The executive director of the California Horse Racing Board said publicly that CAW is not a problem requiring restriction. Some questions follow.
Get your reservation for our annual Kentucky Derby seminar now! Details Here
On April 8, 2026, at the Association of Racing Commissioners International conference, during a session titled “Consumer Confidence in a World of Computer-Assisted Wagering,” Scott Chaney — the executive director of the California Horse Racing Board — offered his view of the CAW situation. He said the following, and we are going to quote him precisely, because precision is what this moment requires.
“In my view, CAW is not a problem to be solved or something that needs to be severely restricted or limited. It’s a reality in racing that you deal with by trying to figure out what is the best long-term approach for the health of horse racing.”
He said more. On the question of past-posting allegations and consumer skepticism about late-money odds movement, Chaney said:
“There’s always accusations of past-posting, but that doesn’t exist; that’s not a thing. We’re doing a poor job, I think, as an industry at correcting that.”
On the question of whether California could implement timing restrictions on CAW wagering similar to those at NYRA and Del Mar, Chaney said the state could not afford the experiment — and offered this conclusion:
“It’s only theory that the landing spot for handle will be higher than it started, and it’s complete speculation how long this will take, and, to be honest, even if it will occur.”
He is the executive director of the California Horse Racing Board. His job — the job California taxpayers fund, the job the State of California created — is to regulate horse racing in that state in the public interest. Some questions follow.
His job is to regulate horse racing in the public interest. Some questions follow.
What the CHRB Already Knows
The California Horse Racing Board is not without information on this subject. It has, in fact, been the recipient of some of the most consequential documentation on CAW concentration in American racing. The CHRB has access to its own data. That data, analyzed and reported by the Financial Times using CHRB figures, showed that Elite Turf Club — the CAW platform owned in part by The Stronach Group and NYRA — grew its share of total California racing handle from approximately three percent in 2007 to roughly thirty percent by 2021. Let that settle for a moment. One entity. Three percent to thirty percent of all California handle in fourteen years.
The CHRB also received, as part of its regulatory oversight, a letter from Elite Turf Club to California regulators acknowledging that CAW participation increases the effective takeout for retail bettors. That letter has since appeared as exhibit material in the federal litigation filed against Elite, Stronach, Churchill Downs, and NYRA in the Eastern District of New York. The plaintiffs in that case cited it as evidence. The CHRB had it before the plaintiffs did.
At a CHRB meeting in June 2024, Pat Cummings of the Thoroughbred Industry Forum — a former executive with the Hong Kong Jockey Club and someone who has studied wagering economics at an institutional level — told the board directly: “No group should be pushing more for reform in this space.” He noted that California purses are built solely upon handle, unlike states that supplement with casino revenue, making the state uniquely exposed to CAW concentration risk. Craig Bernick, co-founder of TIF, warned at the same meeting that the current CAW trajectory risks substantial losses to mainstream betting customers and to racehorse ownership alike.
Scott Daruty, who runs Elite Turf Club — the largest CAW operation in California — said at that same meeting: “I would think if CAW is 15% of the pool, you’re fine. I think if it’s 30% or more of the pool, I personally would start to get worried about that.”
Elite is at thirty percent. Elite’s own president said thirty percent is worrying. The CHRB has had this on the record since June 2024.
With that as context — is CAW not a problem to be solved?
Elite is at thirty percent. Elite’s own president said thirty percent is worrying. The CHRB has had this on the record since June 2024.
The Regulatory Role — What Is It, Exactly?
Scott Chaney has a genuinely impressive record on equine safety. Since his appointment as executive director in April 2020, the CHRB has implemented a significant number of regulations on training methods, veterinary practices, and track operations. Fatalities have decreased. California has been, in that specific domain, a model. That record deserves acknowledgment and it is being acknowledged here.
But the California Horse Racing Board does not exist solely to protect horses. It exists to regulate the entire enterprise — including the wagering markets that fund it, and including the retail bettors who participate in those markets. Those bettors are, in the language of California regulatory law, the public whose interest the CHRB is chartered to protect. The state did not create a racing commission to protect the revenue model of the entities it regulates. It created one to ensure that those entities operate in a manner compatible with the public interest.
So the question is a genuine one, and it is not asked to be provocative. It is asked because the answer matters.
When the executive director of a state regulatory body says publicly that a market practice affecting twenty-five to thirty percent of all wagering handle — a practice that its primary operator has acknowledged raises effective costs for retail participants — is not a problem requiring restriction, is that a regulatory finding? Is it a policy position? Is it a statement made in his personal capacity? And if it is any of those things, on what documented analytical basis does it rest?
