Claiming rule in Cali

[turninforhome10]

Via the Bloodhorse http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/76406/california-amends-rule-to-void-claims-again

Is this a ruling that should be adopted by all jurisdictions?

[JustRalph]

Now they ship em to Turf Paradise huh?

[Robert Fischer]

Via the Bloodhorse http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/76406/california-amends-rule-to-void-claims-again

Is this a ruling that should be adopted by all jurisdictions?

Interesting.

If the Vets do a thorough job, that could make drop-downs at tracks that support this ruling more reliable betting interests.

[BIG49010]

Sometimes it takes two or three days for all the crap to wear off, then you see what you have, then you can return the horse if he is lame?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Sometimes it takes two or three days for all the crap to wear off, then you see what you have, then you can return the horse if he is lame?

The way it reads it seems that there will be post race "exams" by the state vet in the test barn after any claim. If the horse walks off good and the vet likes what he sees, the claim is good. If he's dragging a hind leg and the vet sees a reason to put him on the list, the claim is voided.

Look at it this way - instead of having to just warmup sound enough to make the gate and be declared a starter for a claim to be valid, now you have to actually make the gate, and the race, and pull up decent enough, and walk off fairly well, and then get looked over again once more for a claim to be valid.

That's my perception of what they want to do - just eliminate the whole "make the gate" mindset from participants and I'm not sure there's a perfect way to approach it, but this seems like it might help. It could be a useless hassle and lead to all kinds of crying about how horseA could possibly pass post race and yet horseB was voided... but the subtle little problem...

I imagine they'll have a pretty high threshold for putting horses on the list post race knowing it will possibly void a claim. You kind of have to. If you see a horse that you're just not sure of and you'd like to watch it work just to be at ease - and you'd probably do it except you're going to void a claim if you list him for post race unsoundness and needs a work.

The intent is a good thing, but I hope other tracks give them a chance to see how well it works before rushing to make changes. I suspect that it probably just got harder to make a vet's list post race, and I'm not convinced that possible trade-off as the rule stands is a long run winner.

[Sysonby]

I think the rule is a good one. We'll have to see how it plays out in practice, and it may be some tweaking will be needed, but it's a step in the right direction, imo.

[Stillriledup]

Here's what i don't get.

If the rule is to prevent trainers from 'dumping' bad horses into claiming races, doesnt that theory go out the window if the on track vet clears the horse to actually race?

[mountainman]

In my opinion, not much will change with the implementation of this rule. Callous, high-volume barns will still drop cripples rather than foot the expense of restorative r and r, enough of those horses will run out at short odds for sharp handicappers to capitalize, and dumb claimants will still take form at face value, fail to read the nuances, and get burned. Ironically, state vets now besieged by complaints for putting horses ON the list, will soon be harassed by snookered claimants for NOT flagging horses.

And, make no mistake, this rule was drawn up at the behest of horsemen trying to protect themselves, not the animals they earn from. I'd be surprised if breakdowns decrease even a little.

[Stillriledup]

Should a voided claim have a note in the DRF PP line that says "returned lame"?

I've noticed Equibase removes claims if the claim gets voided...so, unless you keep notes, or have an amazing memory, you might not remember that so and so was claimed and returned.

[v j stauffer]

Should a voided claim have a note in the DRF PP line that says "returned lame"?

I've noticed Equibase removes claims if the claim gets voided...so, unless you keep notes, or have an amazing memory, you might not remember that so and so was claimed and returned.

There's only so much you can put in the PP's. Anyone can go the extra mile. Voided claims are listed in the stewards minutes every week. chrb.ca.gov

[Fingal]

Here's what i don't get.

If the rule is to prevent trainers from 'dumping' bad horses into claiming races, doesnt that theory go out the window if the on track vet clears the horse to actually race?

This is what gets me. Even if a trainer had the intentions of dumping off a horse & its problems on someone else, it's the track vet that permits it to run. To me this is the person that should have the lights turned on them, but if something happens the trainer's name is right out in front for everyone to see in the program. Finding out the name of the track vet takes a bit more effort.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...the trainer's name is right out in front for everyone to see in the program. Finding out the name of the track vet takes a bit more effort.

Don't most official track programs still list all/most of the relevant racing officials right on the first page or two?

I haven't seen a recent one from anywhere in a while to be honest, but every one that I ever produced had the track vet listed with the rest of the cast as near as I can remember and the three stale relics within arm's reach from three different tracks have both the state and track vet listed.

[cj]

There's only so much you can put in the PP's. Anyone can go the extra mile. Voided claims are listed in the stewards minutes every week. chrb.ca.gov

Wouldn't be that hard. Now, we get something like this:

c-10000

Just change it to x-10000 for canx claims.

[whodoyoulike]

Wouldn't be that hard. Now, we get something like this:

c-10000

Just change it to x-10000 for canx claims.

I agree. Or add a line explaining that claim was cancelled. Hopefully there won't be that many additional lines added. Otherwise, it would alert the bettors that something is definitely wrong in the claiming game.

[Stillriledup]

I agree. Or add a line explaining that claim was cancelled. Hopefully there won't be that many additional lines added. Otherwise, it would alert the bettors that something is definitely wrong in the claiming game.

Or, put it at the bottom of the program. They have no problems listing the new CHRB rule stating that certain horses can't be claimed, so they can certainly list "voided claims". They can do that without having to even divulge the reason, just say voided claim.

[v j stauffer]

Wouldn't be that hard. Now, we get something like this:

c-10000

Just change it to x-10000 for canx claims.

I didn't say it would be hard. I said you can't put everything in a PP. The information is available to inquiring minds that are willing to put in a minimal effort to find it.

[cj]

I didn't say it would be hard. I said you can't put everything in a PP. The information is available to inquiring minds that are willing to put in a minimal effort to find it.

I hear you, but I believe the public should be given any and all information possible in the past performances. There is a lot of pretty useless stuff there already. This info has some value.