2002 - Harness Tracks of America, Inc.
2002 - Harness Tracks of America, Inc.
2002 - Harness Tracks of America, Inc.
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
HARNESS TRACKS OF AMERICA<br />
Executive Newsletter<br />
A daily fax and e-mail report on racing and gaming developments in North <strong>America</strong> and beyond<br />
Stanley F. Bergstein, Editor June 28, <strong>2002</strong><br />
INDY DOWNS INVESTIGATION<br />
Joe Gorajec, executive director <strong>of</strong> the Indiana<br />
Horse Racing Commission, has notified Indianapolis<br />
Downs, currently building a track near the capitol<br />
city, that it is under investigation and that he<br />
has recommended it be fined $1.2 million for nondisclosure<br />
<strong>of</strong> information that has “seriously tarnished<br />
the reputation and the image <strong>of</strong> the Commission.”<br />
The allegations concern seven findings <strong>of</strong> fact<br />
charging nondisclosure involving the role and actions<br />
<strong>of</strong> Larry Mohr, who the commission says<br />
acted as advisor and consultant for Indianapolis<br />
Downs during its license application hearings. The<br />
allegations contend Mohr had improper communications<br />
with commission members on at least five<br />
occasions during that period. The track contends<br />
Mohr’s services and those <strong>of</strong> DSB Associates, the<br />
firm with which he was affiliated, were “fully disclosed<br />
to the Commission in Indianapolis Downs’<br />
February 2001 Shelby county permit application.”<br />
Gorajec calls that statement “an insult to the intelligence<br />
<strong>of</strong> the Commission, its staff, the horse<br />
racing community in Indiana and the general public,”<br />
and says “There is simply no reasonable way<br />
to arrive at the conclusion suggested by Indianapolis<br />
Downs when a fair and objective analysis<br />
is made <strong>of</strong> facts which have been long known to<br />
them but which have only recently been provided<br />
to the Commission.”<br />
Gorajec’s recommendation to the Commission<br />
calls for a $1 million fine for nondisclosures, and a<br />
$200,000 fine for “attempting to perpetrate a misrepresentation<br />
on the Commission.” His letter to<br />
Indianapolis Downs’ attorneys called the charges<br />
“a very serious <strong>of</strong>fense,” and he closed his letter<br />
by saying, “When it comes to disclosing<br />
required information, you don’t play ‘hideand-seek’<br />
with the Indiana Horse Racing<br />
Commission.”<br />
HOW ABOUT A BILLION?<br />
As expected, the Illinois Gaming Board unveiled<br />
a plan yesterday to hold an open, competitive auction<br />
<strong>of</strong> the state’s last gaming license, one that<br />
could bring a casino to the immediate Chicago area.<br />
The auction sale, regardless <strong>of</strong> what it brought,<br />
would compensate the investors in the embattled<br />
and stalemated Emerald Casino only what they had<br />
invested, and no more. The gaming board is expected<br />
to vote on the proposal next Monday. While<br />
new money would not enrich the original investors,<br />
the proposal calls for the successful buyer to pick<br />
up as much as $150 million in lawyers’ fees and<br />
other liabilities incurred by Emerald during the last<br />
three years <strong>of</strong> bitter litigation. That money includes<br />
a parking garage already built and a steel skeleton<br />
<strong>of</strong> the stalled casino in suburban Rosemont,<br />
which may or may not be the location <strong>of</strong> the casino,<br />
when it finally gets built. No commitment<br />
has been made on that, but the fact that the successful<br />
buyer would have to pay for the garage<br />
and existing steel structure, and has a favorable<br />
city management behind the idea, now makes it<br />
seem that Rosemont may wind up with the casino<br />
after all. Gaming board chief Philip Parenti thinks<br />
the bidding process will determine if the $669 million<br />
<strong>of</strong>fered earlier by MGM/Mirage could be “the<br />
high water mark or whether it could be higher,”<br />
and the attorney for the board thinks the license<br />
might be worth a billion dollars. The managing<br />
director <strong>of</strong> J.P. Morgan in New York, Harry Curtis,<br />
disagrees strongly. He says, “if they think they’re<br />
going to get someone to pay a billion dollars in a<br />
state where the legislature is clearly anti-gaming,<br />
then they’re smoking something. For them to use<br />
the gaming industry as a whipping boy by taking<br />
their tax rate up 10% is going to scare any potential<br />
buyer from paying a premium for that license.”<br />
MGM/Mirage already dropped out <strong>of</strong> the bidding<br />
after the tax hike on riverboat casinos.