claiming nulification

[jasperson]

I read somewhere that some racing commission(maybe Cal.) were considering or adopting a rule the claims could be nullified under certain condition. This was and attempt to prevent trainer from putting unfit horses up for claim. This could be an important handicapping factor if it does away with those suspicious class drop downs.

[Robert Fischer]

Great Point.
I'm in favor of protecting the horses, even if it cuts into the poker game of the connections, and some of my spot-plays. This is something to look out for.

Mountainman had a good idea about some level of notification as to whether or not claims have been put in on a horse. That would seem to benefit players. I thought it was a pretty good idea at first glance.

[jahura2]

This rule was put in to effect for the first time today at BHP.
http://www.drf.com/news/hollywood-park-new-rule-used-first-time-void-claim-unsound-horse

[Striker]

I agree with some of the comments under that article. The new owner should have a say if he wants to uphold the claim or not. This is putting way too much power into the vet's hands and that is a dicey situation.

[davew]

wow, looks like rule says horse not sound (testing barn vet), can't have em....


rather than new owners saying don't want em

[Aner]

Plenny of Henny won by 2+ lengths. How unsound were the other horses?

[raybo]

Plenny of Henny won by 2+ lengths. How unsound were the other horses?

It doesn't say what the reason for the unsoundness ruling was. And, whatever the problem was, might have happened at or after the wire.

That being said, it does sound a little "fishy" to me.

[Longshot6977]

It would be great if the auto industry used a certified state mechanic (vet) to test used cars that are bought ('claimed') to ensure the new owner isn't getting a raw deal. Almost the same thing with the claimed horse. Let's hope this new rule works out well for all parties involved as a step to improve horseracing in general.

[raybo]

It would be great if the auto industry used a certified state mechanic (vet) to test used cars that are bought ('claimed') to ensure the new owner isn't getting a raw deal. Almost the same thing with the claimed horse. Let's hope this new rule works out well for all parties involved as a step to improve horseracing in general.

I agree, let's just hope it's all done above board, no personalities or "relationships" involved in the determinations of "unsound". The horse won the race, does the owner all of a sudden regret having run the horse in that race, wishing he could keep the "unsound" horse? Did the vet have a "relationship" with that trainer/owner?

As I said, sounds a little fishy to me. Until a second opinion is available regarding the "unsound" condition of the horse, I will still have some uneasy feelings about this particular case. Until we know, for sure, that the horse became unsound, after the win was assured, then I'll continue to have those feelings. I'm not saying that there was anything going on, but it sure looks bad for racing. The proverbial "bag of worms" is hanging here, IMO.

[cordep17]

This rule was put in to effect for the first time today at BHP.
http://www.drf.com/news/hollywood-park-new-rule-used-first-time-void-claim-unsound-horse

I think it is misleading that the Equibase chart didn't say that an effort to claim the horse was made. As a handicapper, if I were betting on a race involving that horse, I would want to have knowledge that the horse had been deemed unsound. Two other horses in the race had been claimed, but there was no mention of the winner's predicament.

[jasperson]

I agree, let's just hope it's all done above board, no personalities or "relationships" involved in the determinations of "unsound". The horse won the race, does the owner all of a sudden regret having run the horse in that race, wishing he could keep the "unsound" horse? Did the vet have a "relationship" with that trainer/owner?

As I said, sounds a little fishy to me. Until a second opinion is available regarding the "unsound" condition of the horse, I will still have some uneasy feelings about this particular case. Until we know, for sure, that the horse became unsound, after the win was assured, then I'll continue to have those feelings. I'm not saying that there was anything going on, but it sure looks bad for racing. The proverbial "bag of worms" is hanging here, IMO.


Didn't Eight Bells break both front ankles after finishing 2nd in the derby. It can happen more times then we think. My father had a horse that dropped dead after the finish of the race in the first turn.

[onefast99]

It would be great if the auto industry used a certified state mechanic (vet) to test used cars that are bought ('claimed') to ensure the new owner isn't getting a raw deal. Almost the same thing with the claimed horse. Let's hope this new rule works out well for all parties involved as a step to improve horseracing in general.
So you would like to see a 'warranty' issued by an unbiased party. In this game it is buyer beware, you can end up with a claimer who goes up the ladder after the claim like Lava Man did and others(though it is a rarity) or you could end up with what you paid for!

[Aner]

The more I think of this, the more I wonder why this rule was made.

Some horses break down even though they appear perfectly OK before the race. Are the officials really going to judge soundness based on the results at the end of the race? If so, how will this prevent unsound horses from serious injury, which I think is the purpose for the rule. And, if a horse is unsound before the race, why isn't that horse scratched by the vet before running.

In my opinion a horse can only be deemed unsound beforehand and not if he becomes unsound during the race. If the vet lets the horse run, one should be able to assume the horse was sound at that time. What am I missing?

[raybo]

The more I think of this, the more I wonder why this rule was made.

Some horses break down even though they appear perfectly OK before the race. Are the officials really going to judge soundness based on the results at the end of the race? If so, how will this prevent unsound horses from serious injury, which I think is the purpose for the rule. And, if a horse is unsound before the race, why isn't that horse scratched by the vet before running.

In my opinion a horse can only be deemed unsound beforehand and not if he becomes unsound during the race. If the vet lets the horse run, one should be able to assume the horse was sound at that time. What am I missing?

The assumption is that the horse was fine before the race but not after it. So, if he won the race, he must have become unsound either right before the wire or during the run out. That's the point I'm making, if he was sound enough to win, what happened and when, to make him unsound back in the barn?

I don't think this new rule has anything to do with the horse's safety, it has to do with the new owner getting stuck with an unsound horse after he takes possession. I can see the logic, but this particular example leaves a bad taste in my mouth, as there was no mention of the cause of the unsoundness ruling.

[cnollfan]

I think it is misleading that the Equibase chart didn't say that an effort to claim the horse was made. As a handicapper, if I were betting on a race involving that horse, I would want to have knowledge that the horse had been deemed unsound. Two other horses in the race had been claimed, but there was no mention of the winner's predicament.

Agree.

[Golf man]

Too bad that the sound/unsound decision and/or review process was not made before the race. One of the risks in running a horse is that something could happen during the race that causes the horse to sustain an injury. Who can say with certainty when the unsound condition became apparent?

I think I understand what the rule was meant to address, but the timing of the assessment needs to occur earlier in the timeline.

[horses4courses]

If the horse is so healthy, why is he lamenting the fact that it's still in his barn?

http://www.drf.com/news/hollywood-park-trainer-says-horse-center-rescinded-claim-fine

[johnhannibalsmith]

If the horse is so healthy, why is he lamenting the fact that it's still in his barn?

http://www.drf.com/news/hollywood-park-trainer-says-horse-center-rescinded-claim-fine

When did he lament the fact that the horse was still in his barn? I read that he didn't like the rule itself and predicted it would be rescinded in part because of instances like the one that involved his horse.

[Stillriledup]

When did he lament the fact that the horse was still in his barn? I read that he didn't like the rule itself and predicted it would be rescinded in part because of instances like the one that involved his horse.
He seems livid that he had to take the horse back which makes no sense if the horse is fine.

