as everyone is talking about nyra big wigs it just came across the ny postnews line at 630 pm that the state racing board has suspended patrick kehoe v.p of nyra racing and charles hayward c.e.o for not paying out 8.5million dollars in winnings to ny bettors
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/more-sports/york-racing-association-ceo-charles-hayward-knew-nyra-over-charging-bettors-state-report-claims-article-1.1069923
Doesn\'t make Crist look much better.
Is there no end to the malfeasance?
But, but, but ... LASIX ! JOE DRAPE! LOOK ELSEWHERE!
The end of this regime is near. Then there\'s the next one. What was the line in Syriana, \"it needs to have the appearance of due diligence.\"
I\'ll give Steve credit. He responded to me when I correctly guessed his email. I won\'t post it but if you feel the need, contact me directly.
\"I was under the impression from the reader\'s question and NYRA\'s response that NYRA was eligible to apply for a takeout reduction, not that it was enforcing the incorrect rates or was \'ripping off the world,\' and that it was fashioning a takeout-reduction proposal.\"
Like Capt. Quint, he\'s gonna need a bigger boat...
The biggest \'hero\' in all of this is the \'bettor\' who originally e mailed Crist and told him that the takeouts were wrong.
Certain Horseplayers > Certain Racetrack execs.
Incidentally,think people should wait for Steve Crist to respond,very shortly,before jumping to conclusions on what he did or did not do.
Hear Charlie Hayward is already gone, a matter of formality pending full investigation out of Albany.
Mike
Okay, Crist has spoken. Everybody satisfied?
Last August 1st, a reader sent me a note saying, as I understood it, that due to the expiration of legislation, NYRA could now ask the State Racing and Wagering Board for a takeout reduction if it wanted to. I forwarded the note to NYRA's CEO, Charlie Hayward, asking him, "Is this true?" He responded by e-mail that the reader was correct and then went on to say – prefaced with the words "off the record" --- that NYRA had not asked for a reduction yet because he did not think it would be approved due to various other political battles going on. He then asked me to keep "these details" of those political reasons confidential and said he wanted to discuss the issue and the possible forms of takeout reduction with me further.
He never did, and the next thing I heard about the matter was several months later in December, when an auditor discovered that NYRA had in fact been overcharging by applying an incorrect takeout rate on some bets for more than a year. It turned out that the rate should have automatically been changed 14 months earlier, not just that NYRA had become eligible to request a change in the rates.
This was news to me, and I personally believe this was news to Hayward. I can think of no reason why he would have concealed that knowledge, and I believe that had he known the wrong rate was being applied, he would have gotten it changed immediately. He has consistently been a proponent of lower takeout throughout the decades I have known him, and had opposed the very increase that had expired. State investigators, and some readers, may believe otherwise, but I find it completely implausible that he would deliberately overcharge bettors for more than a year and think it would never be discovered.
Nor do I understand what possible motive I would have for tolerating or agreeing to overlook such overcharging – I would love to have been the guy who caught the error and reported it on the front page of Daily Racing Form and corrected the rates and gotten some people (including myself) their money back sooner. With hindsight, I regret that I didn't follow up on the issue. But I personally do not believe Hayward knowingly overcharged his customers, and it never even occurred to me that might be happening. I assure you that I was completely unaware this was going on, and never would have tolerated it or agreed to be silent about it if I had.
Wow is this bad. Motive for Hayward - they were holding onto the money given NYRA\'s already precarious financial position? How can Crist so he was \"COMPLETELY unaware\" given the note he got from one of his readers? If they can get the takeout reduced, and they don\'t do that, and Crist just forgets to follow up, that equals \"completely unaware?\" He should run for office. And if it should\'ve been automatically changed 14 months earlier what does that say about Hayward\'s performance as CEO? It sounds like since Heyward said \"off the record\" Crist put it out of mind and now he has to pretend he doesn\'t know anything when it\'s plain as day he knew plenty. Sounds like he put his friendship with Heyward ahead of the interests of the players, and that\'s a nice way of putting it.
Would be interesting to know who the \"reader\" was. That may also give a clue as to how the email got out, beyond speculating about who in NYRA had administrative rights to the email system and didn\'t like Heyward.
HP
Caradoc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, Crist has spoken. Everybody satisfied?
>
>
Sounds like a bunch of garbage to me..but I\'ll let investigators worry about him..I\'m just glad some people will get shaken out finally...
What was going through Crist\'s head during the FIVE MONTHS from August to December when
a) he knew NYRA could ask for a takeout reduction
and
b) he knew NYRA did not ask for a takeout reduction
Maybe he was preoccupied with writing another book about exotic wagering strategies? He should have just said \"the matter is under investigation.\"
HP
It never really made a lot of sense that some issue of this magnitude could get \'overlooked\', and for that period of time.
