior discipline as a factor in assessing the appropriate penalty.

Dicker, who is also Cuomo’s authorized hagiographer, spent most of the interview “tsk, tsking” Glaser’s account of Fayette’s misdeeds, but at least asked one salient question:  Was Glaser talking about this as a recent case?  Glaser assured him it was, saying that Fayette had a “long record and pattern of abuse of theft of services and inappropriate relationship.”  He further informed Dicker that Fayette retired once the termination hearing was scheduled.

Setting aside whether termination of Fayette’s employment was warranted under the actual facts of the case, Glaser had several options in how to handle a controversy feeding into a “narrative about Cuomo administration control of information,” as Glaser described it to The New York Times.  The first would have been to simply ignore it.  The employee himself had made public details of the prior suspension.  It is hard to see a story involving a disgruntled employee with a less than pristine work record being news for more than one day.

A second possibility would have been for Glaser to tell the truth, saying, for example: “The termination was for insubordination.  While this particular offense would not normally have justified firing an employee, this individual had a series of significant infractions in the past two years that warranted an increased punishment.”  Again, I think that would have been the end of the story.

But Glaser took a different approach, taking a story confined largely to the Adirondack Daily Enterprise and getting it to The New York Times.  In doing so, he not only enhanced what he had described as the “tired story line” of the Cuomo administration tightly controlling information, but did a great disservice to himself and his boss.  When one of the most powerful men in state government goes after a retired employee, and does it by grossly distorting the truth, it cannot be seen as an example of the “integrity” of which the Cuomo administration likes to boast.  Indeed, Glaser’s enthusiastic repeating of the two-year old charges, and the maligning of the character of the former employee, is nothing if not the behavior of a bully.

This is, unfortunately, not atypical behavior for the Cuomo administration.  In recent weeks, top officials have gone after the Democratic Mayor of Syracuse for having the temerity to question the wisdom of a proposal in Cuomo’s budget that would allow cities and towns the option of delaying pension costs to the future.  It’s an idea that helps Cuomo’s short-term political standing while pushing off high expenses to the future when, presumably, he will not be Governor.

Then we had last year’s slandering of top officials of the New York Racing Association as part of the Governor’s move to take control of horse racing.  A letter from the two top racing officials, on the letterhead of the Executive Chamber, accused members of the NYRA Board of acting  “only in its own proprietary interests”  –  because they owned horses.  The officials promised a review of the “character and fitness” of the Board members to determine whether their licenses should be revoked once a review by the Inspector General was completed.  That review has not been completed, but that did not prevent the Governor from appointing some of those same Board members to his own Board.  It is yet another example of the character assassination that is permissible if done to further the Governor’s interests.

Incidentally, former DOT employee Mike Fayette who gave the unauthorized interview to a newspaper  –  he was praising the Administration’s response to Hurricane Irene and its aftermath.

Musings on the week that was

Posted by noonante on February 19, 2013
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , . Leave a comment

Here are some random observations from last week’s news:

  • You may have heard the pope abdicated his God-given job.  As one who was raised Catholic, was an altar boy and attended a Catholic high school and college, I would have to say that selection of a successor will have less impact on me than the meteor that crashed into Russia.  While it is nice to think that the new guy will finally set the Church straight on the enabling culture of child sex abuse and rape, you would have to ignore the widespread acceptance of that culture throughout the Western world by the very people who will be electing Benedict’s replacement.  As one of Canadian ancestry, however, I was excited to see that one handicapper had a Canadian as the pre-conclave favorite.  I have an image of Cardinal Ouelett pulling cassocks over the heads of fellow cardinals and pummeling them until they give in.
  • While nothing gets the mainstream media more excited that being able to speculate on something that could happen (such as the election of a pope) to save them from having to cover actual newsworthy events, they outdid themselves with coverage of Marco Rubio taking a drink of water.  The media could have covered the fact that Rubio offered no new ideas for the Republican Party to counter Barack Obama’s State of the Union address, thereby continuing to delay the reckoning that might have occurred following November’s election, but nothing beats a politician embarrassing himself, no matter the insignificance of the event.
  • Speaking of embarrassing behavior, when are Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham going to realize that continually saying stupid things on Sunday talk shows does not make them this century’s version of Henry Clay?  They are delaying the approval of Republican Chuck Hagel to be Obama’s Secretary of Defense because, in McCain’s view, Hagel does not recognize the success of the surge in Iraq, and Graham wants to know more about Benghazi  –  in which Hagel had no involvement.  Graham topped it off by saying the March 1 sequester (for which a Pentagon chief would be essential) could be avoided if Obamacare were eliminated, a program that almost everyone knows, no matter how reluctantly, is happening.
  • While they undoubtedly consider themselves immune from embarrassment, the International Olympic Committee has eliminated wrestling as one of the guaranteed sports in the 2020 Olympics.  Quick, name another sport that is not a track and field event that was in the Olympic renewal of 1896.
  • Finally, if we thought the last two years would end sentences that contained the words “Boston Red Sox” and “embarrassing,” we have a starting pitcher hurting himself in the first 20 minutes of spring training  –  pulling a hamstring covering first base.

That’s it for now.  I just saw a snowflake fall in Saratoga Springs, raising the hope there could be enough of the white stuff to cover up all my unraked leaves.

WebRep
Overall rating
This site has no rating
(not enough votes)

What is going on at NYRA?

Posted by noonante on February 14, 2013
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . 2 Comments

On Wednesday, the New York Racing Association announced that it was beginning a search for the new position of Equine Veterinary Medical Director in conjunction with the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine.  The position will report to the College.

Establishing the position of EVMD was a key recommendation of the Task Force on Racehorse Health and Safety that was convened last March following an increase in equine fatalities during the Aqueduct winter meet.  The Task Force identified a number of factors that may have contributed to the increase, one of which were inadequate protocols for the racetrack veterinarians who were responsible for clearing horses to run.  In addition, the Task Force concluded that having the NYRA veterinary department report to the Racing Office presented a “critical conflict-of-interest” since the Racing Office had a financial incentive to maximize the size of fields for its races.  Accordingly, the Task Force recommended that the vets instead report to an EVMD within the state regulatory body overseeing racing, which is now the State Gaming Commission.

Setting aside for the moment whether Cornell University should now be approving horses to participate in NYRA races, there are troubling aspects to the manner in which NYRA came to this decision.  When the NYRA Reorganization Board, created after Governor Andrew Cuomo decided last May that the state should control New York’s thoroughbred racing, held its first meeting in December, it voted to operate NYRA in accordance with the state’s Open Meetings Law and Freedom of Information Law.  Chairman David Skorton said any decisions would be discussed and decided in meetings open to the public.  Not only was the decision to have the EVMD report to Cornell not discussed in an open meeting, it was contrary to a decision made by the Reorganization Board at its last open meeting on January 25.

At that meeting, the hiring of the EVMD was one of the few agenda items that generated much discussion.  Skorton announced his intention to locate the position at NYRA, a view that at least two Board members questioned because it was contrary to the Task Force recommendations, as well as contrary to Governor Cuomo’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year that funded the position at the Gaming Commission.  Skorton, however, was adamant that the position should be within NYRA and assured the Board members that he would handle any obstacles to placing it there.  As it has done with every Skorton proposal to date, the Board unanimously acquiesced.

So, in the space of less than three weeks, Chairman Skorton violated his own pledge to make decisions in open meetings, and announced a position contrary to one taken at such a meeting, and contrary to the Governor’s budget.  He has also ignored one of the goals announced in his “work plan” approved unanimously by the Board at the February meeting to “improve and promote transparency and integrity in the management of all NYRA operations.”

