The California Horse Racing Board on Wednesday postponed the possible allocation of 2026 racing dates at three fairs in Northern California until a special meeting in February, pending the resolution of legal issues and greater involvement from fair officials.
The racing board was not scheduled to meet in February, but will conduct a meeting at a date to be determined to discuss only the Northern California proposals for four-week meetings at the Tehama County Fair in Red Bluff from May 1-26, the Alameda County Fair in Pleasanton from June 19 to July 12, and the Humboldt County Fair in Ferndale from Aug. 7-30.
The board voted 6-0 to delay a decision on the proposed meetings until February.
On Wednesday, the racing board heard testimony from an attorney and executive from Bernal Park Racing Management Company, led by owner and breeder George Schmitt, to run the race meetings for the fairs.
Bernal Park originally proposed to operate 18 weeks of racing on behalf of five fair associations, a plan that was rejected on Tuesday by the California Department of Food and Agriculture. In its decision, the CDFA cited a statutory rule that prevents private entities from leasing fair facilities to conduct racing, a point that Bernal officials disputed on Wednesday.
Bernal Park intended to use the racing licenses of two non-racing fairs – Inter-Mountain Fair and Tulelake-Butte Valley fair – to allow their racing licenses to be used to conduct racing at Red Bluff, Pleasanton, and Ferndale, according to executive director Scott Chaney.
On Tuesday, Bernal’s proposal for 2026 racing dates was immediately reduced to a 12-week schedule at Red Bluff, Pleasanton, and Ferndale. Each venue is allowed a maximum of four racing weeks.
Chaney stated at the start of Wednesday’s discussion that the CDFA’s late rejection had prevented racing board staff from conducting an extensive review of Bernal’s revamped 12-week calendar.
“We have not had adequate time to evaluate this proposal,” Chaney said.
“It is inappropriate for a regulatory body to get this information yesterday and allocate race dates [on Wednesday]. Staff has not evaluated and assessed the proposal. This is not the way a regulatory body should be behaving.
“The staff is not in a position to recommend [approval of racing dates]. We have been put in this position. We have not created this position.”
Discussions continued for more than an hour with racing board commissioners urging officials from the three county fairs to take leading roles in submitting applications for their respective fairs, while remaining skeptical of the role Bernal Park officials will have in the day-to-day operations.
“The fairs that want to run step up and do your own leadership,” commissioner Damascus Castellanos said.
An attorney representing Bernal Park said the organization’s role is to provide “support financially and logistically” to the county fairs. The fairs would be license-holders, and the fairs would not be liable for financial losses.
Bernal Park officials and a small group of owners and breeders who spoke at the meeting urged the board to approve race meetings in Northern California to allow for the resumption of racing in that part of the state, and provide racing opportunities for horses and stables previously based on that circuit that have not been successful at Southern California tracks.
In the last year, some stables and horses from Northern California have relocated to other states such as Arizona, Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming.
No racing has been held in Northern California since December 2024 following the collapse of the Golden State Racing meeting at Pleasanton. The Northern California fair circuit last operated in 2024, and did not race last year. Golden Gate Fields, the anchor track for racing in that part of the state, closed in June 2024.
Without racing in Northern California, simulcast revenue from that part of the state has been redirected to Southern California tracks and horsemen, in the form of purses. Since last February, purses at Del Mar, Los Alamitos, and Santa Anita, the only remaining venues in the state, have been increased with the allocation of simulcast revenue from throughout the state.
Last year, the racing board rejected proposed meetings at Pleasanton, Ferndale, and Fresno. In voting against the proposals, some commissioners cited the need to financially support purses at Southern California tracks.
If race meetings are approved for 2026 at Red Bluff, Pleasanton, or Ferndale, simulcast revenue from Northern California generated during those brief seasons would remain in that part of the state and not be directed to Southern California tracks. The time frame includes the lucrative Kentucky Derby weekend at Churchill Downs on May 1-2, during the proposed Red Bluff meeting.
:: Access morning workout reports straight from the tracks and get an edge with DRF Clocker Reports
Last year, officials with the Thoroughbred Owners of California argued before the racing board that a single racing circuit in the state boosted Southern California tracks and offered greater prize money at a time when states outside of California have enhanced purses thanks to other forms of gaming, such as slot machines or casinos. California does not have an ancillary form of revenue to subsidize purses.
A potential loss of simulcast funding for Southern California tracks was indirectly mentioned by racing board chairman Greg Ferraro toward the end of Wednesday’s meeting in a message to county fair officials.
“I would tell the three counties get your plan together, get your finances together, get your paperwork together and we’re going to check on the legality and we’ll do the best we can,” Ferraro said.
Ferraro said racing in Northern California must be successful or risk the overall health of the sport in the state.
“If you fail, you could bring racing in the whole state of California to an end,” he said. “Failure is not an option.”
:: Want to learn more about handicapping and wagering? Check out DRF's Handicapping 101 and Wagering 101 pages.