[horses4courses]

I see where he's coming from.
The rule, in theory, is what he has the problem with.
Very experienced trainer, who knows the game inside out.

[Stillriledup]

I see where he's coming from.
The rule, in theory, is what he has the problem with.
Very experienced trainer, who knows the game inside out.

The rule isnt what he has a problem with imo, its the idea that the rule hurt HIM. People who are HELPED by something don't lash out like 5 year olds.

[raybo]

The rule isnt what he has a problem with imo, its the idea that the rule hurt HIM. People who are HELPED by something don't lash out like 5 year olds.

Where did you read that? In the report that was linked, he didn't lash out, he said what was already posted above.

[johnhannibalsmith]

He seems livid that he had to take the horse back which makes no sense if the horse is fine.

That's just your interpretation. I've been on the winning end of a steward's decision that was based on a lousy rule and had absolutely no problem expressing my opinion on the stupidity of the rule that benefitted me. What goes around, comes around, and you're bound to be on the other end of a rule that you disagree with eventually, even if it benefits you today.

It may be that he did want to lose the horse, but to suggest that it makes no sense that he doesn't want it just because it is fine makes far less sense than that which you are deeming nonsensical. Maybe the horse is a pain in the ass. Maybe he has twenty babies at the farm and needs a stall. There are a lot of reasons to want to unload a horse and while what you are insinuating and deducing is probably the most likely scenario, to just say outright that his statements make no sense is just silly.

The reality is that the horse probably isn't 100%, he was glad to lose it, wishes he hadn't gotten it back, and is at least partly hoping that he can talk someone else into claiming the horse down the right in spite of this incident. But the fact that you seem to think that is a fact and I tend to find it the most likely scenario doesn't make it a fact. It's just two people's opinion. I believe the guy hates the rule regardless of how fine the horse is or isn't. I happen to think it's a good concept, but like many of the good concepts designed to "fix" racing (or any other law outside of racing), the implementation predictably is flawed and has the potential to create more problems than it solves. I happen to think he's probably correct in his assessment of the rule's future in it's current state.

[Stillriledup]

That's just your interpretation. I've been on the winning end of a steward's decision that was based on a lousy rule and had absolutely no problem expressing my opinion on the stupidity of the rule that benefitted me. What goes around, comes around, and you're bound to be on the other end of a rule that you disagree with eventually, even if it benefits you today.

It may be that he did want to lose the horse, but to suggest that it makes no sense that he doesn't want it just because it is fine makes far less sense than that which you are deeming nonsensical. Maybe the horse is a pain in the ass. Maybe he has twenty babies at the farm and needs a stall. There are a lot of reasons to want to unload a horse and while what you are insinuating and deducing is probably the most likely scenario, to just say outright that his statements make no sense is just silly.

The reality is that the horse probably isn't 100%, he was glad to lose it, wishes he hadn't gotten it back, and is at least partly hoping that he can talk someone else into claiming the horse down the right in spite of this incident. But the fact that you seem to think that is a fact and I tend to find it the most likely scenario doesn't make it a fact. It's just two people's opinion. I believe the guy hates the rule regardless of how fine the horse is or isn't. I happen to think it's a good concept, but like many of the good concepts designed to "fix" racing (or any other law outside of racing), the implementation predictably is flawed and has the potential to create more problems than it solves. I happen to think he's probably correct in his assessment of the rule's future in it's current state.


Yes, that's my interpretation. When people say stuff or fight for a cause, the're fighting for the side that benefits them.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... When people say stuff or fight for a cause, the're fighting for the side that benefits them.

That's just your opinion too.

In general, yes, but as a rule, not so at all.

As I pointed out, what goes around, comes around in situations like this. Some people may be doing just what you describe, but have the brain function to consider long-term implications of something that is in their benefit temporarily and realize that one win today could be three losses tomorrow.

[Stillriledup]

That's just your opinion too.

In general, yes, but as a rule, not so at all.

As I pointed out, what goes around, comes around in situations like this. Some people may be doing just what you describe, but have the brain function to consider long-term implications of something that is in their benefit temporarily and realize that one win today could be three losses tomorrow.

Of course its not so to all, but in most cases its true.

Totally agree with you on that. If i was a trainer i would never argue that this was anything but a great rule, it protects the bettors. The next time a trainer from So Cal voices an opinion that isnt a self interest one, it would be the first.

[raybo]

Of course its not so to all, but in most cases its true.

Totally agree with you on that. If i was a trainer i would never argue that this was anything but a great rule, it protects the bettors. The next time a trainer from So Cal voices an opinion that isnt a self interest one, it would be the first.

My interpretation of the rule is that it is designed to protect those placing a claim, not bettors. Once again, the bettors don't rate.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...The next time a trainer from So Cal voices an opinion that isnt a self interest one, it would be the first.

Well come on, the very article being discussed, the guy that according to you, benefitted from the rule, Ted West, basically kicks the rule with a bit less bite than did Spawr.

“I’m of the camp that the claiming game is self-monitoring, and didn’t need a lot of rules attached to it.”

If, by your theory here, Spawr is mad that he got screwed and West benefitted from the rule, and West's opinion is basically that the rule isn't needed and he's not a fan of unneeded rules, then I'm not sure where all of this absolutism is coming from.

[Stillriledup]

Well come on, the very article being discussed, the guy that according to you, benefitted from the rule, Ted West, basically kicks the rule with a bit less bite than did Spawr.

“I’m of the camp that the claiming game is self-monitoring, and didn’t need a lot of rules attached to it.”

If, by your theory here, Spawr is mad that he got screwed and West benefitted from the rule, and West's opinion is basically that the rule isn't needed and he's not a fan of unneeded rules, then I'm not sure where all of this absolutism is coming from.

Its just Teddy Ballgame being Teddy Ballgame.

He's not going to say "great rule" because than it looks like he's just saying that because he didnt get stuck with a bad horse.

[Stillriledup]

My interpretation of the rule is that it is designed to protect those placing a claim, not bettors. Once again, the bettors don't rate.

Yes, its designed to protect the claimants, but it does help the bettors also by the idea that a trainer won't put damaged goods on the track just so he can get the horse claimed.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Its just Teddy Ballgame being Teddy Ballgame.

He's not going to say "great rule" because than it looks like he's just saying that because he didnt get stuck with a bad horse.

So, the "next time a trainer voices an opinion that isn't a self-interest one" really meant when it happens to be one that you think is genuine, even though you think everything they say and do is self-serving and isn't genuine? Okay then, I'll leave you to your pontifications and refrain from challenging any more of the gaping holes in your declarations. :D

[Stillriledup]

So, the "next time a trainer voices an opinion that isn't a self-interest one" really meant when it happens to be one that you think is genuine, even though you think everything they say and do is self-serving and isn't genuine? Okay then, I'll leave you to your pontifications and refrain from challenging any more of the gaping holes in your declarations. :D

All it means is that i trust these people as far as i could throw them.

[raybo]

Yes, its designed to protect the claimants, but it does help the bettors also by the idea that a trainer won't put damaged goods on the track just so he can get the horse claimed.