I figured they were fos, but didn\'t realize how fos they were.
I dunno HP. I for one think Crist is more or less telling the truth. That just makes him inept, and Hayward too, but not co-conspirators. And I think that makes the most sense. Here\'s why.
Let\'s assume for the sake of argument that Crist is best friends with Hayward. Why would he cover something up for him for months when he knows the issue is going to come out eventually unless there was something in it for him personally. I mean, I am old school and can completely understand not ratting out a buddy. But if a buddy of mine showed up at my place and wanted to stash a body in my closet, how long would I let him do it unless there was something in it for me. The stink is going to get you eventually...
Even if you assume they are best friends, it would seem to me that without having anything to gain personally, Crist probably would have said \"Look, get your house in order within a week and I will try to feather the landing when the story comes out.\" Rather than let it ride for months when you know it\'s going to come out anyway.
MJ:
Crist apparently wants us to believe that he understood only half of what a reader alleged to him, and the far less important half at that, the stuff about requesting a takeout reduction. The reader specifically alleged that the takeout rate NYRA was using was illegal. Crist\'s statement noticeably avoids any attempt to discuss that allegation or Hayward\'s admission of it, both telling omissions on Steve\'s part. Once Crist had Hayward\'s admission, at the very least should have suspected there was a major problem, and every serious journalist I have ever known would have begun asking more questions, like \"Charlie, has NYRA been doing this since last fall? What\'s the number of what\'s been over-withheld?\" Not Steve. How can he argue without provoking laughter among sophisticated people that \"it was news to me\" when the auditor discovered the very problem the reader had identified to him and which Hayward had acknowledged to him months earlier? Or that he \"personally believe this was news to Hayward\"? Apparently he still hasn\'t read the interim report, which lays out in detail all the evidence indicating that Hayward did know, and why Hayward would be motivated to conceal it.
Cardoc,
I get that. So what would be in it for Crist? How did he benefit?
Like a lot of us, Steve may consider it a benefit to do whatever he can to help a friend in serious need. After all, how else could we interpret his continuing attempts -- even today, in the face of significant evidence to the contrary -- to persuade us that he does not believe Hayward knew the takeout practice was illegal until December 2011?
i would\'nt let my mother stash a body in my house, let alone a friend
Nor would I. Just making a point. Maybe I should have said \"stash a crazy mistress.\" Regardless, how long would you cover something \"big\" up for a \"friend\" with nothing in it for you when your job/career could depend upon it?
To me, ineptitude makes more sense.
A reasonable explanation. I\'ll withhold any further leaps to judgement before the facts are known.
LOL - we could ask John Edwards aid, Andrew Young ...
mjellish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nor would I. Just making a point. Maybe I should
> have said \"stash a crazy mistress.\" Regardless,
> how long would you cover something \"big\" up for a
> \"friend\" with nothing in it for you when your
> job/career could depend upon it?
>
Perhaps Joe Paterno could have shed light on that question.
I agree. I was responsible for getting Crist to be Editor of the Racing Times. I was business, he was editorial so we weren\'t best buddies. I don\'t think I\'ve spoken to him for the best part 15 years.
The one thing I would say though is that I always found him a man of integrity. I doubt very much that he would have it in him to cover up for Hayward, despite whatever personal friendship there might have been.
I think he simply got the letter from the reader wrong, reading it as NYRA could apply for a reduction in the take-out rather than that they were legally bound to apply it.
And I\'d also be pretty certain that what\'s keeping him awake at night is that he missed the story, rather than he\'s implicated in a cover-up.
The reason I thought Crist would be a good editor for the Racing Times was that as well as being a good journalist he was also clearly a degenerate horseplayer. The great thing about the Racing Times was, to quote Andy Beyer, was that it was the lunatics taking over the asylum.
I may be wrong but I\'d be very surprised and disappointed if Crist has become \'establishment\' and no longer sees himself as a horseplayer. I doubt very much that he is the villain of this piece.
Cheers,
George
I agree with some of this, Mandown, but on the question of whether Steve Crist \"has become establishment,\" well, when Queen Elizabeth 2 decides that she REALLY wants to become establishment, she would do well to study Crist.
I have no problem leaping to judgement. Why does everyone want to make excuses for Crist? The GAPING hole in this remains...Crist knew they could apply...and he also knew they did not apply. Was there a story in the intervening months between August and December that said \"NYRA applies for takeout reduction?\" Hell no. So at some point wouldn\'t it be logical for Crist to call Hayward and say, \"hey what\'s up with the takeout thing?\" Since he\'s such a right guy and understands the players? It STINKS. Personally I have a job where I don\'t have people advocating for me when I screw up this big. All of sudden he didn\'t understand half of the email? He\'s a pretty bright guy. Not buying it. I don\'t have to figure out his motives. Stinks. HP
Albany hunting for scalps!!
