RSS Feed for this Blog

Friday, January 13, 2012

NYRA Responds

I'm going to post NYRA's response to Robert Megna's letter discussed in the last post in its entirety. That's a post I'd like to have back. It's based on a story that is basically completely bogus, written by a reporter who has shown an eagerness to bash NYRA in the past. The issue was not at all, as James Odato wrote, whether NYRA "has been improperly letting people bet on credit." In fact, there is no issue, as NYRA's procedures regarding express funding of its ADW accounts are completely within the law...a point which some readers were able to ascertain before I did. So I apologize to NYRA and to you readers for jumping the gun without performing due diligence. Though my point that NYRA needs to be extremely careful remains.....and this little imbroglio shows exactly why. NYRA's statement follow. I'm sure you'll soon be seeing it on Capitol Confidential as well.

The following is a response to the letter sent by Robert L. Megna, Chairman of the New York State Franchise Oversight Board, to New York State Racing and Wagering Board (NYSRWB) Chairman John Sabini, dated January 11, 2012, in regards to The New York Racing Association, Inc’s (NYRA) policies on its advanced deposit wagering account funding practices:

The funding policies for NYRA’s advanced deposit wagering program (NYRA Rewards) are in compliance with the law and pursuant to the procedures approved by the New York State Racing and Wagering Board. We refute any allegations that suggest otherwise, and stand by our advanced deposit wagering account funding practices. NYRA welcomes a review of our advanced deposit wagering account funding practices by the NYSRWB.

NYRA Rewards allows customers to make immediate deposits into their accounts of up to $1,000 per week via an electronic funds transfer, referred to as Express Funding. In order to be eligible for Express Funding, a customer must pass a negative check screening process conducted in accordance with financial industry standards using the latest technology available in the marketplace. NYRA screens all of its existing customers and all new customers for eligibility on each request transaction. This process was approved by the NYSRWB on February 26, 2008, and has been in place and followed by NYRA since.

Mr. Megna’s letter asks the NYSRWB to determine whether NYRA has extended credit for any wagering by customers in violation of the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering, and Breeding law. If a customer makes an Express Funding deposit to NYRA with insufficient funds to cover the deposit, NYRA has not extended credit. Rather, the person making the deposit has committed a crime and NYRA has been the victim of fraud. If this occurs, NYRA rigorously pursues recompense from the customer and bank.

Furthermore, NYRA Rewards Express Funding is consistent with industry practices for advanced deposit wagering funding policies. Virtually all industry advanced deposit wagering programs, both within the State of New York , and outside of the State, allow customers to make immediate deposits with similar policies in place to those of NYRA. Some, like Catskill OTB and Nassau OTB, allow customers to make immediate deposits up to $10,000. NYRA Rewards Express Funding is limited to $1,000 per week.


Anonymous said...

Megna asked Sabini's group to determine whether or not the NYRA had "lost any money" as a result of its policy on taking bets before the bettors check cleared the bank. If the NYRA says, "yes we are trying to collect millons on bad payments" that's one thing and may require change to existing policy. If it says "we have never had any issues with bettors funding their accounts," that's another. Absent the NYRA giving a guy a credit limit to bet before a check is received, all seems well.

Dan said...

I don't think you jumped the gun on this- As you saw NYRA's response they came out strong & pushed back at this nonsense. I'm sure if NYRA was getting hurt by this practice they would stop it.

All this is the result of everyone involved (NYRA, NYS Wagering board & the oversight board) not catching the 1% takeout decrease.

This is all about the oversight government people flexing their muscles. Its similar to a boss or manager messing up & busting your balls because you didn't catch their mistake.

Anonymous said...

Seems as if the NYRA can only get beat for up to $1,000 per customer if it get hits with a bad check or customer bank debit with not enough money to cover transfer in bettors checking account. If NYRA lets a customer go beyond the weekly deposit limit in overdrafts, different story.

Pari-mutuel operators knowingly accepting bad checks and giving cash or extending credit to a betting patron is what caused the guilty pleas of a racetrack president and a few high volume bettors in New Jersey a couple of years ago. One of the gamblers even sued the racetrack saying they knew his checks were bad so he shouldn't have to cover his losses!

For crying out loud it's the gambling business, so as long as the NYRA actions are legal, what else can be said?

steve in nc said...

Any word on when refunds for the too-high takeout are coming?

jk said...

Funny to see the people in charge of "oversight" do not know the rules of the game.

I was surprised to see some OTB's allow you to transfer $10K. If anything needs a closer look by the "oversight" board, this would be it.

anonymous jet said...

Shifting gears...

Patriots (-13 1/2) over Broncos: Pats don't have a great defense, but better coached and more fit than Steelers were -- step up in class for Denver, and Tebow likely to bounce.

Packers (-7 1/2) over Giants: Giants are the wise guy team, helping knock the number down from 9 -- Packers the value play.

Figless said...

Handles would decrease Millions if customers had to wait for checks to clear before wagering.

This is politically motivated and completely out of touch with reality of running a gambling business, no surprise since the appointees know nothing about the industry they are appointed to supervise.

Anonymous said...

Got to love the teacher union.

steve in nc said...

Anon 2:18, a little context:

Here in non-union NC, a teacher's starting salary is in the mid 20s and you need to work about a decade to get into the mid 30s.

I don't think you can live long enough (especially if you teach middle school!) to get into the 50s unless you become a principal.

The benefits, including the state health plan aren't great. There isn't enough botox around to put a facelift on what ordinary working people face here.

So you bet teachers here would love a union. But unions are illegal for NC public sector workers. State employees haven't gotten a raise in 4 years here. And with very few private sector unions, private sector wages are also typically low.

So employers love it here (although they wish people had more money to buy more of their products & services).

But employers love creating jobs in the poor nations even more. There, union leaders get shot and employers can pay workers pennies instead of dollars. Those are the places where almost all the NC textile and furniture-making jobs have gone.

I'm sure you won't have trouble finding more outrageous exceptions showing how bad unions and their workrs are.

But if you choose to ignore the role, direct and indirect, unions have played in NY's (and America's) relative affluence, you're forgetting the big picture. Here in non-union NC, we can't avoid seeing that contrast.

Anonymous said...

"teachers here would love a union."

I'm sure they would,but your fellow taxpayers do not want to pay for Everything that is wrong with the PUBLIC union's.