Then if the horse is unsound before that race the horse doesn't race, right? The rule has very little to do with the player, IMO. As always, the player gets left out of the picture.

[Stillriledup]

Then if the horse is unsound before that race the horse doesn't race, right? The rule has very little to do with the player, IMO. As always, the player gets left out of the picture.

Not necessarily. "Unsound" horses can warm up ok and get by the vet, but once they get into the heat of a hard race, they unravel and get lame. The stress of the race makes some of them crack, but they could be fine heading to the starting gate.

[jasperson]

I hope that this rule and any other rule like it is written so the claimee can have the final say so on whether he wants the horse or not.

[citygoat]

Why don't they just have the claims made ten minutes after the race?The possible new owner can bring his vet and assess the horse and make his claim accordingly.

[jerry-g]

Why don't they just have the claims made ten minutes after the race?The possible new owner can bring his vet and assess the horse and make his claim accordingly.

Because the major problems cannot be seen before the race the same
as it takes a stress test in humans to detect problems, the horse can
now be declared as unsound. The track protects future races, as most
claiming owners intend to race the horse again, by refusing to allow a
horse found to be unsound to race and put in harms way others in the
future race. They would be opening themselves up to future liability
claims. No owner would want a horse that might not be able to race
again. In effect, it is just another way to help protect horses and
jockeys in a race.

[Striker]

I hope that this rule and any other rule like it is written so the claimee can have the final say so on whether he wants the horse or not.
Pretty sure once a horse is put on the vet's list, that voids the claim regardless of whether the claimee wants to keep the horse or not.

[raybo]

Not necessarily. "Unsound" horses can warm up ok and get by the vet, but once they get into the heat of a hard race, they unravel and get lame. The stress of the race makes some of them crack, but they could be fine heading to the starting gate.

So, you really think that they had the bettors in mind when they made this rule?

You're saying that, the horse in question might have been unsound before the race, and then "unraveled" and was found unsound after the race, and it may again be found sound before its next race and then "unravel and get lame" during that race? What if the horse does well in its next race, what then, it'll surely unravel in its next race, right? Come on.

[raybo]

Did the vet ever say, anywhere, what was wrong with the horse after the race? "Unsound" could mean almost anything couldn't it? How is it that the horse is "fine" now, but wasn't then? Will it be sound in its next race, or unsound? How does this rule help the bettor, if they don't even say what was wrong with the horse in the first ruling? How are we, as bettors supposed to benefit from this rule? If the horse finishes badly in its next race, will everybody then say it was unsound all along? This whole thing sounds like a bunch of hogwash to me.

[jasperson]

Pretty sure once a horse is put on the vet's list, that voids the claim regardless of whether the claimee wants to keep the horse or not.

I am just trying to get away from trainer/vet deals to have the horse declared unsound if the horses is claimed and the trainer wants to keep him.

[raybo]

I am just trying to get away from trainer/vet deals to have the horse declared unsound if the horses is claimed and the trainer wants to keep him.

That is my problem with this new rule, it opens up the possibility for some "shady" things to happen in the future, and of course, we, the players will be the ones that have to determine what the heck is going on. Like we need something else we need to analyze and guess at.

[Striker]

I am just trying to get away from trainer/vet deals to have the horse declared unsound if the horses is claimed and the trainer wants to keep him.
I am right there in agreement with you, this is pretty fishy to me. For some strange reason I think this is going to get very interesting if this rule is used with higher priced claimers.

[raybo]

I am right there in agreement with you, this is pretty fishy to me. For some strange reason I think this is going to get very interesting if this rule is used with higher priced claimers.

I agree. While I'm not stating there will be deals made between owners/trainers and vets, there certainly is that possibility. And, at higher prices as Striker mentioned, the possibility becomes even more likely, as trainers might drop horses in class more often in order to get a better chance of winning a purse, without taking the chance of the horse being claimed. Opens a whole new bag of worms.

[v j stauffer]

I agree. While I'm not stating there will be deals made between owners/trainers and vets, there certainly is that possibility. And, at higher prices as Striker mentioned, the possibility becomes even more likely, as trainers might drop horses in class more often in order to get a better chance of winning a purse, without taking the chance of the horse being claimed. Opens a whole new bag of worms.

Several have posted they're worried about the possibility of corruption. Guess that's just the nature of skeptical horseplayers.

Far less have speculated the vet's would be professional, beyond reproach and totally ethical.

To me that's a more reasonable conclusion.

Especially since I know both Dr. Grande and Dr. Stead and find them to be excellent veterinarians with impeccable records regarding ethics. Very good men.

This rule was written with the best of intentions for all involved. Of course it's our right and frankly our duty to question the propriety of anything that impacts the greater good. Just seems on these boards it runs 10-1 with people assuming and frankly expecting the worst.

In most cases just the opposite tends to be true. The vast majority of the rule makers and those who implement those rules are hardworking, caring people who want what's best for horse racing and all involved.

I'd also like to have it explained to me how bettors are adversely impacted by this.

No real handicapper will say there can be too much information. Each person can implement what they learn from these disclosures or not as they see fit. Simply more pieces to the puzzle. They also certainly have the option to not factor in anything as it relates to this situation.

Having been a member myself of this puzzle solving society for 35 years. I can tell you with out doubt if you go in pre-disposed that you're going to be cheated or the game is fixed you have ZERO chance. For that matter if you truly believe such a thing why in the heck would you play anyway? It's like saying you're ok sitting at a Poker table knowing the cards are marked and you stay. Makes no sense.

As a member of the industry believe me I want people to embrace, enjoy and thrive playing our game. We need you now more than ever. However, if you REALLY think the game is rigged against you, it's not BTW, no one would blame you for trying something else.

[Stillriledup]

Several have posted they're worried about the possibility of corruption. Guess that's just the nature of skeptical horseplayers.

Far less have speculated the vet's would be professional, beyond reproach and totally ethical.

To me that's a more reasonable conclusion.

Especially since I know both Dr. Grande and Dr. Stead and find them to be excellent veterinarians with impeccable records regarding ethics. Very good men.

This rule was written with the best of intentions for all involved. Of course it's our right and frankly our duty to question the propriety of anything that impacts the greater good. Just seems on these boards it runs 10-1 with people assuming and frankly expecting the worst.

In most cases just the opposite tends to be true. The vast majority of the rule makers and those who implement those rules are hardworking, caring people who want what's best for horse racing and all involved.

I'd also like to have it explained to me how bettors are adversely impacted by this.

No real handicapper will say there can be too much information. Each person can implement what they learn from these disclosures or not as they see fit. Simply more pieces to the puzzle. They also certainly have the option to not factor in anything as it relates to this situation.

Having been a member myself of this puzzle solving society for 35 years. I can tell you with out doubt if you go in pre-disposed that you're going to be cheated or the game is fixed you have ZERO chance. For that matter if you truly believe such a thing why in the heck would you play anyway? It's like saying you're ok sitting at a Poker table knowing the cards are marked and you stay. Makes no sense.

As a member of the industry believe me I want people to embrace, enjoy and thrive playing our game. We need you now more than ever. However, if you REALLY think the game is rigged against you, it's not BTW, no one would blame you for trying something else.