Chaney also said at the conference that the CHRB is “doing a poor job as an industry at correcting” consumer confidence issues. We agree with that. We have said it repeatedly. But there is a difference between a communications failure and a regulatory one. If the underlying reality is that CAW concentration has reached a level that materially disadvantages retail bettors — and the CHRB’s own data, and Elite’s own admissions, and the Thoroughbred Industry Forum’s warnings all point in that direction — better messaging does not address the underlying reality. It addresses only its perception.
The Experiment That Cannot Be Run
The most significant part of Chaney’s statement may be the one that received the least attention. He said California cannot afford to run the “experiment” of CAW restrictions because the handle recovery is only theory, the timeline is speculation, and whether it even occurs is uncertain. He is not wrong that there is uncertainty. Regulatory interventions in complex markets carry risk. That is a legitimate observation.
But let us examine what he is actually saying. He is saying that California is so dependent on CAW handle — the handle generated by a class of participants whose own operator acknowledges raises effective costs for everyone else — that the state cannot risk finding out whether a different approach might work better for the long-term health of the sport. He is describing a regulatory body that has been structurally captured by the economic reality it was supposed to oversee.
That is not an accusation of bad faith. It may simply be an accurate description of the bind California racing is in. When Golden Gate Fields closed in 2024 and Northern California racing collapsed, the state’s handle concentration became even more acute. Santa Anita and Del Mar are carrying the weight. The CAW money is a meaningful portion of what keeps those pools functional. Chaney may be describing a genuine constraint, not manufacturing a preference.
But if that is the case — if the constraint is real and the experiment genuinely cannot be run — then what exactly is the CHRB’s plan? Not for messaging. Not for consumer confidence. For the structural problem that Elite’s own president identified, that the Thoroughbred Industry Forum has documented, that the federal litigation has now put into the public record in a court filing in the Eastern District of New York? What is the plan when the entity you cannot regulate because you cannot afford to is named as a defendant in a federal racketeering case and the primary evidence includes letters sent to your own regulatory body?
We are asking. Not answering. That distinction matters here.
The Litigation Context Nobody Mentioned
The ARCI conference session was titled “Consumer Confidence in a World of Computer-Assisted Wagering.” The session took place on April 8, 2026. At the time of that session, Dickey et al. v. The Stronach Group was active in the Eastern District of New York, with pre-motion conference letters filed by defense counsel on April 3rd. The defendants in that case include The Stronach Group, Churchill Downs, NYRA, AmTote, United Tote, Racing and Gaming Services, and Elite Turf Club. The conduct at issue in that case is, substantially, the same conduct Chaney described as not a problem to be solved.
We are not suggesting that Chaney’s remarks were legally imprudent or that they constitute any kind of admission on behalf of any party. We are noting that the executive director of the primary state regulator of CAW activity in California made a public statement characterizing CAW as categorically not problematic at the precise moment that active federal litigation was arguing the opposite — and that his characterization, made in his official capacity, now exists in the public record alongside that litigation.
Whether that matters legally is a question for people with law degrees. Whether it matters as a matter of regulatory accountability is a question anyone can ask.
The executive director of the primary state regulator made a public statement characterizing CAW as categorically not problematic. That statement now exists in the public record alongside active federal litigation arguing the opposite.
What We Are Not Saying — and What We Are
We are not saying Scott Chaney is corrupt. We are not saying he is acting in bad faith. We are not saying the CHRB has been derelict in its duties across the board — its record on equine safety is genuine and documented and deserves to stand on its own.
What we are saying is this. The California Horse Racing Board has on its books data showing one CAW entity growing from three to thirty percent of state handle in fourteen years. It has received written acknowledgment from that entity’s own operation that the arrangement raises effective costs for retail bettors. It has heard from industry economists and governance experts that the trajectory is unsustainable. It has watched the state’s racing infrastructure contract, Golden Gate close, and Northern California racing collapse entirely. And the executive director of that board went to a conference of racing commissioners and said, on the record, that CAW is not a problem to be solved.
What does it take for something to qualify as a problem in California? We are asking. Not answering. We will leave the answer to the people whose job it is to provide one.
We would be remiss if we didn’t add it was not the first time Scott Chaney had a take we found bizarre. As a steward at the time, he openly stated he voted Bayern stay up in the Breeders’ Cup Classic. Arguably one of the worst calls ever in a major North American race.
Are You Talking To Me?:
