State Defense is Technically Outrageous

The judge who will rule on the lawsuit challenging the ballot language of the casino referendum is an appointee of former Governor George Pataki; a bit ironic in that it was under his leadership that racinos were first legalized in New York, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

Paul M. Collins, the Board of Election's in-house council who will defend the state rather than the Attorney General, will ask Justice Richard Platkin to throw the suit out.  Not on substantive grounds, not at all surprisingly; but rather on a technicality.

Collins said the board had to certify and transmit to the county boards the abstract and form of ballot “at least three months prior to the general election at which such amendment, proposition or question is to be submitted… It is for that reason that it required that a proceeding to challenge such language be instituted within fourteen days of such certification. Here with the November elections scheduled for November 5th, the certification was due on August 5th and any proceeding to challenge same must have instituted by August 19th. [Capitol Confidential]

Well, there's just one little problem with that, dickbrain.  As Michael Gormley reported for the AP:

The state put the controversial referendum on its web site Aug. 23, well after the deadline to sue.

Now, the meeting at which the notion of altering the neutral language that was recommended by the Attorney General's office was discussed was at a public meeting held on July 29 and streamed on the Board's website.  However, an amendment to Eric Snyder's original complaint [revised complaint is posted in its entirety below] points out that the actual text of the "Advocacy Language," as it so beautifully and aptly denotes the ballot wording, was not explicitly discussed; only a reference to words "to review the legislative purposes in the underlying statute."  So, the complaint contends that the actual text was, in fact, not discussed nor approved at the public hearing, but rather behind closed doors afterwards; and thus constitutes a violation of the Open Meetings Law.

 The Board of Elections did not approve the wording of the Gambling Amendment at a meeting open to the general public in violation of 103(a) of the Open Meetings Law.

That could perhaps be considered a technicality as well; the Board will surely argue that the meaning of "legislative purposes" was clear. However, it may very well take on extra resonance in light of the state's defense that the suit was filed too late.  The Advocacy Language (you're gonna be seeing a lot of that around here - I love it!) was never discussed in public, and not posted on the website until after the deadline.  (It wasn't reported in the papers until mid-September.)

I mean, is anybody really paying attention to what's going on here? Politicians receiving ample money from individuals and corporations with an interest in expanded gaming in NY twist the language squarely to their side, slip it into the language away from public view, sneak it onto their website more than three weeks later and well after the deadline to challenge it, and then have the unmitigated nerve to say that it's too late to recall the ballots??  If there was a well-funded opposition, I could just see the ads with the grainy slow motion black and white shots of Cuomo and Silver and Skelos with the amounts of the campaign contributions superimposed, and the ominous voiceover describing the entire tale of deception.

Alas.  Money buys elections, especially with the Supreme Court rooting it on.  And, in this case, all the money is on the same side.  Seems to me that this thing is gonna pass, no matter what happens in the court room on Friday and, perhaps, beyond.  If the language remains as is however, and if the polls are any indication (as they generally are), this vote will be like the Broncos against the Titans Jaguars.  (Sorry, Titans.  For some reason, I always mix those teams up.  Nothing to do with the butt-kickings you've administered to the Jets.)


Snyder Amended



 - Pretty brutal card to handicap at Belmont today with five consecutive maiden races in the middle of the card - three of them of the claiming variety.  Last two races of the day look fairly interesting, but with the likelihood of rain, who knows what the track condition will be by then. Only race I'm a bit interested in - should it remain on the grass - is the 5th. I picked Fiddlers Chico (7-2) in his last race; and he missed, at 7-1, by a nose and a neck, the latter being the margin behind Plausibly (3-1). Thought Fiddlers Chico was the better horse considering his wide trip. Race figures to set up the same way today, with Plausibly tracking Cielo Soleggiato, and can't really come up with a solid reason to think that Fiddlers Chico won't again be trying to rally wide.  But I do think he's the better animal, and still trying to catch trainer Jena Antonucci, who got nailed on the head bob with 8-1 Currency Union in the 6th yesterday.  So, I'll check out the tote and the track conditions come post time and see if there are any opportunities, as I do prefer these two over the rest.  Best of luck and have a great day.

Statue of Limitations Rules the Day in Ballot Language Decision [UPDATED]

Undaunted, Eric Snyder plans to forge on, and seek emergency relief from the appellate courts after State Supreme Court Justice Richard Platkin tossed his challenge to the advocacy language on the casino referendum ballot.  [Update: He changed his mind.]

He has a little problem though, the way I see it.  The suit was simply filed too late.  Even as Judge Platkin conceded in his decision that the Board of Elections snuck it onto their website [well, that's my characterization] four days after the deadline to sue, he noted:

 But even if the law permitted the statute of limitations to be tolled during this period of delay and the 14-day period in which to bring suit began to run on August 23, 2013, the petition/complaint would still be untimely.  

 Uh oh.  Seems to me that's game/set/match.  The state gets away with their deception on this technicality, in part because the language wasn't reported in the press until mid-September.  However, to be honest, even if the law permitted the statute of limitations to be toiled until that time, Snyder still didn't file within 14 days.

So, quite unfortunately, the Court did not even consider the question of whether the language constitutes improper use of funds to advance government advocacy.  That's the main substantive issue, and it's one which neither the Board nor the government officials involved have ever even attempted to dispute.  The one substantive issue that Judge Platkin did rule on was the one involving Snyder's contention that the Board violated the Open Meetings law, and that's what he will base his appeal on.

 “I was shocked that the judge dismissed the claim that the (Board of Elections) meeting was in secret when that claim wasn’t even in front of him....The board didn’t move to even dismiss that claim. So I’m going to seek an immediate appeal on that issue alone.” [Pressconnects]

With all due respect to His Honor, I vehemently disagree with his decision that the "documentary evidence" of the July 29 public meeting of the Board of Elections shows that the language was discussed.  As I feared in this post, he asserted that when it was discussed at that public meeting that there would be words added "to review the legislative purposes in the underlying statute," it was clear that that "clearly represented a description of the Purposes Language."  (Except that I feared that the state would argue that.  One of Snyder's points is that the judge dismissed his claim on those grounds even though the Board didn't move that he should.)  I find Judge Platkin's assertion here to be especially specious (if I may use a judicial term myself) considering that this so-called "legislative purpose" (to promote job growth, increase aid to schools, and lower property taxes) is not even included in the actual legislation.

However, no matter how solid the legal arguments and the common sense behind Snyder's arguments may be (and we are a nation of laws and principles, not a nation of common sense, otherwise military-style assault weapons would not be permitted in the streets, the Ku Klux Klan would not be allowed to march down Main Street, and Governor Cuomo would not be allowed to advocate for his favored amendments inside the polling place), it is hard to see how any appeal is going to get past the fact that the suit was filed too late.

