As Big Brown rumbled to his first win of the horse’s potential Triple Crown in the Kentucky Derby, Phil Ruffin Jr. was wondering what might have been.
The New Frontier at Camptown Greyhound Park was originally set to debut on Derby weekend, to thousands of interested parties who would not only be able to bet on dog racing, but also on the horse race taking place that afternoon.
Instead, thanks to debates on the gaming bill’s constitutionality, broken negotiations with the Kansas Lottery Commission and Sedgwick County voters deciding to reject gaming in the area, Ruffin, whose father owns the track, said he sat without a place to bet. And he sat there without the title that might have been, executive director of the company’s pari-mutuel division.
“It was pretty sad to see,” Ruffin said. “Here in Wichita, we regularly had 2,000 to 3,000 at the track on Derby day. I don’t know where they went, but I know a lot of interested people didn’t get to make a bet. Heck, I wanted to bet on the Derby, but there’s no way to bet unless you do it illegally online.
“Things are not looking good for the pari-mutuel industry in the state of Kansas,” Ruffin said.
Ruffin said a large portion of that came from the track’s inability to negotiate a contract with the Lottery, but he said it wasn’t the Lottery’s fault.
“The way that bill is crafted, there’s so much margin taken away from the operator,” Ruffin said. “We would not be able to compete in that region of Kansas effectively with the tax rate and competing against a $300 million casino just a few miles away.”
But Sen. Jim Barone, D-Frontenac, said the problems shouldn’t have been a surprise.
“I don’t know what could have changed their mind,” Barone said. “The law hasn’t changed. Not one comma or one word has been replaced in the bill that the Ruffins endorsed wholeheartedly.
“When that bill was signed into law by the governor, they applauded it and talked about how good it was.”
Instead, the wording of the bill wound up getting Camptown to halt construction on what had been tabbed a $30 million renovation project.
“Things were getting very bleak,” Ruffin said. “I don’t know how we’ll move forward. I guess, if my father has any interest, we’ll try to somehow change Senate Bill 66 so that it reads that we get a larger portion.”
But Rep. Julie Menghini, D-Pittsburg, said that wasn’t a good scenario.
“The chances aren’t great,” Menghini said. “It took 15 years plus to get a gaming bill passed in the first place. To risk all of that for one dog track in the corner of the state, to risk all the destination casinos and the other track’s income, I don’t think we could do it.
“Maybe if the makeup of the legislature changes this fall to a more pro-gaming outfit it might work,” Menghini said. “But I’m not sure the general public always realizes what a Pandora’s box we’re opening if we bring that bill back to the table.”
Rep. Bob Grant, D-Cherokee, said he couldn’t support the risk.
“When we passed the bill, we wanted to make sure that we didn’t set the thing up to fail, and they said they could live with it,” Grant said. “I’m not arguing the point that he can’t do it. I’m not knowledgeable enough to know what it takes to run it on, but apparently he thinks he can’t do it. But if we open this thing back up, you could risk everything.”
Ruffin himself said he wasn’t optimistic the changes would be made.
“I don’t see it happening, honestly,” Ruffin said. “I don’t see the Senate and the state doing that. The way the figures work, if we don’t make X amount of dollars, we’re not going to get there. We aren’t going to make that figure.”
Barone said if the Ruffins elected not to take on the challenge, they should entertain other offers for the track.
“I think the racing and gaming commission should look carefully,” Barone said. “We could see if somebody else wants to give it a try.”
Kevin Flaherty can be reached at kevin.flaherty@morningsun.net or by calling 231-2600 Ext. 134.


