Bill Nader came aboard as executive director of the Thoroughbred Owners of California late in 2022 after 15 years as an executive at the Hong Kong Jockey Club, perhaps the most successful racing operation in the world when judging on a handful of enviable metrics, such as purses, field sizes, and, most importantly, stability. The differences between the two circuits could not be more different. California has been in a state of crisis nearly perpetually since 2019, when a spate of deaths during the winter-spring meeting at Santa Anita drew national attention and some calls from local legislators for a ban on racing in the state. Although the state’s racing constituencies banded together to implement best-in-class regulations, protocols, and technologies to rapidly and significantly reduce the fatality rate at Southern California tracks, the statewide circuit was jolted again late in 2023, when the owner of Golden Gate Fields, 1/ST Racing, announced that it was pulling the plug on the track – seemingly with the TOC’s approval. 1/ST also is the owner of Santa Anita Park, and closing Golden Gate would mean that revenues from simulcasting in the north would end up flowing south, to the benefit of Santa Anita and its horsemen. That obviously did not sit right with Northern California horsemen, some of whom banded together to form a company to run a new, extended meet at the fairgrounds in Pleasanton under the banner of Golden State Racing. The inaugural meet did not go well. Handle was far below projections, and the gambit ended up hemorrhaging money. On Dec. 16, the California Authority of Racing Fairs, the corporate entity behind Golden State Racing, withdrew its application for another meet at Pleasanton spanning the winter and spring. The decision disappointed many Northern California horsemen, and some have said outright that they now plan to retire or search for opportunities outside of California, despite plans by 1/ST and the TOC to provide free stabling and shipping over the next six months. Nader says that he understands the raw feelings, but he also maintained that the retreat from Northern California was “inevitable,” given the pressures facing the industry in the state. This interview was conducted Dec. 17, one day after the CARF board voted unanimously to withdraw the application to race at Pleasanton. It has been edited for length and clarity. A lot of horse people in Northern California are wondering what to do now. What can you say to them? (Hesitates) I think what I would have to say is that the change was inevitable. Earlier this year, the North went to the CHRB with a license application asking for the opportunity to go through with a race meet for Golden State Racing at Pleasanton. The TOC supported the application based on criteria or benchmarks that were agreed on by CARF and the TOC. Any future application for race dates under the umbrella of CARF would be contingent on those benchmarks being met. We cautioned the entire industry at that time that the handle projections and the purse projections that were put forth by CARF and Golden State Racing were unrealistic and unobtainable, but we couldn’t be certain until we had the actual data. Unfortunately, our projections were for a 40 percent decline in handle (compared to Golden Gate Fields), and it ended up being a 65 percent decline. So even we were understating what the handle decline might be. And it certainly didn’t match up with the purse projections that were put forth in the application by CARF to the CHRB. So now that we have that data, I think it was incumbent on all of us in the California racing industry to come up with a different avenue to go forward. It was just unsustainable for CARF and Golden State Racing to go forward. Change is always difficult, so now it’s down to communicating what we think is a really good, comprehensive plan that benefits the North, benefits the South, but more importantly benefits the state of California as a whole. We’ve been working on that over the last couple of days, to make sure everyone understands that what’s been put forward is a very inviting and inclusive plan that makes it easy on horses stabled at Pleasanton to participate in races here. Like what? Time and time again we have heard that horses in the North did not want to have to move to the South. So by keeping the stabling and training facility at Pleasanton, leaving that in play and subsidizing that, with the South paying the full cost of that operation, it gives them the opportunity to stay at home. And we’re also paying the full costs of shipping their horses from Pleasanton to Santa Anita over the next six months, Dec. 26 through mid-June. And then we’ll write specific races that cater to that population of horses to keep them in their own space, to keep them comfortable. And the purses will be higher than the purses were at Pleasanton. And we’re going to include travel stipends to help offset costs for people who are coming down to travel. Lastly, for those trainers who want to relocate to the South, Santa Anita is working directly with them to discuss relocation allowances. I think a little bit of the initial shock for a lot of the people