Having said that and as futile as it may be, the longer Snyder carries on, the longer the question is before the public and - hopefully - in the press. Because, if this audience in Syracuse last night is any indication, a fair and two-sided debate on the topic is good for the casino opponents. Unfortunately, once we get to November 5, the language that voters will see is anything but fair and is decidedly one-sided.

Cuomo Two-Step Falls Flat

Governor Cuomo was asked about the Advocacy Language:

Cuomo on casino referendum language: "The board of elections actually writes the language... and that's what was done here."
— Capital Tonight (@CapitalTonight) October 10, 2013

Interesting.....because Cuomo used rather similar language when he was asked about reports, originally by the New York Daily News' Ken Lovett, that he, or the office of Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, quashed subpoenas that the Moreland Commission, the anti-corruption panel that he himself established, was about to issue to real estate developers who benefited from tax breaks AND generously donated to his campaign, and to the state Democratic party entity that helped to fund ads promoting his agenda.

"No. Mr. [Ken] Lovett asked that question to the commission itself and they said that they do the subpoenas, the co-chairs make the decisions." [Capitol Confidential]

However, when pressed further and questioned as to whether he or his staff played any role or supplied any guidance to the committee, the governor broke into a clumsy two-step around the question while his press secretary desperately tried to break up the dance before he could trip and tumble to the floor:

Blain: So did your staff have any role in guiding them in what subpoenas to issue?

Cuomo: Well, you know that the staff — the Moreland Commission is staffed by people from the governor’s office and the AG’s office. We staff the commission. The co-chairs vote on what subpoenas to do and it requires a unanimous vote of the co-chairs.

Matt Wing, Cuomo press secretary: Thank you, guys!

Blain: And did you or any of your staff play any role in helping them determine where to go with subpoenas or not?

Cuomo: The governor’s staff staffs the commission. It’s staffed by people from the Attorney General’s office. So they staff the commission.

Blain: No, I understand that, but in terms of who gets a subpoena — did you play any role in that?

Cuomo: The co-chairs make that determination.

Wing: Thank you, guys! Glenn, we’ve gotta go.

Cuomo: The co-chairs make that determination. And Lovett told, Lovett had that conversation with the co-chairs.

For one thing, the veneer of being above the swirl of corruption in Albany continues to fade from this arrogant man.  And furthermore, I strongly suspect that, had the governor been similarly grilled as to whether he or any of his staff played any role or provided any guidance to the Board of Elections as to what language it should use for the casino amendment, he'd attempt similar slick footwork.  And be similarly unsuccessful.  That's just me speculating.  But the governor is free to let us know if I'm wrong.

Here's the motion by the Board of Elections to throw out Eric Snyder's suit, to be heard at 9:30 Friday morning, against the wording of the amendment.

  Notice of Motion to Dismiss and Affirmation in Support of Motion to Dismiss

Indeed, it contends that the suit was filed too late, of course without acknowledging that the language was not released publicly until after the deadline to file.  And it cites some other technical stuff too, like who was or was not named in the suit.  What it doesn't do is defend the fairness of the language.  Some woman named Heather Briccetti did though...she's the president of the Business Council, a group which plans to wait until just before the election before spending "a couple million dollars" to promote passage.  She's the first person I've seen anywhere who actually tries to defend the language.  

 “If you look at the Transportation Bond Act [that has been considered in the past], it says building new transportation infrastructure.....They say what the purpose is. The reason why we're authorizing a casino gambling amendment is to provide a revenue source for education, to provide a revenue source for local governments, and for job creation. I don't think it's a rosy picture.” [Capitol Tonight]

 Well, actually, Ms. Whoever You Are, I think you actually do an excellent job proving the opposite point.  As you point out, the Transportation Bond Act question simply stated its purpose; it did not say that the purpose was to build new transportation infrastructure to promote job growth, repair bridges, and promote public safety by improving roads.  The reason why the state is trying to authorize a casino gambling amendment is to allow the Legislature to authorize and regulate up to seven casinos in New York State.  Which is the exact wording submitted by the Attorney General before it was altered.  That is the purpose, period.

Massachusetts Repeal Vote Has Implications for NY

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled that a measure to repeal the state's casino law may appear on the ballot in November. The decision overrules Attorney General Martha Coakley, who had decreed that the measure could not appear because a repeal would amount to "an illegal 'taking' of contract rights from casino applicants." (I wrote more about her ruling earlier in the year in this post.)  It is, of course, not the first time Ms. Coakley has lost, and quite possibly not the last, as she plans to run for governor.

The casino repeal campaign this summer and fall is expected to draw significant national interest — and money.
......
For passionate casino opponents across the United States, the Massachusetts repeal referendum presents a tantalizing opportunity to defeat an industry that has steamrolled opposition for years, spreading into 39 states.

“This is a very historic ballot question,” said Les Bernal, director of the national anticasino group, Stop Predatory Gambling, in a recent interview. “It will be the first time in modern history for a citizen-led effort to repeal government sponsorship of casinos” to be decided by voters. [Boston Globe]

It would appear that in this instance, the anti-casino forces will have access to money, though it seems doubtful that they can match the deep pockets of the interested casino giants; both those who have already been granted licenses (MGM, in Springfield, and Penn National at the Plainridge harness track, a slots-only facility on which they have already begun construction), and those who are still competing with each other for the Boston area license (Mohegan Sun at Suffolk Downs, and Wynn Resorts in Everett).

A repeal would of course presumably have positive effects for New York casinos located not far away. Just an hour and 15 minutes would separate the Springfield casino from the one proposed by our friends at Saratoga harness and Churchill Downs for East Greenbush.  In fact, as Capitol Confidential notes, those folks "have touted their site as a way to stop bettors from leaving New York for Springfield."

I don't know if the mechanism exists for citizen casino opponents in New York State to similarly orchestrate a repeal vote; you know how they're all so democratic up there in New England.  But it would surely be interesting to see the nature and result of such a campaign here, now that things are not developing the way some assumed they would; and with those who may now be unexpectedly facing the prospect of a casino in their town more attuned to the issues and the arguments against.  And it would be especially interesting to see how such a vote would go if the ballot language was neutral, rather than the farcical Advocacy Language that the governor's office helped to sneak through (literally, as the language was not released publicly until after the deadline to challenge it had passed.  I wrote quite extensively about the issue last year.)  In fact, it may have been interesting to see how the vote would have gone last November if the language was fair, given the results of some polls which posed the question each way.

Well, at least the lesson of the ballot language episode has not gone unheeded.  A referendum on the ballot this November will concern a new "independent" redistricting committee which will actually be controlled by the legislature.  It is the product of a 2012 agreement between Cuomo and the legislature; specifically with the Republican-controlled Senate who pushed for the arrangement after reneging on their written promises to Ed Koch, when they were in the minority, to support a truly independent redistricting process.  Cuomo had previously pledged to oppose anything but, but it became one of the concessions he made to the GOP.

Of course, when it comes to redistricting, Republicans are no worse than Democrats, as demonstrated by this diagram of the district of State Senator Jeff Klein (kind of a Democrat, though perhaps an actual Democratic-to-be).

