Racing legislation in Ohio follow-up
Taking a closer look at two bills that could have wide-ranging implications on the horse racing industry in the Buckeye state.
by Trey Nosrac
Our historic sport is like a small duck paddling across a calm pond. A large alligator silently slithers into the water on a distant riverbank. We paddle on, enjoying the gentle breeze and lush vegetation. One afternoon, there is an explosion of water and gnashing of teeth. Soon, the water is calm. The gentle breeze blows. The duck is gone.
We all hope that influential people in our tiny world are on the case and protecting our interests on the legislation front in every racing state. There are sharks in the water with money and big teeth.
Gambling legislation that affects horse racing in any state is complicated and fluid. Take Ohio as an example. Just a week ago, Republican Governor Mike DeWine, while cutting ribbons at the Ohio State Fair, announced that he is against expanding gambling and will veto the pending legislation. He stated, “He is not for putting a casino in everybody’s hands 24/7.”
Governor DeWine’s statement would seem to make the legislation a moot point.
Maybe not. The Ohio legislature can override a veto. And according to the editorial opinion of the Cleveland Plain Dealer, “If the supermajority in the state legislature wants to get the gambling laws enacted, they will get it done.”
With this in mind, let’s look at where things stand. On June 1, the subject in this space was a gambling bill
(Ohio Senate Bill 197).
“The bill would allow Ohio’s four casinos and seven racinos to introduce websites or apps to gamble on casino-styled games such as roulette, slots, blackjack, and poker, plus internet gambling on real and simulated horse racing.”
Bill 197 effectively abolishes the Ohio State Racing Commission. The bill proposes repealing several sections of the Ohio Revised Code that govern the Racing Commission to accomplish this abolition. The new legislation repeals Section 3769.02 (which establishes the Ohio State Racing Commission) and Section 3769.021 (which details the commission composition and appointment process). Bill 197 proposes new regulatory gambling structures under different sections of the revised code, shifting the horse racing regulations to other or newly formed bodies, such as the Ohio Casino Control Commission. SB 197 amends and enacts several sections in various chapters (3768, 3770, 3771, 3772) to create a new framework for regulating gambling and horse racing.
Shortly after posting this report, another piece of legislation arrived on the scene. According to the Ohio Capital Journal, Ohio House Bill 298 for regulating online gambling, introduced by Representatives Brian Stewart and Marilyn John, is on the table. This bill allows the racing commission to stay as it is.
The question on the table is which of these two bills favors harness horse racing?
After asking a few people about the pending legislation, the feedback was blank stares and shrugs. I tried something new that becomes less new each day: I asked artificial intelligence. The reply was fast and unequivocal.
“Of the two major pending bills, Ohio Senate Bill 197 and House Bill 298, House Bill 298 is more favorable to harness horse racing.”
Phew, glad to hear this because I did not want to get into an argument. Trey was leaning towards 298, but attempting to digest these massive bills (1,000 pages) is challenging for a mortal. I could never fathom the reason for repealing the Horse Racing Commission and replacing it with a Casino Commission; this seems akin to handing a wolf the keys to the henhouse.
AI opted to support 298 for the horse racing community and gave reasons:
1. House Bill 298 suggests modernization without elimination of the Racing Commission. HB 298 enhances penalties for rule violations (raising the cap from $1,000 to $50,000), updates enforcement tools, and loosens outdated limits on race dates and simulcasting. However, it does not eliminate the Ohio State Racing Commission (OSRC). Keeping the OSRC preserves dedicated oversight for harness and thoroughbred racing.
2. Support for Live Racing bill 298 removes previous minimum and maximum limits on the number of live racing days for VLT racinos, which allows racetracks greater flexibility to expand live racing schedules; a clear win for harness horsepeople.
3. Simplifies Simulcasting Rules. HB 298 eases the process for tracks to offer simulcast wagering throughout the year, potentially increasing handle and revenue.
4. No redistribution of purse funds. It maintains the current flow of VLT and casino revenue into harness racing purses and breeders’ funds, unlike SB 197, which could divert some of these funds.
Below are red flags against 197:
1. Eliminates the Ohio State Racing Commission. SB 197 abolishes the OSRC and transfers all horse racing oversight to the Ohio Casino Control Commission, raising concerns that racing will not get prioritized.
2. Adds new forms of online gambling without guarantees for racing. SB 197 legalizes online casinos, poker, and iLottery, but it does not guarantee a share of tax revenue for horse racing, which risks cannibalizing existing gambling dollars without replacing purse subsidies.
3. Potential loss of purse revenue. Racing stakeholders, including the Ohio Harness Horsemen’s Association, have warned that SB 197 could reduce VLT-derived purse funding, which is vital to the sport.
So, my pal from ChatGPT agrees. Ohio legislation impact on harness horse racing: House Bill 298 is the more favorable bill for harness racing. It modernizes regulation, removes restrictive caps, and protects funding mechanisms, without dismantling the regulatory body dedicated to the sport. In contrast, Senate Bill 197 introduces more risk than reward for harness racing unless amended to ensure purse protection.
Is harness racing out of the woods in Ohio? Hardly. The finish line is in the distance. And here is something that may surprise you. Citizens like us, as strange as it sounds, cannot vote. The huge gambling bills are part of the “regular legislative process in the Ohio General Assembly.” There is no requirement to go to a public referendum. In other words, if the politicians get a bill on the Governor’s desk, and he signs it, it’s a done deal. If the Governor vetoes the bill and the veto gets overridden, it’s a done deal.
Yeah, it’s a smorgasbord of political intrigue, so let’s hope most legislators are harness racing fans.