in the North was because of the timing. The meeting of the CHRB to discuss this was scheduled for Dec. 19, and the meet was scheduled to open a week later. So given the timeline, it comes as a bit of a shock. But unfortunately, it shouldn’t have been a great surprise. I know you can’t expect [Northern horsemen] to fully understand the economics of the game. They are doing their job, and we are doing ours. But the writing was on the wall early, and the unanimous vote confirmed that. So being able to pivot, by having this plan in place, it will give the North the opportunity to remain in California, race in California, be part of California. The welcome wagon that we are putting forward is, I think, a very, very generous offer. So hopefully it’s received that way, and hopefully they buy in and we can move forward together and eliminate the tension and the emotion that has been so prevalent throughout 2024. Can racing unite after this contentious year? Is there a way forward with everyone working together given that tension? Yes. I’m committed to the cause. I believe it’s achievable once people just step back and breathe a little bit and fully digest what’s on the table, and also trust the system. I think there’s a lot of distrust. This is a genuine attempt to bring the state together. I am optimistic we can get there, and if we can, that is going to be a great day for the California horse racing industry. There’s no reason why it can’t happen, but people have to see it, feel it, trust it. Hopefully, we can do that in the coming months and rebuild California from the ground up. You have to remember, Santa Anita does the heavy lifting by running late December to mid-June. If we can strengthen Santa Anita by creating enticing opportunities for those that reside and stable in the North or [those that] choose to relocate to the South, then we’ve done our job. What is going to be the immediate impact on Southern California racing now that you have those additional revenues diverted to the South? There’s three parts to that. It has to be re-invested in these opportunities to create inclusion for the North. That’s one. Two, another use of the money is to pay our regulatory expenses to the CHRB. Thirdly, it has to be used to make the value proposition better in the South by enhancing purse structure, which is desperately needed. If the North buys into the program we are putting forward, we can gather some momentum, increase the number of racing opportunities, and grow our handle. We can all benefit from the upside of that. We tried to lay this out to the CHRB at the beginning of the year. With the historical decline in racing in California over the past 20 years, we’re facing so much pressure on our entire industry, including purse money. It’s the declining foal crop, it’s the declining number of races, the declining purses. We’ve got to reverse that trend. The best way to do that would be a more efficient use of our limited resources, and now we have the opportunity to do that. Most immediately, how are the ongoing purse overpayments at all three Southern California tracks going to be addressed? Fundamentally, that’s something we have to focus on, to reduce those deficits, be more fiscally responsible. That’s part of the complete reset where we can then start to grow. I haven’t really talked to the tracks about it yet, but if we can come up with a plan where we can implement a strategic repayment of the overpayment, then we can at least see a little bit of a bump throughout the year and start lifting California up to where it needs to be. You were hired by the TOC late in 2022, three years after the low point in California racing, when you had state legislators actually calling for a ban on horse racing. Has the industry been able to repair and improve its standing since then, from a public-perception standpoint, from a standpoint of legislators being comfortable with supporting the sport? I came in at the end of 2022, and by then, the work had been done. That’s one time when the California horse racing industry was really unified to come together as one and solve a massive crisis. From the CHRB to the owners and the trainers – who needed to buy in – to the racetracks, everyone came together. I think everyone would agree, if you wanted to look at one state in the country that has the best safety and welfare record, they would say California. It’s been a tremendous success story. And I think it’s been recognized by the legislature and most of the public. The safety record here in California is exemplary. It’s a lot of hard work and good people who were part of that, so we’re in an entirely different place today than we were five years ago. Over the past six months, we have heard a lot of talk from California racing interests about “alternative” sources of revenue. The leading theory is that the racing industry is going to push for historical horse racing machines. Is that the plan? When I first came in at the end of 2022, right away, you could recognize that we needed something. If you looked back to 2016, if you looked at Southern California purses and compared them to Kentucky, they were on par. They weren’t too different