Anyway, back to my point - Blair Horner of the NYPIRG assures us that he'll be looking out for the release of the ballot language for the referendum by the Board of Elections.

Harking back to what they said was language that was rigged to evoke a “yes” vote on casinos and which came so late as to obviate a legal challenge, Horner and others will watching that closely, which could mean some interesting news later this summer. [Capitol Confidential]

So perhaps we won't get fooled again.  At least when it comes to referendum ballot language.

 - The city of Albany is not getting a casino; at least within the city limits.  There may be one right nearby however, and the city's Common Council is seeing what they can get squeeze out of the developers in East Greenbush, Rensselaer, and Schenectady.

City approval isn't needed for any project not within its borders.

But the support of the largest city in the region would likely be coveted by developers making their cases to the state. And there was talk, McLaughlin and other lawmakers acknowledged, that the council could convene Thursday evening to consider a resolution backing the proposed Hard Rock-branded casino and hotel on the Rensselaer waterfront, a pending resolution opposing all casino development in the region or some other option that has yet to publicly emerge. [Albany Times Union]

Well, guess you can't blame them; everyone wants a piece of the pie, and it's surely likely that Albany itself will be affected in some way by a nearby facility.  In Massachusetts, applicants are required to complete formal "surrounding community" agreements with their neighbors; so Albany officials seem to be taking a page out of that playbook.  The Times Union reports that there is a draft memorandum of understanding for the casinos that deals with money for creating jobs, enhancing public transportation, and promoting tourism.  

 The draft reviewed by the Times Union leaves the proposed dollar amounts for each commitment blank. It also asks developers to participate in a "player's card" program that would offer discounts at county-based businesses.

 Like I'm so sure that casino gamblers in East Greenbush will be making their way to the Crossgates Mall to shop.

 = Jeff Gural and Brian Sears have made peace.  As in, Gural has relented after the criticism of his ridiculous and selfish ban and will allow Sears to drive at his racetracks.  That's so sweet.

Cuomo Concerned About Casino Vote (So We're Told)

I'm hanging out at the TimeformUS blog these days, writing a regular feature called Today in Racing.  There, I'm discussing and explaining our features, and also going off on some topics of interest, so I hope you'll check it out please.  Also have our Breeders' Cup Package with advance PPs is available here.

Catching up on the upcoming vote, Fred Dicker reported in the Post on Monday that aides to Governor Cuomo are worried about the fate of the casino amendment after secret polling data showed an "ongoing loss of support" for the measure.  The governor intends to go "all out" in an effort to shore up support.

A key reason that support for casinos is slipping is the recent disturbing revelation that Cuomo aides were involved in altering the language used on the ballot to make it more attractive to voters, a second source close to pro-amendment forces said.

“Cuomo’s attempt to wire up the vote appears to have backfired, with so many negative stories and editorials,’’ the source said. [NY Post]

Ha, well, you gotta love that...if that's really the case.  Regardless, no doubt that Eric Snyder's efforts in his lawsuit is paying dividends despite its quick dismissal by the courts.  Many of the editorials and negative coverage referred to came in the wake of the discovery of the Advocacy Language, and then again when the suit was filed.

If the Governor is going to go on the campaign trail with this, then I say 'bring it on.'  His popularity has waned on both sides of the political spectrum; and recent publicity has all been bad between Snyder's suit and the reports of his attempts to interfere with his own anti-corruption panel when its inquiries threatened to hit too close to home.

The thought has also crossed my mind that Cuomo is full of it here....wouldn't be the first time....and is just trying to make sure that supporters with access to cash don't get complacent.  Dicker reports:

 “NY Jobs Now,’’ a coalition of union, business and gambling interests, including the state’s existing racetrack “racinos,’’ is scrambling to raise funds for a costly last-minute media blitz to encourage a pro-amendment vote, it was learned.  

Indeed, the latest Siena poll actually shows slight improvement in the numbers for support.  And, it again confirms the effect that the Advocacy Language has in swaying voters.  

"It's clear the wording of the casino amendment that voters will see on their ballots is influential in moving voters to support the amendment, particularly Democrats and New York City voters," Siena pollster Steven Greenberg said. [Syracuse.com] 

Yeah, leave it to those liberals, all concerned about stuff like education and jobs.  One thing to keep in mind though - and that a helpful reader pointed out -  is that with De Blasio so far ahead of Joe Lhota in the polls, the turnout in NYC could be suppressed.

Well, I say bring on the ads too.  I mean, what the hell at this point.  Don't really think defeating the referendum stands a chance given the ballot language if people walk in without an opinion (or without even knowledge that it exists).  So might as well have it brought to people's attention.   Perhaps that will spark another round of newspaper editorials calling out the deceptive or unfounded claims, and presenting the downsides to expanded gambling; as well as any modest media coverage of opponents' reactions that they can garner with their limited resources.

Such as this article, entitled: It's all nonsense: Forum on casino expansion gets emotional.  ("It's all nonsense" is actually a quote from a casino supporter, though it doesn't come off that way to me.)  With the lede:

 Anti-casino activist David Blankenhorn thinks the gambling industry is engaged in "a sterile predatory activity that only takes money from people without giving them ... anything of value in return."

 Blankenhorn was out-numbered, not only 3-to-1 on the panel, but also by Jeff Gural asking questions from the audience!

 “Why shouldn’t someone in Binghamton, a retired person who wants to spend $30 at a slot machine be able to go to spend $30 in a slot machine?.....Why should you dictate what someone should do with their money?" [Capitol New York]

 Seriously, Jeff?  That's the best you can do....the big soda argument?  Why shouldn't he then be able to go hire a prostitute or score some weed?

 - One thing from last week that you may have already seen.  Teresa Genaro wrote on Forbes.com about Cuomo dissing the tracks that he was so eager to take over by refusing to set foot in any of them; even in Saratoga a half hour drive from the governor's mansion.  Well, Howard Glaser, the governor's senior policy advisor, had the nerve!!!!! - I mean, the unmitigated gall!!! - to leave a comment, saying: "NYRA will receive over $100 million in subsidy from the lottery of the State of New York. Before Governor Cuomo took office the amount of state support: zero."

Teresa was a bit polite in dismissing the comment as being "a bit disingenuous."  It's actually a bit absolutely outrageous that Glaser would think that we're stupid enough not to know that the "subsidy" that NYRA receives was a product of past administrations and has absolutely nothing to do with Cuomo, who would take it all away if it was up to him.  Jeez!

End Game

Well, only a week left until Election Day, and despite the raft of negative publicity and editorials, the outcome of the casino referendum seems clear. At least, according to the state-wide polls.....and at least when presented with the advocacy language that will appear on the ballot.  Which is what they're gonna see.  Now a NY Times - Siena College poll of NYC voters - home to about 40 percent of the state’s registered voters - paints a similar story.  