There are people out there who are winning poker players, sports bettors, horse bettors and the like, but i dont think any of those people are going to give up their source of income because they think there's some shady dealings happening on occasion in their chosen arena. Did professional NBA bettors stop betting when Tim Donaghy said that Dick Bavetta and Joey Crawford make calls to favor teams who need the games or teams from bigger markets? Im pretty sure that even if those professional NBA bettors are making money, they're going to accept a small amount of 'fixing' as part of the cost of doing business.


I agree with the question you pose that this has no impact on horseplayers, it would just impact owners and the actual behind the scenes participants.

The impact that the rule does have on the player is that is gives them more of a fighting chance that a trainer is putting a fit runner on the track and not a horse who's got problems that will unravel as soon as the gate opens.

[raybo]

Several have posted they're worried about the possibility of corruption. Guess that's just the nature of skeptical horseplayers.

Far less have speculated the vet's would be professional, beyond reproach and totally ethical.

To me that's a more reasonable conclusion.

Especially since I know both Dr. Grande and Dr. Stead and find them to be excellent veterinarians with impeccable records regarding ethics. Very good men.

This rule was written with the best of intentions for all involved. Of course it's our right and frankly our duty to question the propriety of anything that impacts the greater good. Just seems on these boards it runs 10-1 with people assuming and frankly expecting the worst.

In most cases just the opposite tends to be true. The vast majority of the rule makers and those who implement those rules are hardworking, caring people who want what's best for horse racing and all involved.

I'd also like to have it explained to me how bettors are adversely impacted by this.

No real handicapper will say there can be too much information. Each person can implement what they learn from these disclosures or not as they see fit. Simply more pieces to the puzzle. They also certainly have the option to not factor in anything as it relates to this situation.

Having been a member myself of this puzzle solving society for 35 years. I can tell you with out doubt if you go in pre-disposed that you're going to be cheated or the game is fixed you have ZERO chance. For that matter if you truly believe such a thing why in the heck would you play anyway? It's like saying you're ok sitting at a Poker table knowing the cards are marked and you stay. Makes no sense.

As a member of the industry believe me I want people to embrace, enjoy and thrive playing our game. We need you now more than ever. However, if you REALLY think the game is rigged against you, it's not BTW, no one would blame you for trying something else.

Since you quoted my post, I assume you're talking to me. Maybe you should reread that post you quoted, especially the first portion where I clearly stated that I'm not said that I'm not saying people WILL do this, but that the possibility exists for such things. This "industry" does not need more of those possibilities than is already there.

I can understand you're positition as a "member of the industry" but if you don't think there are those in that industry that would not avail themselves of the opportunity like the one being discussed here, you my friend, are blind deaf and dumb.

[Striker]

Several have posted they're worried about the possibility of corruption. Guess that's just the nature of skeptical horseplayers.

Have any specifics come out about why this horse was determined to be "unsound?" Just like Raybo asked in Post #40. I think this would help the negativity with this issue immensely.

[Stillriledup]

Have any specifics come out about why this horse was determined to be "unsound?" Just like Raybo asked in Post #40. I think this would help the negativity with this issue immensely.

Its a secret. The same reason why thoroughbred racing doesnt announce claims before the race. Only a few privileged members of society are allowed to know who's being claimed before betting closes.

[raybo]

I agree with the question you pose that this has no impact on horseplayers, it would just impact owners and the actual behind the scenes participants.



So, it will have no impact on the players? Everything that happens in this game has an affect on the players, it's our money that allows its survival.

You guys can defend the industry all you want, but you should also consider that industry's track record of not giving a dang about the people who keep this game going with their wagers.

This ruling, IMO, enables the possibility of its abuse, to the detriment of the betting public.

An owner/trainer knows when he places a claim on a horse that he is taking a risk of the horse becoming injured or worse before he takes possession. Let those people decide if that risk is worth it or not. Or, are you saying those people can't think for themselves?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Its a secret. The same reason why thoroughbred racing doesnt announce claims before the race. Only a few privileged members of society are allowed to know who's being claimed before betting closes.

I know Meadowlands harness does this. It's of no value to the bettor, imo. I guess they could announce it, but who really cares.

[Striker]

Its a secret. The same reason why thoroughbred racing doesnt announce claims before the race. Only a few privileged members of society are allowed to know who's being claimed before betting closes.
Well, that's certainly going to lead most to be skeptical and have negative thoughts about the rule then.

[Stillriledup]

I know Meadowlands harness does this. It's of no value to the bettor, imo. I guess they could announce it, but who really cares.

If a trainer in thoroughbred racing drops a horse from 40k to 10k, wouldnt you want to know if there are 7 claims entered or 0?

[v j stauffer]

Since you quoted my post, I assume you're talking to me. Maybe you should reread that post you quoted, especially the first portion where I clearly stated that I'm not said that I'm not saying people WILL do this, but that the possibility exists for such things. This "industry" does not need more of those possibilities than is already there.

I can understand you're positition as a "member of the industry" but if you don't think there are those in that industry that would not avail themselves of the opportunity like the one being discussed here, you my friend, are blind deaf and dumb.

I read your post.

[Stillriledup]

So, it will have no impact on the players? Everything that happens in this game has an affect on the players, it's our money that allows its survival.

You guys can defend the industry all you want, but you should also consider that industry's track record of not giving a dang about the people who keep this game going with their wagers.

This ruling, IMO, enables the possibility of its abuse, to the detriment of the betting public.

An owner/trainer knows when he places a claim on a horse that he is taking a risk of the horse becoming injured or worse before he takes possession. Let those people decide if that risk is worth it or not. Or, are you saying those people can't think for themselves?

How does Plenty of Henny going back to his original trainer impact you? How does that transaction (or lack thereof) affect your betting?

[v j stauffer]

Its a secret. The same reason why thoroughbred racing doesnt announce claims before the race. Only a few privileged members of society are allowed to know who's being claimed before betting closes.

Every rule and protocol in racing is designed to keep you in the dark and defraud you of your money. :bang:

[raybo]

Have any specifics come out about why this horse was determined to be "unsound?" Just like Raybo asked in Post #40. I think this would help the negativity with this issue immensely.

Of course it would, why are they not being forthcoming with that information? If they want to enact a rule that depends on the word of a vet, then that vet should also be required to produce proof that the ruling was correct, and make it public, then there would be no controversy at all. This situation has a foul odor to it, the industry does not need more of that than already exists.

[v j stauffer]

Of course it would, why are they not being forthcoming with that information? If they want to enact a rule that depends on the word of a vet, then that vet should also be required to produce proof that the ruling was correct, and make it public, then there would be no controversy at all. This situation has a foul odor to it, the industry does not need more of that than already exists.

It is the job of the veterinarian to determine if horses are unsound. That examination is made on every horse every day both before and after a race.

[v j stauffer]

One thing I have learned conclusively in my 35 years in the industry. Arguing with conspiracy theorists is a COMPLETE waste of time.