Aside from the imperious manner in which this significant decision was made, what are the merits of having Cornell run racetrack veterinary operations?  I should emphasize, at the outset, that I have nothing but the highest regard for the College of Veterinary Medicine (and once had one of my own horses treated there).  But this is a major step.  First of all, it removes accountability for the management of the veterinary operations from the bodies authorized by the Legislature and the Governor to conduct and oversee racing  –  specifically, NYRA, the Reorganization Board and the State Gaming Commission.  Should there be a problem similar to the one at Aqueduct last year, who is going to hold Cornell University accountable?  I have certainly had my share of criticism for the manner in which state government took over NYRA last year, but at least the state actors assumed responsibility.

Now one person who is empowered to hold the College of Veterinary Medicine accountable is the University President, one David Skorton.  I find it intriguing that the reason the Task Force recommended placing the EVMD at the independent regulatory body is to remove the “critical conflict-of-interest” from having the position at NYRA.  But will not the President of Cornell University have a similar conflict?  It will not be from that of a Racing Office needing large fields to generate a bigger handle, but would not a controversy over racing fatalities threaten Cornell’s reputation as a top-flight academic institution and its ability to attract the best talent, to say nothing of its ability to raise money?  Cornell’s incentive would be to reduce that possibility by taking the most risk adverse position, thereby reducing fields and handle, a result that would be counter to the interests of the Chairman of NYRA’s Board.

The most troubling aspect of this latest decision by Chairman Skorton, however, is that it may be illustrative of a tendency to make ill-conceived decisions without regard to the possible implications.  Before the January Board meeting, he announced a series of measures the Board would discuss to address fatalities at this year’s Aqueduct meeting.  When the Board convened a week later, only one of the ideas  –  reducing the number of racing days  –  was given serious consideration.  While the notion of  Cornell having a role in racing operations may have merits that are not readily apparent to me, it is an example of a subject that would merit serious discussion before announcing a fait accompli.  Before Chairman Skorton continues with this approach, he may not want to lose sight of the fact that such an approach is one for which the prior Board was often criticized.

I also hope that the NYRA Reorganization Board appreciates the importance of restoring stability to New York racing  – a condition that clearly has been absent since state regulators commenced their attack on the “old” NYRA a year ago.  While the most visible example of the instability may be the failure to replace the former CEO since he was fired over nine months ago, the delays in taking many significant actions only exacerbates the uncertainty.  Owners and breeders thinking about making long-term commitments to New York racing are certainly thinking long and hard before opening the checkbook.

New New York-bred hits the ground (almost running)

Posted by noonante on February 13, 2013
Posted in: Horse Racing. 1 Comment

There is something magical about any birth, but there cannot be anything more entertaining than the early development  –  and I mean early  –  of a newborn foal.  Within 20 minutes of birth, this new New York-bred filly was standing.  Shortly thereafter she was squawking about something, and one can only wonder about what.  The second photo was taken before she was even 60 hours old.  She was approaching humans for scratching, kicking her mom (behavior that was quickly deterred), and charming anyone who came close to her.  My wife and I, as the proud breeders and owners, cannot wait to see what tomorrow brings.

DSC_0033DSC_0103

 

Cuomo: no politics with casinos?

Posted by noonante on February 5, 2013
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . Leave a comment

I wonder if Governor Andrew Cuomo has difficulty keeping a straight face when he makes laughable comments, or whether it is a skill that comes to him naturally.  Last week the Times Union quoted him as saying to radio reporter Susan Arbetter, “I don’t want to be involved in casinos if it’s going to be politicized.”  He went on to say, “If it’s going to be a politicized process, if that’s what the Legislature wants to do, I’m not going to recommend it to the people of this state.”  His vow of chastity did not even survive the weekend.

His comments were sparked by the Senate President, Dean Skelos, and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver having the temerity to suggest that they might have an opinion on where the casinos should be located  –  up to seven would be permitted under the proposed amendment to the state Constitution.  Cuomo certainly has ample reason to be wary of the role politics might play in decisions concerning casinos.  After all, he was Attorney General when his predecessor and that of Skelos  –  along with Silver  –  were the participants in procuring a racino for the Aqueduct facility that was botched so badly, amid considerable evidence of political malfeasance, that it produced a scathing 300-page report by the Inspector General as well as ongoing investigations.