The poll quoted the Nov. 5 ballot language, which lists only positive arguments for allowing casinos, such as promoting job growth and increasing education funding. After hearing that language, six in 10 likely voters said they would vote yes.

“That is a strong margin of victory for the gambling amendment,” said Steven A. Greenberg, a Siena College pollster. “If support is 60 percent in New York City, I am hard pressed to see how it could fail statewide.” [NY Times]

That's actually more support than the rest of the state - the last state-wide Siena poll had 55 percent in favor and 42 percent against.  Of course, the same city voters polled against casinos located in the city.  But they don't have to be concerned with that for the foreseeable future; seven years, or so we are told.  So, they don't really have to think about any actual casinos in town, so, hey, sure, job growth, education, why the hell not?  It's just another insidious aspect to this whole sordid process that a population that is detached from the debate, and from the possible negative consequences (which are not mentioned on the ballot) of local casinos, would have such an outsized effect on the fate of the measure.

Well, this sucks.  I imagine we'll see more in the way of newspaper editorials against the measure as the vote approaches.  But the main wave of negative news over the language and the lawsuit seems to have passed. In truth, this matter was over (if it indeed is) as soon as Eric Snyder's suit was thrown out.  And considering the statute of limitations which ultimately made the suit moot, the jig really was up when the language was altered behind closed doors, no doubt at behest of the governor's mansion. This race was fixed.  No doubt about that.  I'll review the whole miserable tale at some point, but we really need to get to some Breeders' Cup races. So, I'm gonna work on that.

Just a couple more points first.  About Cuomo.  For one thing, we still haven't heard a peep out of him in support of the casinos.  So I'm pretty sure I was correct in my original suspicion that he planted that story with Dicker, about some "secret" poll showing the measure in trouble, in order to get pro-gambling groups to spend money on advertising.  The latest is a mailer from NY Jobs Now (which drew criticism for not disclosing the money behind it)  If this thing was really in trouble, you can bet he'd be out there.

One thing he did talk about recently was Aqueduct.  When prompted on the topic by the NY Daily News (long an ignorant editorial voice to shutter the racetrack), Cuomo said:  “It’s been a waste.”  So says the man who took control of the tracks, recited lofty words about how concerned he is about the animals and about the importance of the industry to the state.  As we well know, he has never once deigned to set foot inside any of the tracks.  And now, he tells all the hard-working horsemen and track employees that their efforts, their literal blood, sweat, and tears providing livelihoods and generating ample revenue for the state was "a waste."  I'm sure that's not (exactly) what he meant.  But one might expect that he would at least put a few seconds of thought into what he says.  It's enough to make me want to sign off with just two short words directed towards His Highness.  The same two he tells this industry on a regular basis.

 “You could do anything at Aqueduct. I mean, you’re right at the airport. It’s a great piece of property.  It’s one of the largest pieces of property, probably, in the city of New York."

I'm sure our governor knows exactly what is right for this great, large piece of property, which opens for racing, to continue what is no doubt the countdown to its demise, on Friday.  Without the long-promised new simulcast bar, now, I'm told, put off to an indefinite date in 2014.  Thanks for your help with that, Mr. Cuomo.

Brooklyn Lawyer Lends Hand to Faltering Casino Opposition

This guy is my new hero.

Eric Snyder is a Brooklyn-based lawyer "who provides bankruptcy advice to corporations, landlords, creditors’ committees, and bankruptcy trustees, as well as to museums seeking advice on matters related to the lending of artwork to commercial galleries."

He's also the guy many of us have been waiting for - the one who has stepped forward to call bullshit on Governor Cuomo and the outrageous ballot language that reads like an advocacy ad for the casino referendum.  

The language, which the State Board of Elections approved in July, mentions a series of positive “legislative purposes” of the casino proposal, including “promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools and permitting local governments to lower property taxes.” That language was approved by the board after consultation with the administration of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, which has backed the measure.

But the suit filed in State Supreme Court says the rosy terminology violates the State Constitution’s provision against use of public money in the aid of a “private undertaking.”

“The Constitution is pretty clear that you can’t use public money to sway or influence a vote,” the lawyer, Eric J. Snyder, said. [NY Times]

I love how we always read that the language was approved by "the administration of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo."  The governor himself recently said that he hadn't "studied" the wording, which I would surmise makes him a liar in addition to a bully and a guy who took over the NYRA tracks but refuses to set foot inside of one.  (I will refuse to consider stepping into a polling place to vote for him unless he does.)

Snyder said the elections board did not have the authority to adopt the language and that expending resources to craft what he called the pro-casino ballot wording goes against constitutional prohibitions of state money being used to promote a ballot issue. His legal papers cited several precedents, including a 1975 case brought against a state agency that was using state resources to promote adoption of the Equal Rights Amendment.
.....
At a minimum, the lawsuit seeks to change the ballot question to a simple question: does a voter support or oppose a plan to add up to seven casinos in the state? If the language doesn’t change, Snyder is asking the courts in his Article 78 proceeding to strip the casino question from the ballot. [Buffalo News]

A state court will hear arguments next week.

As if there was any doubt, a Siena poll released earlier this week confirmed that the language is indeed persuasive.

When the Siena College poll asked voters without the political spin if they favored authorizing several casinos, New York voters were split at 46 percent.

But when shown the glowing wording of the referendum, 55 percent approved it.

"Clearly the wording on the ballot for the casino amendment matters," said Steven Greenberg of the Siena poll. [Associated Press]

Another poll, conducted by a coalition of business and labor groups known as New York Jobs, which will lend support to passage of the referendum, also showed support for the measure throughout the state; including - and especially - in New York City, which will likely supply most of the voters but which will not be immediately affected, by a whopping 52-31%. Again, this is when presented with the rosy language on the ballot. This survey did not poll on the neutral language which was changed by the legislature and Governor Cuomo.....oops, that is, by the administration of Governor Andrew M. Cuomo.

Interestingly, the poll showed upstate voters split nearly even.  That's all very odd considering that aiding upstate communities in need of jobs and an economic boost was the whole point of Cuomo's decision to limit the facilities to upstate.  On the other hand, some upstate areas are precluded from getting casinos due to the governor's giveaways to Indian tribes that could have thrown their financial muscle into opposing the measure.  (And at least two affected towns are suing the administration over it, accusing Cuomo of vote-buying.)

This poll was conducted by The Parkside Group, which issued an accompanying memo asserting that a well-funded, well-executed campaign should prevail and propel the referendum to passage on November 5th.

The survey shows room for growth in the five boroughs, where support from a very popular Governor and Democratic nominee for Mayor, along with the active participation of labor unions, can transform remaining undecided voters into supporters of the referendum.

When I read this, I was like 'What?  Since when did the Democratic nominee for NYC mayor, Bill de    Blasio, say he supported the referendum?'  Surely, that can't be the case, right?

Well, wrong.  On September 27, de Blasio released this statement via the Public Advocate website:

“The casino referendum is a win-win for New York. Our neighbors upstate will benefit from the jobs created, and New York City will receive new revenue to support education. It’s good for the city and the state, and I join with labor and business in supporting this measure.”