[Striker]

So, what if the intentions of the owners/trainers claiming a horse are for other reasons besides racing the horse, such as breeding? That is obviously a low percentage reason on why horses are claimed but it does happen.

[Saratoga_Mike]

If a trainer in thoroughbred racing drops a horse from 40k to 10k, wouldnt you want to know if there are 7 claims entered or 0?

No, trainers claim cripples all the time.

[raybo]

How does Plenty of Henny going back to his original trainer impact you? How does that transaction (or lack thereof) affect your betting?

Personally, I would pass the next race this horse is entered in, but others might not. Was the horse unsound after the race or not, and what was the problem, if it was unsound? What might that have to do with its performance in this next race? Will it again win at the same or lower class and not be claimed because all the other owners and trainers are now gun shy because they don't know if the horse is truly sound again? The rule imposes a whole lot of added decisions into the process of playing, and claiming. Just leave it alone, the industry doesn't need to impose itself in the claiming process anymore than it already does. Personally I liked the old claiming rule where the horse could not race at or below the same level within a certain number of days, and still don't understand why that was discarded. Of course, I, as a player, have no say in it anyway, but I still have to deal with the consequences of it. And I'm helping to pay the damn bills for the industry.

[Stillriledup]

No, trainers claim cripples all the time.

Claiming trainer know a lot more than you think they know, they're not 'guessing' a lot of the time as to what's wrong with a horse. You'd be surprised at how much better the "7 claim" horse will run as opposed to the 0 claim horse. Nobody's right all the time, but its a piece of information i would want to have...i would be much more apt to bet against the 0 claim alarming dropper than the 7 claim one.

But, that's just me i guess.

[raybo]

One thing I have learned conclusively in my 35 years in the industry. Arguing with conspiracy theorists is a COMPLETE waste of time.

Yes, but you as a "member of the industry", have a conflict of interest. We as players pay your wages, so it should not be a complete waste of your time. Maybe you should listen and try to understand these "conspiracy theorists". Your 35 years "in the industry" obviously hasn't done much to improve an industry that has been in serious decline for quite some time, and that same industry just keeps making things worse, instead of better. If you're going to stand up as a member of that industry and defend it, then you should also take some responsibility for its decline, and the reasons behind it.

[Stillriledup]

Personally, I would pass the next race this horse is entered in, but others might not. Was the horse unsound after the race or not, and what was the problem, if it was unsound? What might that have to do with its performance in this next race? Will it again win at the same or lower class and not be claimed because all the other owners and trainers are now gun shy because they don't know if the horse is truly sound again? The rule imposes a whole lot of added decisions into the process of playing, and claiming. Just leave it alone, the industry doesn't need to impose itself in the claiming process anymore than it already does. Personally I liked the old claiming rule where the horse could not race at or below the same level within a certain number of days, and still don't understand why that was discarded. Of course, I, as a player, have no say in it anyway, but I still have to deal with the consequences of it. And I'm helping to pay the damn bills for the industry.


Personally, the way i view it is that to me, its just extra information. You can never go wrong with finding out extra stuff.

If i send you a PM on a random horse at a random track and whisper to you that i heard thru the grapevine that the horse was lame coming off the track and im personal friends with the connections, there's no difference between that and what you hear via this claim rule. its just added information that you have to consider in solving the puzzle.

Or, you can look at it this way. Lets say the claiming rule was left alone and, in real life, Plenty of Henny returned lame after his last win and you didnt know it. So, he comes back in a race, and you wager on that race not knowing what happened to Henny. Lets say you bet on henny and then he breaks down in the race and you hear, after the fact, that henny was lame after the race last time....you would be thinking "geez, i wish i knew that".

Im of the school that i want to know. When this henny horse comes back, i will consider his 'lameness' as a factor. I will monitor him more closely warming up prerace. I will hold his lameness against him if he's 8-5. If he's 10-1 i might not be so hard on him and i might consider that maybe Spawr was right and there's really nothing wrong with him. If he's 8-5 i might think the vet was onto something and toss him.

Like i said, its just additional information that you can do what you want with it. I'd rather have it than not have it.

[Striker]

It is the job of the veterinarian to determine if horses are unsound. That examination is made on every horse every day both before and after a race.
And it is too much to ask for the vets to say what they found publicly, especially with this being a brand new rule.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Claiming trainer know a lot more than you think they know, they're not 'guessing' a lot of the time as to what's wrong with a horse. You'd be surprised at how much better the "7 claim" horse will run as opposed to the 0 claim horse. Nobody's right all the time, but its a piece of information i would want to have...i would be much more apt to bet against the 0 claim alarming dropper than the 7 claim one.

But, that's just me i guess.

Have you ever actually claimed a horse? Do you know what to look for physically? Have you ever spoken to a trainer (for more than two minutes) who has claimed maybe 400 or 500 horses over time?

[Stillriledup]

Have you ever actually claimed a horse? Do you know what to look for physically? Have you ever spoken to a trainer (for more than two minutes) who has claimed maybe 400 or 500 horses over time?

I've claimed a few and i dont know what to look for other than what i see on replays..that's why i hire guys who do know and yeah, the guy i hired has claimed plenty of horses over the years.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I've claimed a few and i dont know what to look for other than what i see on replays..that's why i hire guys who do know and yeah, the guy i hired has claimed plenty of horses over the years.

Let me help you, when a horse drops from 40k to 10k and his form looks ok (unless it's at Saratoga where someone wants the owner's title), the horse has major issues. However, that doesn't mean he can't win that day. Again, there's no value in knowing if there's a claim in or not, but I'm fine with it being disclosed.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Its a secret. The same reason why thoroughbred racing doesnt announce claims before the race. Only a few privileged members of society are allowed to know who's being claimed before betting closes.

I don't really disagree that it could be handled differently or even that maybe knowing beforehand would be appropriate, but I am going to take some issue with the way you characterize the way it is handled now as though there is some list of claimed horses floating around all day and nobody can be bothered to let the public in on what everyone else already knows.

I spent many, many evenings at Saratoga Harness, and though I am aware that they announce claims way early at some places, I have no idea how their claiming procedure works even after all the time I spent on that dingy little apron just enjoying the races. Do they have to have slips in the box before the first or something? An hour before post for the race they are claiming out of? I'd love to know because it's one of those things I've always wondered how they had it on the crawl that so-and-so is going to be claimed in forty-five minutes.

Everywhere that I've raced, as far as I can remember, you had until 10MTP to drop before the box closed. There was never any designated time that every horse had to arrive in the paddock, like they do in the Derby where they meet up at the gap and circle around hoping nobody gets a hat kicked off their heads because they're four feet from a horse and paying no attention to it, and then the whole entourage is invited offer en masse. You just leave the barn shortly after they call you and, in general, try to be there as close to the house rule for getting to the paddock on time (as close as you can cut it is 15MTP in my experience).

That gives you (the guy looking to claim) about five to ten minutes to watch a horse walk in, how he acts in the paddock, if he does anything curious (ie, gets "cinchy" when he walks off after they tighten down the overgirth), and take note of equipment and whatnot if you give a shit about making an effort.