The Governor has an interesting definition of what constitutes allowable “politics.”  As he told Arbetter, “There’s some politics in terms of setting policy  –  where are the casinos, upstate versus downstate regions, how many  –  but I want to … have an independent authority do it and keep the politics out of it.”  So the general location and number of casinos which, remarkably, are items specified in his budget for the upcoming fiscal year  –  three in upstate and none in the New York City area  – are not the abhorrent “politics” but rather pristine “policy.”

Given this distinction, it would be fascinating to hear the Governor explain a new “policy” that was leaked to The Buffalo News and reported by Tom Precious on Sunday, a mere three days after the Arbetter interview.  Instead of three casinos with locations to be determined by the new State Gaming Commission,  “an administration official speaking … on condition of anonymity” said the Governor may now want to have a fourth casino located in Niagara Falls.  This sudden reversal appears to be prompted by a dispute the state is having with the Seneca Nation over the latter’s purported failure to make $500 million in payments to the state from its own casino.  Conveniently, there is undeveloped land in downtown Niagara Falls owned by billionaire Howard Milstein, described in The Buffalo News as “a major campaign donor to Cuomo.”

While the Governor may only be using the threat of placing a competing casino in Niagara Falls in his characteristic mode of power politics, it would not be the first convergence of Cuomo’s desire to bring casinos to New York with the financial interests of major donors.  After he surprisingly made the authorization of non-Indian casinos a priority in his 2012 State of the State address, The New York Times revealed significant contributions made to the Cuomo super-PAC, the modestly titled Committee to Save New York, by gambling interests.  The CSNY, established shortly after Cuomo was elected Governor, received $2 million from the association of racino operators and another $400,000 by Genting, operator of the Aqueduct racino.  And that was just in 2011.  It is not known how much gambling interests contributed in 2012 because Cuomo has not asked that the group disclose its donors, despite his oft-invoked commitment to transparency in government.

I do not know if Governor Cuomo is so cynical, and has so little respect for the citizens of New York, that he has no trouble with making a lofty pronouncement on one day to a reporter in Albany, and then contradicting it three days later to one in Buffalo.  It may be that he makes his policy decisions on the fly, with little thought behind them.  The latter possibility is buttressed by what seems to be a “fire, aim, ready” approach to governance.  We saw it with his takeover of the New York Racing Association where he sat on his own legislation for three months before signing it, or his failure to make appointments to the Long Island Power Authority but having no problem with criticizing their management after Sandy.  In this case, he has yet to make appointments to the State Gaming Commission, the body charged with keeping politics out of the casino siting process.  He signed that bill on March 30, and ten months later he has only come up with two of his five appointments to the Commission even though they were to begin operations on February 1.

It is possible, of course, that he is both that cynical and that unprepared.

Second NYRA Board meeting – more sizzle than steak?

Posted by noonante on January 29, 2013
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . 1 Comment

I have a lasting memory from attending the second meeting of the Reorganization Board of the New York Racing Association.  When the meeting ended around 5:30, I stepped out to snow gently falling in Manhattan;  it was the first time I had seen snow in New York City.  When I turned on to 33rd Street, the Empire State Building was lit up amid the snow.  It was a beautiful scene, making me realize once again what a magical place this city can be.

The meeting itself was anticipated to deal with a considerably more prosaic topic:  recent fatalities at Aqueduct that led Chairman David Skorton to issue a press release the week before announcing matters that would be addressed by the Board.  While Skorton promised “serious discussions next week to consider these important issues,” the urgency apparently dissipated  –  or cooler heads prevailed  –  over the eight days following the press statement.  Installing a synthetic track to replace the inner dirt track was deemed not to be a concern by Anthony Bonomo, chair of NYRA’s Equine Safety Committee, and the matter was referred to NYRA staff to review.