from New York either, at least maybe 10 years ago. But we’ve been left behind. Other states have figured out a way to support racing and breeding through alternative forms of gaming that generate income to help not only purses, but also racetracks with their operational expenses and capital investment, as well as breeding. And now I think we’ve agreed as a group that we really need to press that button and fully explore any opportunities that might be available to us, including HHR, to create that secondary stream of income. With HHR specifically, in terms of where we are, I don’t think we’re even in the starting gate. We may be behind the starting gate, but I think we have a long way to go. It’s too soon to talk about the probability of success and what that even means. But certainly we wouldn’t be responsible custodians of the sport in California if we weren’t looking at every possible opportunity that could protect the jobs, the economic impact, the history and tradition of the sport, if we weren’t really looking hard at new opportunities that could really sustain the future. The current landscape puts us in a very precarious position. Has anyone in the California racing industry approached other authorities in the state, such as the attorney general, about getting a legal opinion on whether HHR would fall under the state’s parimutuel statute? I don’t know if I want to talk about that just yet. Let me ask it another way. Would the California racing industry go forward with the operation of HHRs without explicit approval to do so? I don’t know. That’s something that has to be discussed by a number of people, as far as risk appetite, so I can’t really answer that at this point. But I would say that we have reached a point where we recognize that we have to use everything we have to pursue the opportunity. We can no longer play the relaxed, defensive game of sitting on our hands. We need to step up our game. So I think we’re prepared to do that. Gary Fenton, the TOC’s chairman, gave a notable presentation earlier this year in which he seemed to hint that racing subsidies enriching other state circuits should be directed to California. Have California racing interests pursued this idea, and what has been the response? We haven’t really pursued it. But I do think that presentation opened some eyes, in the sense that there’s a recognition across the country about the importance of California to the national racing industry. Twenty-five percent of all wagering in the country is either from California or on California content. California is a big state, 38 million people who live here, and a lot of the big horse owners live here. Ten of the last 14 Breeders’ Cup, if you include 2025, have been held at California tracks. So obviously the racetracks are historic, they are magnificent. I would say that they are not just among the best in the country, but among the best in the world. When you look at the people who come over from overseas for the Breeders’ Cup, they’re absolutely blown away by how magnificent these racetracks are. So there’s so much to be proud of here, and so much here you want to preserve and protect. So I think we can continue to dial up those conversations. But in many cases it’s very hard for [out-of-state] individuals and organizations to find a way to contribute, so we have to find a way to be creative, and do more to dial up that dialogue to figure out how that may be possible. California is constantly said to be an “island,” in the sense that there aren’t a lot of opportunities for horsemen to ship in and out because of the state’s geographic isolation in the parimutuel world. Just last week at the Arizona symposium, Bob Baffert said that he likes racing in Southern California because he doesn’t have to move during the year. Can California sustain that business model in the future, when every other major circuit in racing relies on multi-state inflow and outflow? I think it can. It’s a big state and it’s been able to stand the test of time. This is going to be the 90th anniversary of Santa Anita. So it’s been able to do it in the past. It’s probably more difficult today, with the declining horse population as the foal crop continues to goes down. But if we can start to steady the ship here and regain some momentum, I think we can correct that, to entice more people to race here. Yeah, it’s on an island, but it has so much to offer. There are so many positives. Sometimes we forget about how great California is because we are so focused on its handicap, that we don’t have that secondary stream of income. But we have everything else. Everything else is already here. The racetracks are sensational. The whole atmosphere and the environment, especially on the big days, is brilliant. The weather is glorious throughout the entire year. I think 98 percent of the races we write on turf are run on turf. There’s that certainty. And there’s our safety record. There’s just so much to draw on. It’s a positive after positive. So if we can find a way to correct our one weakness, I think we’ll fly high again. :: Want to learn more about handicapping and wagering? Check out DRF's Handicapping 101 and Wagering 101 pages.