Okay, ten minutes to post arrives, the box closes. Claims clerk comes out and opens it and for the sake of this longwinded post, we'll just have one slip in the box. He brings it in the office. Does the number on the envelope match the race number? Is the envelope sealed? Yup, yup. Okay, check the card - is the date correct? The race number, does it match the envelope? Okay, the name of the horse - is it printed EXACTLY how it is spelled? Not close enough, they just forgot the apostrophe, but EXACTLY? Better grab the program and triple check that one, hate to get fined a couple hundred for not arduously making damn sure it's right. Okay, "D'QUAKZADOZ'ED" appears to be spelled right. Did the trainer sign the card? Okay, the owner or his authorized agent? Okay, card is good.

Now, to call the bookkeeper and make sure the owner has the cleared funds to make the claim. Then (in most places) gotta call the racing office and make sure the owner is eligible to claim (most places have some simple requirement like papers on file, or at least x numbers of starts, to make sure the purchaser is an active participant - otherwise they need an open claim authorization from stews). Racing office says he's good to go as far as having papers but they don't recognize the name so maybe better call licensing to make sure he's in good standing. Okay, racing says okay, licensing says okay, now gotta call the stews and report a claim now that the slip checks out, the owner has money, is eligible and has a license.

Not every place is necessarily this inefficient or has this sequence or only one person jumping through all the hoops, but the point is that once ten minutes to post arrives and you get the slip, it's not as though someone is just sitting idly by with the information and not disseminating it for no reason. There are generally a handful of "processing" steps going on before the claim is validated. And it's not even unheard of for the bookkeeper to be tying up the line talking to someone else or the licensing office sitting there with a froze up computer or whatever. We didn't even get into when there are ten claims in the box, or one of those claiming series with a big pot at the last leg and so half of the horses in the field get claimed and the really promising looking ones have literally fifteen or twenty claims in. Gets a little hectic in a hurry.

The point is, there isn't a TON of time to get it all take care of and there are holdups now and then so even if under a really good scenario and everything goes swimmingly and the stews have the claim as a good one at 6 or 5MTP - are you really going to make some major moves in your handicapping based on the announcement at that stage in the effort? I'm not saying you might not use the information if it was accessible in such a timely fashion that you could integrate it into the entire process, but the idea of having your handicapping complete and sitting waiting until a few minutes to post for an announcement like that as the defining factor in whether or not you pull the trigger seems a bit unlikely to me.

I've dragged this simple point out enough, but before you got cute and I had to post four more times to expand on a few simple sentences that would have made the point if it was anyone else ( :D ), I just figured I'd paint you a perdy picture and try to head all of that off.

The only reservation that I have about the idea itself is that, honestly, I don't think that you would necessarily be the only person interested in hearing the announcement and potentially reacting like a circuit board to hearing it. If it was announced early like you suggest, as in, before they even stepped on the track like harness, I think you'd see smaller field sizes and many more late scratches. Even if you waited until exactly 10MTP when they went to the track, I still think you'd see late scratches as chilly owner/trainers knocked over old ladies to get to the rail and give "the signal" to the jock to scratch the horse because they found out it was being claimed. There are actually people that make a big production out of not being noticed dropping a claim if they can get away with it where they are running and those that make an even bigger ordeal out of watching every human being near the paddock and fretting the whole time that one of them might be claiming my beloved, precious horsey.

[johnhannibalsmith]

So, what if the intentions of the owners/trainers claiming a horse are for other reasons besides racing the horse, such as breeding? That is obviously a low percentage reason on why horses are claimed but it does happen.

:ThmbUp: :ThmbUp:

Excellent point.

[Stillriledup]

JHS, thank you for the incredibly long winded post :D at first i thought you were just trying to beat me to 7,000 posts since we have virtually the same post count, but now i see you're actually a caring guy who isnt interested in trivial things such as post counts (like me! :D )

Most times, i don't really care who's claimed, sometimes silly claims are made and plenty of bad claims for sure. BUT, if there's a major dropdown in the first leg of a huge pick 6 carryover, i'd love to know if that horse has 7 claims or 0. That would be a factor for sure in how i structured my tickets or if i even bet at all.

As far as all the semantics go, i know harness racing announces claims, but in that game, its much less important to hear who's being claimed, in the runners, with a 40 dropping to 10, its important and like Stga Mike says, the horse obviously has issues, but i don't care about those issues long term, i just care how that horse is going to run today.

As far as you hanging out at Saratoga Harness track, i approve of the degenerate nature of that endeavor. Well done. :ThmbUp:

[johnhannibalsmith]

So, what if the intentions of the owners/trainers claiming a horse are for other reasons besides racing the horse, such as breeding? That is obviously a low percentage reason on why horses are claimed but it does happen.

Thinking more about this - how about when Stillriledup hits the pick six for $397,424 plus a few consolations and decides that he's going to claim Quendici Man and pay for his retirement. He's had enough of watching him go downhill and tries to do right by the horse and drops on him. Horse pulls up badly, which is why he's trying to spare the horse in the first place, and his claim is voided and he is returned to the same guy that won't be happy until he's getting crushed for a quarter at Los Al. That'll be some kind of success story for the rule, eh?

[Stillriledup]

Thinking more about this - how about when Stillriledup hits the pick six for $397,424 plus a few consolations and decides that he's going to claim Quendici Man and pay for his retirement. He's had enough of watching him go downhill and tries to do right by the horse and drops on him. Horse pulls up badly, which is why he's trying to spare the horse in the first place, and his claim is voided and he is returned to the same guy that won't be happy until he's getting crushed for a quarter at Los Al. That'll be some kind of success story for the rule, eh?
:lol:

Speaking of the Pick 6, i feel like a bozo going 6 deep at Belmont in leg 2 and not using the winner. If i wasnt banned from using other posters quotes as my sig line, i would use "stillriledup his the pick six for 397,424". :ThmbUp:

[johnhannibalsmith]

... If i wasnt banned from using other posters quotes as my sig line,...


Everyone is banned form doing that, not just you. I didn't complain about the sig, trust me. I appreciated that you used the entire context - can't really cry if your words as intended and in their entirety are recreated 9,000 times in one location. :D

[v j stauffer]

Yes, but you as a "member of the industry", have a conflict of interest. We as players pay your wages, so it should not be a complete waste of your time. Maybe you should listen and try to understand these "conspiracy theorists". Your 35 years "in the industry" obviously hasn't done much to improve an industry that has been in serious decline for quite some time, and that same industry just keeps making things worse, instead of better. If you're going to stand up as a member of that industry and defend it, then you should also take some responsibility for its decline, and the reasons behind it.

That's a pretty tired argument. Kinda like saying a bank teller is responsible for the 2008 financial collapse.

However, for me personally what I specifically try to do is make myself available. On forums like this for example.

I think I can add insight as to how things work inside the business. Which I've done.

Also, I try to help explain the actual rules, the reasons for those rules and their implantation.

Horseplayers can be very passionate. I know I was when playing every day. That passion can sometimes cloud objectivity. I try to be the voice of reason.

Once upon a time I was much more confrontational on here and other sites. That's changed though. Now I try to answer questions and help players navigate the shark infested waters of the windows.