There was agreement on reducing the number of racing days per week  –  a change that seems to be universally supported  –  but would require legislative action.  While I am fully aware that Governor Andrew Cuomo has demonstrated his ability to ram significant legislation through the Legislature in a matter of days  –  witness his takeover of NYRA or the recent gun bill  –  I am not seeing a similar interest for this proposal, even if this is his hand-picked Board.  Given the unpredictability of the Legislature acting on anything, I was surprised the Board did not consider one of the ideas identified in Skorton’s press release  –  reducing the number of races per day.  I do not know if this would also require legislation, but cutting one race per day for five days has the same effect as reducing racing days by one-half day per week.

Another item identified in the press release was “overall security measures related to pre-race security and racing integrity.”  To address this concern, Bonomo recommended that NYRA establish its own rules and disciplinary procedures to identify and punish the rule-breakers.  There is, understandably, a considerable level of frustration over the length of time it took the state’s regulatory agency, the Racing and Wagering Board, to finally implement action against trainer Richard Dutrow for his history of 65 drug violations.  Much of the delay, of course, was caused by court proceedings and injunctions against the penalties.  The notion that what we need is a second enforcement agency, with its own set of rules, is so ludicrous that it should have been summarily rejected because it would have the opposite effect than intended  –  opening a second avenue for miscreants to string out the process.

Perhaps ideas such as this are entertained because the Board recognizes the emphasis Chairman Skorton has brought to the safety and health of both the equine and human participants in the sport.  Emblematic of that praiseworthy commitment is his announcement that NYRA  has established the position of Equine Veterinary Medical Director, to whom the NYRA veterinary department would report.  While this decision is one in which Skorton demonstrated a considerable personal investment, there are a couple of puzzling questions.

First, the idea that New York should have an Equine Veterinary Medical Director was recommended by the Task Force that was appointed last year to investigate the spike in equine fatalities at the 2011-12 Aqueduct winter meeting.  Indeed, in a 100-page report that made hundreds of recommendations, this was a key one.  The Task Force determined that having the NYRA veterinary department report directly to the Racing Office presented a “critical conflict-of-interest.”  Because the Racing Office sought the large fields that result in increased handle (and revenue for NYRA), the vets were placed in a position where their advocacy for the horse could be “conditional and based upon the needs of the employer, rather than the needs of the horse.”   There was anecdotal evidence of vets not scratching unsound horses, or feeling pressure to not scratch horses, as a result of the Racing Office’s financial goal.

The Task Force recommended that the Equine Medical Director be placed in the oversight regulatory body, with all the track vets reporting to that person.  If that were not feasible, the Task Force concluded that the veterinary department should “immediately” be assigned to report to the stewards and have no accountability to the Racing Office.  (I do not know if this latter change has been made in the five months since the Report was provided to the Governor.)

Although the Governor’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year beginning April 1 contains funding for the Equine Medical Director at the new State Gaming Commission (that is replacing the Racing and Wagering Board), Skorton was adamant that the position would be at NYRA.  He dismissed concerns expressed by Board members that the Task Force had recommended the vets be independent of NYRA, or that there could be a duplication between the NYRA position and one at the Gaming Commission.  While I think his position is partly the result of his focus on safety and health issues, I suspect that an element of his thinking is based on his background as a cardiologist, an experience he related during the meeting.  What he may be missing, however, is that the potential for a continuing conflict-of-interest between the vets and their “employer” exists as long as the vets are at NYRA.  Even if the Racing Office is not involved in overseeing the recommendations of the veterinarians, they will continue to “encourage” trainers to enter horses to fill out fields.  The first time a vet scratches a horse entered as a result of entreaties from the Racing Office, we can be assured that whoever is in charge of the vets will hear the screaming.

The second puzzling aspect of Skorton’s decision is that he already has a chief of the veterinary department who can accomplish much of what the Task Force recommended.  If he doesn’t think the incumbent is up to the challenge, replace him.  If the reporting relationship to the Racing Office has not been changed, do it.  The important thing here is to implement the changes recommended by the Task Force as quickly as possible, and not become potentially embroiled in a bureaucratic turf dispute right off the bat.