Hmmm.....Seriously, Mr. Mayor-to-be?  What happened to the thing about "two New Yorks?"  You know, the stuff about inequality and the growing divide between the haves and the have-nots; about Bloomberg favoring the rich at the expense of the disappearing middle class and those who struggle to make ends meet?  Maybe de Blasio has been too busy to drop by Resorts World and take a look at the working class types sitting in a trance while the slots drain the money from their player cards fed intravenously into the machines.

Or to have read about the recently issued study by the "non-partisan" Institute for American Values (large pdf file here).  The report affirms reports I've read lately that conclude that 35-50% of casino revenues derive from problem gamblers.   And that casinos actually serve to lower property values in the areas where they are located.  And it concludes:

"[S]tate-sponsored casino gambling ... parallels the separate and unequal life patterns in education, marriage, work, and play that increasingly divide America into haves and have-nots. Those in the upper ranks of the income distribution rarely, if ever, make it a weekly habit to gamble at the local casino. Those in the lower ranks of the income distribution often do. Those in the upper ranks rarely, if ever, contribute a large share of their income to the state's take of casino revenues. Those in the lower ranks do." [Via CNN]

Seems to me that this is language that could be taken out of de Blasio's playbook....that it refers to exactly the kind of inequality that he's based his campaign on, and which he has used to portray himself as the progressive alternative to the last twelve years.  I would think he'd surely have second thoughts if he thought about the use of casinos to balance budgets as a form of regressive taxation.  Of course, the casinos won't actually be in New York City at first.  But does that mean that he thinks that "two cities" is OK elsewhere in the state as long as it benefits us here?

 - I'll sneak in a horse pick here figuring that most people who read this strictly for the racing stuff are long gone and won't see a potential losing selection.   The 8th at Belmont today is an extremely tough six furlong turf sprint, deep in contenders who would hardly surprise me should they win. But let's take a flyer with Bluegrass Springs (12-1).  Three-year old son of Bluegrass Cat was claimed by current trainer Linda Rice off of a win under similar conditions at Belmont in June.  She promptly stretched him out at Saratoga, and he showed good speed in a similar class level to today, got bumped around a bit in the stretch and held on for an OK third.  Then, a funny thing happened in his next two efforts in that the horse does not show a listed workout prior to either, both also routes.  Typically, Bluegrass Springs works a half-mile a week or so before his races; he did so prior to each of the abovementioned solid efforts, as well as before others in the past in which he's shown good speed from the start.   Maybe it's just coincidence that he uncharacteristically lagged behind early in each of these last two races before mounting just a mild late response.  I mean, I wouldn't want to suggest that Ms. Rice is cheating playing games, or anything.  Maybe she just forgot.

Anyway, here, not only does he get his half mile work, but he cuts back from a mile after 19 days - his six furlong turf win came 20 days after a mile effort.  So I'm looking for him to be closer early. Will need to improve on his speed figures, but seems intriguing on price.  Abra (7-2), also trained by Ms. Rice, seems strictly the one to beat, also cutting back to the six furlong distance at which ran a close second and earned a big TimeformUS figure two back before - for some reason following such a stellar effort - stretching out for the first time, hmm.  So a Rice exacta box could be in order here. Slamarama (5-1) and Bernie the Jet (3-1) also seem well fast enough to at least get a piece; tough heat, as I said.  Best of luck and have a great day.

No Exit for Genting?

The "public comment events" for the casino bidding is scheduled for this Monday - Wednesday; 12-hour marathons each day, one in each of the regions being considered for a casino or maybe two.  (Or maybe none. The location board is not actually required to site any casinos anywhere.)  The schedule can be found here.  James Odato notes in the Times Union that the hearings are likely to be "contentious."  Hmm, y'think?  Casino Free Tyre has 21 of the five-minute speaking slots booked, and plans to speak about, amongst other things, an old racketeering case involving developer Wilmorite Management Group (the indicted party was eventually acquitted on most of the charges). Save East Greenbush has 32 slots, and will, again amongst other things, reiterate complaints about the process taken by the East Greenbush town board that are the subject of its pending lawsuit.  The union which is in a dispute with Rush Street Gaming will bus some workers from Chicago.  The Sterling Forest Partnership has ten slots; and a group called CasiNo Orange is opposed to all proposed casinos there.  And there will be casino supporters too.

So, the Gaming Commission has established some ground rules to try and keep things from getting too out of hand.

Decorum

Speakers and participants may not disrupt or otherwise attempt to interfere with any individual’s opportunity to speak. Disorderly behavior will not be tolerated.  Speakers engaging in personal attacks, using inflammatory language or failing to confine remarks to the identified subject or business at hand will be cautioned by the Chairman and given the opportunity to conclude remarks within the designated time limit.

Disruptions. Any person making offensive, insulting, threatening, intimidating or obscene remarks, or who becomes unruly during the Public Comment Event, will be requested to leave at the direction of any Board member. If necessary, the Board will request the assistance of law enforcement for the purpose of maintaining safety, order and decorum.

Each of the bidders is required to have at least one representative there....however, the speakers may not "pose comments or questions" to them directly....and the applicants may not make any "public comments" at all.  That sounds odd and rather awkward.....some of the bidders' representatives may feel as if they are sitting in the dock without permission from the judge to respond as the accusations fly.

Meanwhile, Genting has itself a rather major problem in Tuxedo; all over less than 1,000 feet of County Route 106. That section of the road is owned by the Palisades Interstate Parkway Commission [PIPC]; and in a much-anticipated decision, that body voted unanimously to deny access to Genting.

 Access to County Route 106 would help Genting build a new exit — interchange 15B — on the New York State Thruway, by allowing it to connect to Route 17A. That would provide access to the Sterling Forest Resort casino, which would be built on private property. Genting has said that building the casino hinges on building the exit, which would make it easier for an estimated 6.9 million annual visitors to reach the casino without using a longer, more circuitous route. [Times Herald-Record, limited free access]

Here's the problem:

There currently is no exit there off of Route 87 (the NYS Thruway); Route 106 passes underneath and hooks up with 17A.  In addition to a section of the road, the commission also controls Sterling Forest State Park, which would be adjacent to the casino. 

Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that in the Palisades Park Commission’s opinion, the proposed development of New York State Thurway Exit 15B, in conjunction with Sterling Forest Resort, is not in accordance with our stewardship mission and the public trust to preserve the scenic beauty, natural resources and public enjoyment of Sterling Forest and Harriman State Parks. — from Palisades Interstate Park Commission Sterling Forest Resort Resolution  [via Sloatsburg Village Local News & Community Life]

So, that's a big issue for Genting.  Other than the Asian baccarat players that they plan to shuttle into Stewart airport in private planes, getting there would be a major issue, enough to make it a no-go; at least that's what Genting has said. The ironic thing is that, according to the Herald-Record, it was just last December that Orange County turned Route 106 over to the PIPC.  DOH!  Now, they might want it back; but the decision stands, and only votes in both the NY and NJ legislatures can reverse it. And while Genting surely has enough money to pay those legislators off mount an effective lobbying campaign, that seems most highly unlikely.  Genting, in an email to the Herald-Record, said:

"By funding the design and construction of a new Thruway Interchange, 15B, and by creating a world-class, destination resort on a currently dilapidated site, Sterling Forest Resort will only expand that opportunity."

