In November, a New York Times article by Joe Drape quoted Dr. Greg Ferraro, the chairman of the California Horse Racing Board, stating that Ferraro expected a request from racetracks to install historical horse racing betting machines and that the regulatory board was likely to approve it.
Nearly three months later, no such item has appeared on the docket at the CHRB meetings.
Paulick Report publisher Ray Paulick wrote: “Approval of HHR wagering likely will hinge on whether the CHRB – with guidance from legal counsel – considers the machines to be an extension of pari-mutuel betting. That was the case when this type of gambling device was created for Oaklawn Park nearly 25 years ago and pulled the Arkansas track out of a financial crisis. Same goes for Kentucky, which faced court challenges after HHR machines were permitted at state racetracks. Kentucky legislators eventually codified HHR gaming, erasing any questions about its legality.”
This week, an article from the Los Angeles Times detailed that “most in the industry agree that if California doesn’t get HHR or some other form of supplemental income to boost purses, racing in the state will not continue much longer.”
(This was before Santa Anita’s announcement that it plans to increase purses by eight percent.)
In that LA Times piece, John Cherwa explains that casino gaming in California is dominated by the Native American tribes, so if HHR is considered a “game of chance” like a slot machine rather than an extension of pari-mutuel betting, then HHR likely violates tribal exclusivity.
Steve Keech, who helped develop the first HHR machines (which evolved from Oaklawn’s Instant Racing) and whose name appears on a 2015 patent application, told LA Times: “It is 100 percent not a slot machine. If you look at a slot math model and then look at an HHR math model, they aren’t even close.”
James Siva, chairman of the California Nations Indian Gaming Association, argued: “While these machines have features that are cosmetically different from slot machines on both the back and front ends, for players the difference is imperceptible.”
Marc Guilfoil, HISA’s director of state racing commission relations, told LA Times: “You know the old saying, ‘If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck?’ Well, we call those swimming chickens.”
Cherwa writes that despite several plans being floated to push for HHR at California racetracks, sources agree that there has been no formal contact between the tribes and racing interests.
Thus, the steps forward are unclear. Options include opening negotiations with the tribes, launching the machines and fighting the legal battle while making money, or working with the legislature to legalize the machines – the latter a daunting task given the tribes’ clout in the state capital in Sacramento.