Skorton has clearly demonstrated after two meetings that he is the one in charge.  He sets the agenda and gets his way on every vote.  Indeed, in five hours of meetings there has not been a single dissenting or abstaining vote.  But the Board member everyone in the media loves to quote is Bobby Flay, the chef.  Flay has yet to actually say anything that has not been said repeatedly over the years, but he is fluent in the sound bites loved by the media.  If the same comments were made by a Board member not as well known to the general public  –  that is, everyone else on the Board  –  I doubt the statements would be quoted.

One item that received media attention was Skorton’s proposal for a “Three Year Work Plan.”  It’s not a work plan in the sense of … uhh .. being a plan for work that will be done, but a rather anodyne statement of goals.  (You can read it here.)  One item, however, warrants attention given last week’s publicity about financial settlements being sought by fired NYRA executives Charles Hayward and Patrick Kehoe (as well as Ellen McClain, the current head of NYRA who announced her resignation at the meeting.)  The confidential settlement discussions were leaked by a “several gaming officials” according to the article in the Times Union.  There is, of course, only one purpose to be served in leaking such information and that is to discredit with the public any legitimate claims that Hayward and Kehoe have.

What does this have to do with the work plan?  One of its items is to “improve and promote transparency and integrity in the management of all NYRA operations.”  When the head of the NYRA Board’s Audit Committee acknowledges that Hayward and Kehoe are contractually entitled to severance and legal fees, but NYRA is not honoring those contractual obligations, I do not see how that “promotes integrity.”  The stated reason for ignoring the contract, according to the Audit Committee chair, was to wait for a report supposedly being done by the state’s Inspector General.  Setting aside whether that is a legitimate reason to breach a contract, he apparently hadn’t bothered to check with the IG on the report’s status in the three months since this new Board was appointed.

This tactic is all too reminiscent of the approach taken by Governor Cuomo and his aides when they sought to take control of NYRA last spring.  There were, of course, the leaks to trusted media sources, but also the unconscionable slandering of the prior members of the old NYRA Board with accusations that have never been explained or justified.  If Chairman Skorton really wants to make an immediate mark for the new era of NYRA, he will dispense with this nonsense and make decisions based on the law and merits, and not on the political needs of the Governor.

Is there another crisis with Aqueduct fatalities?

Posted by noonante on January 20, 2013
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , . 1 Comment

In early 2012, an increase in racing fatalities at Aqueduct led to a call for a Task Force to study the causes.  (Between November 30, 2011, and March 18, 2012, 21 horses died, a number about twice that for each of the prior two Aqueduct winter meets.)  The Task Force conducted a comprehensive review and made a number of recommendations, many of which dealt with the administration of permitted drugs and the practice of racetrack veterinary medicine.  The increase in fatalities was also cited as a factor leading to Governor Andrew Cuomo’s decision in May to have New York state government take control of thoroughbred racing, replacing the former New York Racing Association Board with one controlled by appointees of the state’s political leadership.

Because of the increased scrutiny on equine safety, I have been tracking fatalities at the current Aqueduct meet, comparing them with comparable periods for the last two meets.  My source for information is the data posted on the site of the Racing and Wagering Board, the state agency with regulatory authority over racing.  For the period of December 1 through January 15, there were the following racing fatalities at Aqueduct:  four in 2010 – 2011;  seven in 2011 – 2012;  six in 2012 – 2013.  (Please see the Note at the end.)  Since the track runs five days per week and is closed for about a week during Christmas, we are looking at 27 or 28 racing days from December 1 through January 15.

Should this year’s six fatalities be a cause for concern?  As an owner, I would say that a fatal breakdown by a horse that we put into training or racing is unbearable.  Yes, they are inherently competitive animals, but they don’t wear saddles and jockeys on a farm.  Injuries, and sometimes death, are regrettably an inevitable occurrence.  From a statistical perspective, however, I do not see a big difference between this year’s six deaths and the four from two years ago.  It is a 50 per cent increase, but the numbers are so small compared to the number of horses that would have raced over each period (about 2,000), that I cannot see the difference as significant.