I guess we'll see about that.  Genting says they will explore alternate means of building the exit.

 - Interesting article brought to my attention about the Sands casino in Bethlehem, PA.  It is, by far, the most successful casino in Pennsylvania....and they are utilizing a strategy that is a key component of Genting's at Sterling Forest. 

Experts say it's found a niche that hasn't been greatly affected by the economy or competition from the next state. By marketing itself heavily in the Asian neighborhoods of New York, Sands has developed an Asian customer base like few others in the nation. For example, it has 50 tables featuring the Asian-popular game baccarat — more than any other casino in the nation, according to gaming experts.

As a result, more than 50 buses carrying more than 3,000 gamblers from New York neighborhoods of Flushing, Chinatown and Brooklyn flow into the Sands every day. [Morning Call]

Cheaper than flying them in from Beijing too.

 - I wrote a lot here last fall about the "Advocacy Language" that appeared on the ballot for the casino referendum last fall, and the effort by lawyer Eric Snyder to have it altered.  Although those attempts proved to be futile (and the language no doubt had a material effect on the final vote numbers), it appears as if they did not go entirely to waste.  Good government groups are now on the lookout for additional attempts to use ballot language as a campaign tool inside the voting booth; and a court ruling yesterday prevented a similar fiasco. 

In a victory for the segment of good-government groups opposed to the compromise constitutional amendment on redistricting, state Supreme Court Judge Patrick McGrath has ruled that the redistricting commission that would be created by the proposed change “cannot be described as ‘independent’ when eight out of the ten members are the handpicked appointees of the legislative leaders and the two additional members are essentially political appointees by proxy.”
........
The ruling calls on the state Board of Elections to remove the word “independent” from the ballot language. “No adjective preceding the word ‘commission’ is necessary to indicate the subject matter of proposed amendment in a clear and coherent manner,” McGrath wrote. [Capitol Confidential]

The constitutional amendment on the redistricting procedure itself has split good government groups.  It was established in a deal between Governor Cuomo and Senate Republicans by which the latter got their way on redrawing the maps in 2012, despite the governor's prior promises to veto any such partisan drawing of the district lines.  Some feel that the language that bans "partisan gerrymandering" is a sufficient improvement from the current system, in which the process is controlled by the majority party in each chamber.  Others feel that any process which is ultimately controlled by the politicians whose re-election potentially depends on its outcome - as this clearly is - is subject to the usual partisan maneuvering and corruption.  Guess which side I'm on.

Cuomo Allies $pring Into Action

Just three days after Fred Dicker wrote of concern amongst Cuomo aides over a "secret poll" showing flagging support for the casino amendment, NY Jobs Now has introduced pro-casino ads downstate, at a reported cost of $1 million.  (Joseph Spector reports that a quarter of that came from Yonkers Raceway.)  How convenient for the governor.  He's denied the notion that he's keeping his distance to avoid being tainted should the amendment fail.  However, despite Dicker's report that he'd be going "all-out in the coming days," we still haven't heard from him in a substantive way.  What a surprise if we don't at all, as long as his minions are doing the dirty work for him.

Reporting in the Buffalo News, Tom Precious offers another possible reason why the governor has been mum on the topic.

One theory is that the less the supporters talk, the less the media will cover the issue – including casinos’ potential warts.

I hope you won't mind if I point out that that's my theory - I've been writing that here for weeks!

There are two different versions of the pro-casino ad.

One ad targeting New York City resident begins by noting both candidates for New York City mayor – Democrat Bill de Blasio and Republican Joe Lhota – support the bill. The second ad targets Long Island voters and makes the same pro-casino claim on behalf of Democrat Tom Suozzi and Republican Ed Mangano, who are running against each otJher in the Nassau County executive’s race. [Buffalo News]

 Here's the NYC ad.

I made the case in this post that supporting this amendment doesn't suit a progressive like de Blasio, who has made his "tale of two cities" mantra of economic inequality the centerpiece of his campaign.  However, de Blasio is counting on, unrealistically in the view of many, the State Legislature to approve a tax increase on earners of more than $500,000 in order to pay for educational programs, including pre-kindergarden.  Cuomo's support is obviously required (though it certainly wouldn't guarantee passage through the Senate); and he's been vocal about his misgivings about tax increases at this time.  So I would imagine that it would surely behoove de Blasio to not come out against what is a major initiative for the Governor.  (de Blasio has lately been "adjusting" his positions as his coronation draws closer, as reported the other day in two separate articles in the NY Times.) And indeed, Cuomo seemed a bit more receptive to the idea when the two met on Thursday.  (For those of you interested in such matters, there's this report by Azi Paybarah of the two discussing support for primary opponents to Jeff Klein and members of his Independent Democratic Conference that has helped to stymie progressive initiatives in the Senate despite a numerical advantage for Democrats.)

Meanwhile, we continue to see opposition to the referendum in newspapers on both sides of the political spectrum.  The NY Times is out with a new editorial today; while there was a particularly interesting opinion piece in the NY Post by John Sullivan.  The headline concerns Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, wondering why we haven't heard from the man who submitted the original neutral ballot wording before it was turned into the advocacy language.  But Sullivan also points this out about State Supreme Court Justice Richard Platkin, the judge who unceremoniously tossed Eric Snyder's lawsuit against the language on technicalities:

The judge who ruled against [Snyder], an acting Supreme Court justice in Albany, will lose his job next year unless he’s re-appointed by Gov. Cuomo — who many suspect is behind the ballot shenanigans.

Now, since we're talking about the NY Post, I did a little fact checking. And indeed, a check of NYCourts.gov, shows that his term expires next year.  

Man, this thing just continues to stink to high hell!

And here's one more article, this one in the Buffalo News.  It presents both sides of the argument, but I think it presents the opposing view more prominently and convincingly.  Then again, I'm a little biased. But point is that it is showing the opposing view at all, and for free, becuase it's the only kind of media "campaign" that the opposition is able to afford.