NY Inspector General Investigating NYRA
By Tom Precious
State investigators wasted little time launching a full-scale probe of the New York Racing Association, a day after it was revealed top NYRA officials may have known about and covered up efforts to keep a takeout decrease from kicking in—a move that cost bettors more than $8 million.
The state Inspector General's office began formal inquiries—talking to officials at NYRA and requesting documents—on May 1 as part of a probe that lawmakers say could have civil and criminal implications for NYRA officials.
Several sources close to the investigation say the IG's office, which has broad investigatory powers, is also seeking thousands of documents that state racing regulators claim NYRA declined to release during its probe of the matter.
The IG's probe was requested by Robert Megna, chairman of a state panel that oversees NYRA's finances and who was personally told at least once in public by top NYRA officials that they had no knowledge of the takeout overcharges.
With NYRA already under fire for an increase in equine deaths during its winter meet, and talk over the months about some state officials interested in closing down Aqueduct racetrack, the new scandal represents a potentially crippling blow to the current leadership at the nonprofit racing association. There was speculation at the Capitol that the Cuomo administration, no fan of NYRA, could seek to undo NYRA's exclusive franchise to run Aqueduct Racetrack, Belmont Park, and Saratoga Race Course if the takeout troubles worsen. Megna's oversight panel has the legal authority to assume NYRA's operations.
NYRA officials, meanwhile, declined on May 1 to respond to a number of inquiries, including who will be appointed to take over the duties of NYRA President Charles Hayward and the group's counsel, Patrick Kehoe. Both officials were suspended Monday, without pay, as the takeout probe expanded to the inspector general's office.
NYRA Board Chairman C. Steven Duncker for a second day declined an interview request. Duncker is to report by May 4 to Megna, who is also Gov. Andrew Cuomo's chief budget advisor, on steps the NYRA board is taking to address the takeout controversy.
Hayward had repeatedly denied any knowledge of the takeout problem. The state in 2008 permitted NYRA to increase its takeout on certain exotic bets to 26%—with a sunset on that level due to take effect in September 2010. But NYRA continued charging the higher level, instead of the required 25% rate, until state auditors with state Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli's office caught the mistake in December 2011. By then, more than $8 million in additional takeout costs had been imposed on bettors.
An interim report by the state Racing and Wagering Board released this week depicted Hayward, and potentially other NYRA executives, with knowledge that the takeout decrease was required under law.
Megna this week suggested racing licenses of NYRA officials, at least, could be at stake depending on the outcome of the investigation by the IG, which has subpoena power and the authority to refer wrongdoing cases to prosecutors
Here\'s how I see it now: Crist did call Hayward and ask. Hayward gave Crist an answer. Why would Crist think Hayward would purposely lie or give him misinformation? He wouldn\'t.
The problem is Hayward was wrong in his answer to Crist. It could have been caught at that time, had Hayward bothered to double-check with the law/counsel. Did Hayward double-check with counsel? What did Kehoe say? Was counsel\'s advice wrong? Did Hayward not bother to double-check?
That\'s the point where deliberate or malfeasant wrongdoing, if it occured, would have happened.
Sight - I\'m with you...but how do you account for Crist not following up on this for MONTHS after he got his answer from Heyward? It\'s a pretty important subject, right? Crist even acknowledges not following up. I\'ll say you can\'t prove Crist did anything wrong from a legal perspective, but given his status in the game, it\'s beyond me how he didn\'t say another word about this, to Heyward or anyone else, for MONTHS.
HP
Agreed. If the possibility existed for takeout to be lowered, why not discuss that in public? His agreement with Hayward that their conversation (was off the record) with Hayward noting the discussion of political backlash and pressures probably put Crist on hold with pushing that in public, as Hayward told him discretion would be needed.
Sight,
Hayward\'s answer to Crist was not wrong. It was correct on both counts, that NYRA was over-withholding and all the stuff about the takeout changes. That\'s not where this problem started.
You might know that what Hayward told counsel (and vice versa) is still an open issue, as NYRA has withheld some documents and other evidence on the basis of attorney-client privilege. Remember that he responded to the first email by indicating he was forwarding the email onto Kehoe, the general counsel? The report indicated that investigators could not find such an email, but of course such an email may be one of the things NYRA has not produced on the basis of privilege.
Sight - 1,000%, but...what about a PRIVATE question? In four months. \"Hey Charlie, anything new on that takeout thing?\" Crist\'s account makes it clear he did not venture a PRIVATE, off-the-record (since these guys like to keep things off the record) question either.
Crist has every opportunity to EXPLAIN himself, and he\'s articulate enough to do so. I don\'t see anything in his account that explains him TOTALLY abandoning this topic from August until December, in public or not. Early Alzheimers? He forgot? It\'s just bizarre. HP