The new NYRA Board apparently has a different take.  On Thursday, new Board Chairman David Skorton announced that the next meeting of the Board, on January 25, will consider changes for the Aqueduct inner track meet, including:  reducing the number of racing days;  reducing the number of races per day;  bolstering “security measures related to pre-race security and racing integrity”;  and, installing a synthetic surface.  (Steven Crist has an excellent piece on the wisdom of going synthetic.)  The Board will also consider whether to “curtail racing.”  Since reducing the number of days and the number of races would seem to be “curtailing,”  I am guessing this really means that the Board will consider the cancellation of racing.

While my initial take was that this was a considerable overreaction, my concern was heightened measurably when I watched the Friday webcast of the Franchise Oversight Board.  The FOB, as it is affectionately known, is another state agency with oversight authority for racing in New York.  One Board member raised the “serious problem at Aqueduct,” which he described as “relatively high fatalities.”  Another actually referred to the inner track as the “killing fields,” and raised the possibility of suspending racing.  (Unlike some members of the NYRA Board, including the Chairman, who are new to their oversight responsibilities, the FOB member who made the remark about the killing fields has been around long enough so that his term is about to expire.)

Chairman Skorton should be commended for his interest in equine safety and health (as well as for the human participants), but it is difficult to view his response to this year’s fatalities as being warranted.  It is not as if state government has moved with alacrity in addressing the problems first identified last March.  While the Governor rammed his bill taking control of racing through a somnolent Legislature in a matter of days (shades of the recent gun control bill), he waited over three months to actually sign it.  The Task Force report on last year’s deaths was given to him in August, but he waited another month to release it.  He appointed the new NYRA Board in October, but they met only once in their first three months.

Then there are the delays in implementing the Task Force’s recommendations  –  included in a comprehensive report by respected industry figures that was widely and justifiably praised when the public finally got to see it in September.  Changes to the permissible time periods for administering a small number of drugs did not take effect until December 26, even though the recommendations were immediately accepted (and trumpeted) by the Cuomo Administration.  The establishment of the position of Equine Veterinary Medical Director  –  a key recommendation of the Task Force  –  was announced just this past Thursday, even though it was not accompanied by an announcement of a person who would actually do the job.  Conducting a necropsy on a fatally injured animal, also a Task Force recommendation, was again not announced until Thursday.  And those are only a handful of the literally dozens of recommendations made in the Report from almost four months ago. To say that the significant changes recommended by the Task Force have either not been implemented, or only recently implemented, means that we do not know if they will serve to reduce fatalities is, of course, blatantly obvious.  What is also obvious, however, is that the new Board undoubtedly feels the need to make its mark on New York racing, and to demonstrate that they are an improvement over the prior Board (even though most of them were on that prior Board).

Of particular concern though is whether the discussions concerning the current Aqueduct meet are being driven by facts as opposed to anecdote, supposition or, worse of all, a political agenda.  To suggest that the current rate of fatalities at Aqueduct is worse than last year, or significantly different than the year before, is simply inaccurate.  Chairman Skorton’s assertion that establishing the position of Medical Director is an “immediate step to prevent more catastrophic injuries,” is, on its face, foolish.  The only thing it might prevent is public criticism for doing so little to implement the Task Force recommendations.

And if the recommendations of the Task Force that were justifiably praised on their release are to be taken seriously, should they not be given a chance to work?  Red flags are always raised when dramatic changes are proposed that are not supported by the evidence, since it suggests that the true motivation underlying the changes are not being revealed.