 - [UPDATE: Scratched.] In the 9th at Belmont today, Westside Corral (5-1), makes his third start since being claimed by trainer Dominic Galluscio, who has been spotting this six-year old gelded son of Bernstein more realistically than before. He'd been consistently facing horses a cut or two above these, and has back TimeformUS speed figures that would dominate this field.....and as recently as two races back, a win against a competitive beaten claimers field at Saratoga.  In his last, he was shuffled to the rear after breaking from the two post, stayed there until tipping out five wide around the turn, and finished well for 4th.  When the last horse crossed the finish line and the camera view switches to the gallop-out, Westside Corral was well in front of the rest. And that may be the first....and last....time you ever see me write about a gallop-out here.  This race figures to have an honest pace; though the recently faint-hearted Mia Poppy (10-1) is forecast by Pace Projector to once again lead as he did in that last race, I think there's enough other speed, from Iron Power and Breathaway, to ensure that he has to run faster than a 25.48 first quarter to get there.  Make a Decision (6-1) and Powerful Instinct (5-2) are both improving animals from live barns.  Best of luck and have a great day.

Silence Could be Golden for Casino Supporters

We haven't heard any campaigning at all from either side on the casino referendum, as reported last week by Casey Seiler on the Capitol Confidential blog, and, more expansively, by Tom Precious in the Buffalo News on Monday.  Not surprising it's been quiet to this point considering the summer months and the attention on the recent primaries.  But Precious reports that some casino advocates feel that a planned $20 million expenditure may not even be necessary.

Some of the nation’s top casino companies and real estate developers looking to build gambling halls in New York State have a growing sense that they might have to open their wallets only slightly to win the referendum.

“There seems to be an inevitability about the passage of it. We’re just not seeing any opposition,” said Michael R. Treanor, an investor in a proposed casino and hotel project at a shuttered Catskills resort. [Buffalo News]

 No, we're not seeing any opposition, are we?

 "I'm surprised so far by the lack of organized opposition," said David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values. "There seems to be a kind of passivity, and I'm not sure where it's coming from." [Capitol Confidential]

 Well, I think it's clear where it's coming from.  For one thing, opponents don't have the money to compete with big gambling interests, and politics always comes down to money, doesn't it?

 Opponents of expanded gambling say they plan to rely on a grass-roots – and inexpensive – effort using social media, church bulletins, email chains and the news media to promote their side of the issue.

“We took a small ad out in the Pennysaver in Sullivan County for $600. That’s about it,” said Stephen W. Shafer, chairman of the Buffalo-based Coalition Against Casino Gambling in New York. [Buffalo News]

  Yeah, don't know if a campaign in local Pennysavers is quite going to do the job.  Whats more, as Precious points out:

 Opponents face more than just at a money disadvantage. They say the battle is unfair because the gambling companies have the full support of state government.  

Indeed, the governor has taken several steps to promote the passage of the measure.  He dulled the urgency of the measure when he announced his plan to expand VLT's beyond the racetracks even should the measure fail.  He negotiated agreements with three Indian tribes, granting them territorial exclusivity, thus taking those deep-pocketed potential opponents completely out of the game.  Similarly, I've speculated here in the past that Cuomo made a back room deal with the New York Gaming Association to gain its support.  I believe that will become clear when, should the referendum pass, casinos are awarded to NYGA members Saratoga Harness and Tioga Downs, as well as to Empire Resorts, in which Genting has a piece.  (NYGA supports the measure but will not actively campaign for its passage.)  Tioga Down is owned of course by Jeff Gural.  He's received widespread praise, including here, for his efforts to revitalize the harness game at the Meadowlands and to clean up the game with his aggressive anti-drug measures.  However, he's surely not supporting the amendment because he thinks it will be good for harness (or any other kind of horse) racing, which it surely will not.  Here we see where his true interests lie; in his bank account.

And, perhaps most significantly, as discussed here in my post the other day, and as succinctly articulated by Casey Seiler in his Capital Confidential piece:

 Perhaps the most significant piece of advocacy for passage can be found on the November ballot itself.

 In case you missed it, the ballot question reads as follows:

"The proposed amendment to section 9 of article 1 of the Constitution would allow the Legislature to authorize up to seven casinos in New York State for the legislated purposes of promoting job growth, increasing aid to schools, and permitting local governments to lower property taxes through revenues generated. Shall the amendment be approved?"

You know those signs as you approach the polling place that warn that electioneering is not permitted beyond this point?  If I stood beyond that point and handed out leaflets with that exact language, even without advising which way to vote (which hardly even seems necessary), you can be sure I would be promptly led away by one of the bored cops assigned there.  Yet, Governor Cuomo has succeeded in having that persuasively one-sided language on the ballot itself!

The arrogance of inserting this language is exceeded only by its sheer sinister brilliance.  If I were a casino advocate, I would think really hard about doing any campaigning whatsoever.  Why do anything to bring any attention to the matter at all?  Why stir up debate on an issue on which passionate opponents could surely make a compelling case against the government balancing the budget in such a regressive and repulsive manner, when the ballot practically directs voters on which way to vote?  Supporters were concerned that the vote would be decided by NYC voters who don't have a clear interest in the issue (since casinos will supposedly be barred from the area for seven years).  But it instead could be to their clear advantage to have it decided by NYC voters who are focused on the mayoral and other local races, and who simply haven't thought twice about casinos before going to vote.  This referendum may already have been decided in some office in the Executive Mansion in Albany, Governor Cuomo's idea of the democratic process at work.

 - Two day carryover at Belmont as racing resumes today; some longshots contributing to the cause over the weekend.  Two of them were courtesy of trainer John Kimmel on Sunday; he scored in the 5th with Tracey's Belle, who was 10-1 and just as easily could have been 100-1 coming off her debut, a distant 9th at 48-1 at Finger Lakes.  And his 10th race winner Run to Mama ($47.60) was no less incongruous, mounting an unlikely wide rally to win despite having shown virtually nothing in four prior efforts.  Hard to make any kind of red-board case for either of those for this streak-prone barn.

The good karma for trainer Leah Gyarmati generated by her Grade 1 win in the Spinaway at Saratoga has carried over with a solid 7-2-2-1 start at Belmont.  On Saturday, her first-time starter Noble Moon wired the 5th race at 25-1, hanging on over Pletcher's 4-5 favorite Divine Energy.  Here's another winning son of Malibu Moon, this one out of a Kingmambo mare who's a half to some handy stakes winners in Silver Moon, Prospector's Song, and Musical Ghost.  In the following race, Gossip Column ($101) was the first of two triple digit winners on the weekend, for trainer Joe Orseno, and completed a $1,447 daily double.  This horse hadn't seen the winner's circle in his last 12 starts and apparently appreciated the shorten-up in distance.

Biggest bombshell of the weekend was when Concealed got the bob at 62 to 1 in the 8th on Sunday for trainer Luis Miranda, his second winner, from seven starters, at the meeting.  First-time on the grass for this three-year old daughter of Officer out of a Cat Thief mare who's a half to the NY-bred stakes winner (on dirt) Bigger is Bettor, thus contributing to the bigger is better Pick Six pool today.  Best of luck and have a great day.