[v j stauffer]

I don't really disagree that it could be handled differently or even that maybe knowing beforehand would be appropriate, but I am going to take some issue with the way you characterize the way it is handled now as though there is some list of claimed horses floating around all day and nobody can be bothered to let the public in on what everyone else already knows.

I spent many, many evenings at Saratoga Harness, and though I am aware that they announce claims way early at some places, I have no idea how their claiming procedure works even after all the time I spent on that dingy little apron just enjoying the races. Do they have to have slips in the box before the first or something? An hour before post for the race they are claiming out of? I'd love to know because it's one of those things I've always wondered how they had it on the crawl that so-and-so is going to be claimed in forty-five minutes.

Everywhere that I've raced, as far as I can remember, you had until 10MTP to drop before the box closed. There was never any designated time that every horse had to arrive in the paddock, like they do in the Derby where they meet up at the gap and circle around hoping nobody gets a hat kicked off their heads because they're four feet from a horse and paying no attention to it, and then the whole entourage is invited offer en masse. You just leave the barn shortly after they call you and, in general, try to be there as close to the house rule for getting to the paddock on time (as close as you can cut it is 15MTP in my experience).

That gives you (the guy looking to claim) about five to ten minutes to watch a horse walk in, how he acts in the paddock, if he does anything curious (ie, gets "cinchy" when he walks off after they tighten down the overgirth), and take note of equipment and whatnot if you give a shit about making an effort.

Okay, ten minutes to post arrives, the box closes. Claims clerk comes out and opens it and for the sake of this longwinded post, we'll just have one slip in the box. He brings it in the office. Does the number on the envelope match the race number? Is the envelope sealed? Yup, yup. Okay, check the card - is the date correct? The race number, does it match the envelope? Okay, the name of the horse - is it printed EXACTLY how it is spelled? Not close enough, they just forgot the apostrophe, but EXACTLY? Better grab the program and triple check that one, hate to get fined a couple hundred for not arduously making damn sure it's right. Okay, "D'QUAKZADOZ'ED" appears to be spelled right. Did the trainer sign the card? Okay, the owner or his authorized agent? Okay, card is good.

Now, to call the bookkeeper and make sure the owner has the cleared funds to make the claim. Then (in most places) gotta call the racing office and make sure the owner is eligible to claim (most places have some simple requirement like papers on file, or at least x numbers of starts, to make sure the purchaser is an active participant - otherwise they need an open claim authorization from stews). Racing office says he's good to go as far as having papers but they don't recognize the name so maybe better call licensing to make sure he's in good standing. Okay, racing says okay, licensing says okay, now gotta call the stews and report a claim now that the slip checks out, the owner has money, is eligible and has a license.

Not every place is necessarily this inefficient or has this sequence or only one person jumping through all the hoops, but the point is that once ten minutes to post arrives and you get the slip, it's not as though someone is just sitting idly by with the information and not disseminating it for no reason. There are generally a handful of "processing" steps going on before the claim is validated. And it's not even unheard of for the bookkeeper to be tying up the line talking to someone else or the licensing office sitting there with a froze up computer or whatever. We didn't even get into when there are ten claims in the box, or one of those claiming series with a big pot at the last leg and so half of the horses in the field get claimed and the really promising looking ones have literally fifteen or twenty claims in. Gets a little hectic in a hurry.

The point is, there isn't a TON of time to get it all take care of and there are holdups now and then so even if under a really good scenario and everything goes swimmingly and the stews have the claim as a good one at 6 or 5MTP - are you really going to make some major moves in your handicapping based on the announcement at that stage in the effort? I'm not saying you might not use the information if it was accessible in such a timely fashion that you could integrate it into the entire process, but the idea of having your handicapping complete and sitting waiting until a few minutes to post for an announcement like that as the defining factor in whether or not you pull the trigger seems a bit unlikely to me.

I've dragged this simple point out enough, but before you got cute and I had to post four more times to expand on a few simple sentences that would have made the point if it was anyone else ( :D ), I just figured I'd paint you a perdy picture and try to head all of that off.

The only reservation that I have about the idea itself is that, honestly, I don't think that you would necessarily be the only person interested in hearing the announcement and potentially reacting like a circuit board to hearing it. If it was announced early like you suggest, as in, before they even stepped on the track like harness, I think you'd see smaller field sizes and many more late scratches. Even if you waited until exactly 10MTP when they went to the track, I still think you'd see late scratches as chilly owner/trainers knocked over old ladies to get to the rail and give "the signal" to the jock to scratch the horse because they found out it was being claimed. There are actually people that make a big production out of not being noticed dropping a claim if they can get away with it where they are running and those that make an even bigger ordeal out of watching every human being near the paddock and fretting the whole time that one of them might be claiming my beloved, precious horsey.

I would point out the factual errors in your message but post time is 1:00pm.........................tomorrow:) .

The spirit is well taken though. Claims are kept confidential for several reason. One, if I was to be a "conspiracy theorist" heaven forbid;) , would be the trainer who is losing his horse shouldn't be privy to this information. I heard a couple of stories over the years of a trainer that knew there was a claim in for his horse, one he didn't want to lose, signaling to the jockey to tell the vet said horse didn't feel 100% right and requesting a late scratch.

Very few rules are perfect. Especially when we play in such a competitive " no short pants allowed" game.

[johnhannibalsmith]

... would be the trainer who is losing his horse shouldn't be privy to this information. I heard a couple of stories over the years of a trainer that knew there was a claim in for his horse, one he didn't want to lose, signaling to the jockey to tell the vet said horse didn't feel 100% right and requesting a late scratch.

....

That's the entirety of paragraph thirty in the text you quoted.

I'm interested in reading the "factual errors", however. I'm guessing those "errors" would likely be more along the line of differences between the content of my essay and how things are done in California. This is why I always preface everything with "in my experiences" or "at the tracks that I have raced at". Or, the disclaimer that states that "not every track (does things just like this)".

[v j stauffer]

That's the entirety of paragraph thirty in the text you quoted.

I'm interested in reading the "factual errors", however. I'm guessing those "errors" would likely be more along the line of differences between the content of my essay and how things are done in California. This is why I always preface everything with "in my experiences" or "at the tracks that I have raced at". Or, the disclaimer that states that "not every track (does things just like this)".

Don't get riled up. I said the spirit was fine. Just talking about things like the steps in the process, 10 mins before instead of the standard 15, things like that.

Relax Big Boy!!

[johnhannibalsmith]

Don't get riled up. I said the spirit was fine. Just talking about things like the steps in the process, 10 mins before instead of the standard 15, things like that.

Relax Big Boy!!

:D

It doesn't take a whole lot to rile me, but significantly more than that. I was just being a bit abrupt, having nothing to do with anything other than the fact that I started typing a reply just as someone showed up so I tried to tie it up quickly and getting right to the point. Believe, me, on , this. I've never been anywhere that I claimed a horse or had one claimed that was 15MTP instead of 10. My list of stops is pretty slim and regional. Hence, why I only speak to my own experiences and not as a voice for all of racing.

[raybo]

That's a pretty tired argument. Kinda like saying a bank teller is responsible for the 2008 financial collapse.