It should also be noted that the new NYRA Board has plenty to do, and they don’t need to be creating problems to address.  At the first meeting of the Board on December 12, they approved a number of committees and committed to holding committee meetings in accordance with the state’s Open Meeting law.  Chairman Skorton also realized that his plan of not holding another full Board meeting for three months would not address the pressing issues faced by NYRA.  The result, however, has only been the announcement of another Board meeting six weeks later and no announcement of committee meetings.  I recently read an entertaining article on procrastination (given my lifelong adherence to this philosophy).  The thrust of the article was that procrastination was not so bad as long as you were doing something useful instead of the more necessary task.  I hope that is not the model being followed by the new NYRA Board as it elevates the Aqueduct fatalities to the top of their list.

Note:  The records of the Racing and Wagering Board on equine deaths show that there were five such deaths from racing in the period December 1, 2010 to January 15, 2011.  One identified fatality was of Rum Row on December 11.  The result charts, however, do not show such a runner on that day, and Equibase data indicates that the horse by that name never raced.  Incidentally  –  or maybe not so incidentally  –  of the 17 fatalities that occurred on the approximately 80 racing days I looked at, there were three days when two horses died, and two others died either the day before or the day after the multiple deaths.  That means that almost one-half (8 of 17) deaths occurred on only five days.

Musings on the week that was

Posted by noonante on January 14, 2013
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , . Leave a comment

Some random observations from recent news:

Will Donald Trump jump on this birther controversy?  I know I have ridiculed all the speculation on the 2016 Presidential election, but this item caught my eye.  There is a “question” about whether Tea Party favorite Senator Ted Cruz is eligible to run for President because he was not born in the United States, but in Canada to an American woman married to a Cuban citizen.  Other candidates for President about whom there were questions concerning their citizenship include Barry Goldwater, George Romney and John McCain, none of whom were born in the United States of America.  Interestingly, all were Republicans, but none were black with a strange name.

What kind of science is discussed in the Science Committee of the House of Representatives?  Last week brought the news that yet another Congressional Republican believes that a woman being raped can somehow prevent a pregnancy.  This time it was Representative Phil Gingrey of Georgia who one time served on the Science Committee (as did Todd Akin) and is not only an OB/GYN, but chairs the House’s Doctors’ caucus.  (There is a Doctors’ caucus?)  According to Benjy Sarlin of TalkingPointsMemo, Gingrey joins other illustrious Science Committee members who believe that man walked the earth with the Tyrannosaurus Rex and another who thinks climate change is a hoax perpetrated by scientists looking for federal grant money.  Yet a third member suggested that global warming is caused by “dinosaur flatulence.”  Incidentally, Sarlin reports that a 1996 study by the American Journal of Obstetricians and Gynecologists concluded that 32,000 pregnancies result from a rape each year.

Is this winter deja vu all over again?  Speaking of global warming, isn’t this winter eerily bringing back memories of last winter?  When you can comfortably be outside in Saratoga Springs on January 13 without a jacket and the little snow that had fallen is disappearing, isn’t something wrong?

Was Fox News too quick to jump on Al Gore?  The news that Al Gore was selling his television network to Al Jazeera English brought the predictable outrage from the Fox bloviators.  While some may have thought that Fox would be a vigorous supporter of laissez faire capitalism no matter how laissez faire it is, their commentators pointed out correctly that the Al Jazeera broadcast in Arabic is a cesspool of virulent anti-Semitism.  But as Jon Stewart demonstrated on Thursday night, an equally odious Arabic network is owned in part by none other than Rupert Murdoch.

Brent Musburger said something newsworthy?  I guess I just had to observe that Brent Musburger has never had anything useful to say when he goes and creates some controversy while broadcasting the Alabama – Notre Dame game.  I had the sound turned off to avoid having to listen to the mindless prattle of Musburger and his sidekick Herbie, so I did not actually hear the discussion between the pair that sparked the flare-up.  I did not miss, however, the frequent shots of the girlfriend of the Alabama quarterback who, it turns out, is the 2102 Miss Alabama.  When I later heard Musburger’s comments about the beauty of the woman, he sounded like nothing more than a pathetic old fool.  So even when he actually does say something that generates a discussion, it is the blatantly obvious.

Well, I am going to go and see if the crocus are coming up.