Board Member Doubly Confused

Been meaning to mention something that I heard during the public comment hearings last week. Honestly didn't have a chance to watch most of the three days, but happened to catch this: A speaker who expressed revulsion towards casino gambling in general drew a rebuke from a member of the location board. I think I know who the speaker was, but they were all off-camera, so I won't venture a guess as to who he (which certainly gives away nothing) was. Anyway, the location board member pointed out that the question of whether or not there should be casinos is not the question here. That has already been decided, he pointed out, with the measure being approved twice by the voters, and once by the legislature.

Of course, he had that backwards. The legislature has to pass a constitutional amendment twice, after which it goes before the voters, once. I don't think that's a small point. For one thing, c'mon man, these guys should know that! This board seems to be earnest, but from time to time they have displayed befuddlement or ignorance of basic points. I don't really feel as if they have dived into all of the background and facts as much as they should have. Another example of that is the fact that they had to be told by an East Greenbush opponent to go and visit the site. Really, they should have already made inspections of all of the proposed sites, if they were really doing this right. Instead of cramming the three public comment sessions into three days, they could have taken a day (or two in the case of the Hudson Valley region) to go check them out....and maybe chat with residential and business neighbors-to-be who maybe couldn't travel to Albany or Ithaca or Poughkeepsie to state their case, for or against.

Anyone who truly believes that the voters approved this thing twice is giving more weight to the idea that the people are for this than is warranted by the one vote based on biased ballot language, and carried in part by support in areas not immediately affected, like NYC. And it's also interesting to consider what would have happened if indeed the voters needed to approve this twice and the second vote was set for November. Assuming that the ballot language would be stripped of advocacy, now that good government groups are hip to that scam, and considering all of the much-publicized bankruptcies in Atlantic City (as well as the declines in the racino business in the state), I would think that a decently-funded opposition campaign would have had a decent chance of success, don't you?

 

Posted with Blogsy

Task Force Report Brings A Welcome Breath of Objectivity

Perhaps by now you've read through the task force report on the Big A breakdowns that was released last Friday....here's a link to the large PDF file if you're interested.  I highly recommend it - at least the first 99 pages or so, before the Appendix.   It serves not only as a meticulous, fair-minded investigation of what transpired and why the task force believed that 11 of the 21 deaths (or "more than half," in the more sensationalized world of the New York Times) that were probed might have been prevented.  It also serves as a primer on the common factors found in catastrophic equine injuries and, especially, on the medications that horsemen use to try and keep their horses earning money on the track.  And also as a disturbing portrayal of a disorganized and inexperienced NYRA veterinary staff that sounds dysfunctional enough to work in the state capitol.

The report goes out of its way to distance itself from the incendiary language we've heard from the Cuomo Administration and by the Times.  It notes the "intense scrutiny...on the use of medications and drugs;" and that it was "mindful of the numerous suggestions that illicit drugs or inappropriate medication must have have been a contributing factor."  It even rebukes the Times directly, both in the report and, as reported by Steve Crist, in the Q and A afterwards; disputing the notion that prescription NSAIDs qualify as "powerful painkillers," a catch phrase use frequently for effect by the Paper of Record in its series of articles.  And it appealed for calm and objectivity. 

  However, the Task Force does not intend for this Report to be used to find fault, assign blame, or otherwise result in disciplinary action for events that have occurred.  This Report is intended to be a constructive analysis, identifying actions with the potential to prevent or mitigate injury to horses and riders, and our overall conclusions regarding the fatally injured horses as a group sets the stage for our recommendations. 

That didn't stop the Times from planting their story on the front page with the headline Inquiry Faults Racing Officials in Horse Fatalities at Aqueduct.  Of course, the Times didn't actually read the report before reporting on it.  Instead, probably so that it could place the story on Friday rather than the less-widely read Saturday paper, based its story, prior to its release, on accounts by "people with direct knowledge of the investigation’s report."  Instead, you could go with people like the Form's Matt Hegarty or Tom LaMarra of Bloodhorse who actually based their stories on the report itself and the press event at which it was released.  LaMarra's story was more accurately titled: Report: Deficiencies Had Role in Horse Deaths.  Yes, the hierarchy at NYRA, specifically with respect to the veterinary department, is indeed flawed, so blame that on "racing officials" if you will.  But trainers, owners, jockeys, the Racing and Wagering Board, and the drug culture ingrained in the sport in this country all share responsibility.

As far as I can see, the Times did not even follow up with a story on the actual report the next day; please correct me if I missed it.  I find that a little weird.   At least perhaps, if Joe Drape wasn't busy on Friday taking a victory lap on Twitter, he might have corrected some mis-characterizations that the story made.  Or, then again, probably not.

The Times article reports:

  The investigation found that veterinarians and officials of the New York Racing Association often cared more about filling races that generate revenue for trainers, owners and the racetracks than about whether horses were fit to compete.

The report in fact stated no such conclusion.  It reported on what it termed a "critical conflict of interest" in that the veterinary department was reporting to a racing secretary's office whose job is to fill the races to the brim.  "The racetrack-employed veterinarian's advocacy for the horse can become conditional and based upon the needs of the employer, rather than the needs of the horse."  Obviously, the potential for the kind of behavior the Times reported as fact is present.  But the report alludes only to some unspecified instances of scratch recommendations being overturned by the Racing Office.  It's an unacceptable, if not libelous, stretch in my view to make the inference that the Times does.

Additionally, the Times writes of "numerous instances of corticosteroids being injected in horses in the days leading to their fatal races."  That is true only if you consider four out of 21 to be considered as "numerous."  And, while we're at it, why hasn't the Times ever reported, as noted in the report, that 7,106 drug tests taken during the winter meeting resulted in not a single positive for an illegal or performance enhancing substance (or at least what the task force considers as such)?  And only five overages of permitted medications, none in the injured animals?  I'm sure those are statistics they could have come up with (and perhaps knew), if they wanted to present a fair and balanced report instead of trying to portray a hypodermic free-for-all.

Having said that though, the report paints a picture of rampant and, under current regulations, legal use of various medications that are endemic in the sport, not only at NYRA tracks, but nationwide.  18 of the 21 horses investigated were administered medication of some kind in the 48 hours prior to their final race.  And it was made clear that the fatally injured group was medicated no more or no less than the rest of the population.  Should the recommendations on reducing such medication becomes the law in New York and elsewhere, the 21 horses shall not have died in vain.

This report presents the facts merely as the facts.  It speculates infrequently and with caution when it does.  The section which explains, in exhaustive detail, the circumstances leading up to each of the fatalities, is a disturbing account of young horses pushed to their limit even, in two cases, when its jockey (like most of the subjects, unnamed) knew that something seemed terribly wrong.  Facts, on their own and unembellished,  can be powerful things.  I found this section to be more poignant than the amplified hyperbole used by the Times to create a desired impression rather than to report on the news.  In fact, parts of the report outdid the Times even on strictly a reporting basis; I don't recall the paper reporting on the conflict of interest between the vets and the racing office that is one of the key points made by the task force, even in its recent article on the vets' own financial conflicts.  Maybe they would have gotten to that if they weren't busy wasting our time on quarter horses in New Mexico.