However, for me personally what I specifically try to do is make myself available. On forums like this for example.

I think I can add insight as to how things work inside the business. Which I've done.

Also, I try to help explain the actual rules, the reasons for those rules and their implantation.

Horseplayers can be very passionate. I know I was when playing every day. That passion can sometimes cloud objectivity. I try to be the voice of reason.

Once upon a time I was much more confrontational on here and other sites. That's changed though. Now I try to answer questions and help players navigate the shark infested waters of the windows.

It's only a tired argument if you're on the other side of the fence. You compared yourself to a bank teller, and yet you say you're trying to explain all the ins and outs of the industry, how it works, what the rules mean, etc., etc.. If you're like a bank teller then I doubt I would ask you how the banking industry works, or what the rules mean. We don't really need you to tell us how the racing industry works, we can readily see that for ourselves, everyday, and it ain't a pretty sight. That being said, I can still make a profit in racing, so you can take that try something else stuff and save it for someone who is not making money in racing. But, that doesn't mean I think everything in the industry is fine, because it's not, and has never been. Gambling is about two entities, those who are trying to fleece the bettors, and those who are trying to keep that from happening.

[5k-claim]

Very few rules are perfect. Especially when we play in such a competitive " no short pants allowed" game. Well, this particular rule appears to be an absolute blunder.

The spirit of the rule is a move in the right direction, but the simple aspect that is missing is where the person making the claim is given the choice of keeping the horse or not after the state vet announces it is going on the vet's list after the race.

It should not be an automatic void of ownership change. It should be a choice that the claimant is given to make. That simple difference is what keeps the rule from being a welcomed change.

Just to name a few claimants who may want to keep the horse regardless of whether or not a state vet deems it unsound after the race: (1) a previous owner who had the horse claimed away from them and just wants their favorite horse back, (2) a rescue group that wants to retire a veteran campaigner who has given enough, and (3) someone who likes a filly's pedigree and wants to retire her to a farm for a broodmare career.

Denying those people the claim, or at the very least the choice of the claim, is pretty far out there on the dumb scale. Especially when it means returning the horse into the hands of the very person who just raced it.

I am a current trainer, in Kentucky, and would hate if the KHRC picked up on this rule as a good idea and followed suit. I don't trust the KHRC, but also hope that they are not that dumb.

Of course, this is just based on my limited knowledge and interpretation of California's rule through a few articles I have read about this particular claim in the last couple of days. Maybe the rule is fine but the authors of the articles I have read have not clearly explained it. Or perhaps I just did not understand what I was reading.

So, what exactly is the rule, Steward Stauffer?

.

[v j stauffer]

Well, this particular rule appears to be an absolute blunder.

The spirit of the rule is a move in the right direction, but the simple aspect that is missing is where the person making the claim is given the choice of keeping the horse or not after the state vet announces it is going on the vet's list after the race.

It should not be an automatic void of ownership change. It should be a choice that the claimant is given to make. That simple difference is what keeps the rule from being a welcomed change.

Just to name a few claimants who may want to keep the horse regardless of whether or not a state vet deems it unsound after the race: (1) a previous owner who had the horse claimed away from them and just wants their favorite horse back, (2) a rescue group that wants to retire a veteran campaigner who has given enough, and (3) someone who likes a filly's pedigree and wants to retire her to a farm for a broodmare career.

Denying those people the claim, or at the very least the choice of the claim, is pretty far out there on the dumb scale. Especially when it means returning the horse into the hands of the very person who just raced it.

I am a current trainer, in Kentucky, and would hate if the KHRC picked up on this rule as a good idea and followed suit. I don't trust the KHRC, but also hope that they are not that dumb.

Of course, this is just based on my limited knowledge and interpretation of California's rule through a few articles I have read about this particular claim in the last couple of days. Maybe the rule is fine but the authors of the articles I have read have not clearly explained it. Or perhaps I just did not understand what I was reading.

So, what exactly is the rule, Steward Stauffer?



.

CHRB Rule 1658. The original rule and following amendments are available at www.chrb.ca.gov (http://www.chrb.ca.gov/)

[Longshot6977]

CHRB Rule 1658. The original rule and following amendments are available at www.chrb.ca.gov (http://www.chrb.ca.gov)

I supplied the link and text for rule 1658 below. It must be a different rule since this one is dated Nov 3, 2011.

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/query_rules_and_regulations_database.asp?form_quer y_action=display_rule&form_query_rule_number=1658&form_query_rule_title=Vesting+of+Title+to+Claimed+ Horse%2E&form_query_article=Vesting+of+Title+to+Claimed+Hor se%2E&form_query_article_index=8&form_query_argument=1658

1658 Vesting of Title to Claimed Horse.
Rule Text(a) Title to a horse which is claimed shall be vested in the successful claimant from the time the field has been dispatched from the starting gate and the horse becomes a starter; and said successful claimant becomes the owner of the horse whether it is sound or unsound, or injured during the race or after it. Only a horse which is officially a starter in the race may be claimed. A subsequent disqualification of the horse by order of the stewards or the Board shall have no effect upon the claim. (b) The stewards shall void the claim if the horse suffers a fatality during the running of the race or before the horse is returned to be unsaddled. (c) The claim shall be void if the race is called off, canceled, or declared no contest in accordance with Rule 1544 of this division. NOTE: Authority: Sections 19420 and 19440, Business and Professions Code. Reference: Section 19562, Business and Professions Code. HISTORY: 1. Amendment filed 11-22-06; effective 12-22-06 2. Amendment filed 10-04-11; effective 11-03-11

[davew]

I suspect many bottom level claimers are sore/lame after a race.

Wouldn't it be interesting if Plenny of Henny continues a winning streak and becomes an 'unclaimable' bottom level claimer.

[raybo]

I suspect many bottom level claimers are sore/lame after a race.

Wouldn't it be interesting if Plenny of Henny continues a winning streak and becomes an 'unclaimable' bottom level claimer.

How true and my main point in this discussion! I suspect that if that happens, that new rule will be amended quickly, or maybe not, knowing how "all knowing" the industry mucky mucks are. Do you think they'll ask any players for feedback on this? :bang:

[Saratoga_Mike]

How true and my main point in this discussion! I suspect that if that happens, that new rule will be amended quickly, or maybe not, knowing how "all knowing" the industry mucky mucks are. Do you think they'll ask any players for feedback on this? :bang:

Beside disclosing the claims before the races (which I would not find valuable, but I can understand if someone else might want that disclosure), why would the industry consult with players on this issue? Does Major League Baseball consult with fans on rule changes? The NFL? Maybe they do and I don't realize it???

[raybo]

Beside disclosing the claims before the races (which I would not find valuable, but I can understand if someone else might want that disclosure), why would the industry consult with players on this issue? Does Major League Baseball consult with fans on rule changes? The NFL? Maybe they do and I don't realize it???

You can't compare horse racing "wagerers" to professional sports "fans". Fans, for the most part, don't bet real money on the outcomes of sporting events, nor do those industries depend on wagering dollars for their existence. Apples and oranges. But you can bet those industries do take fan feedback into every rule change they make, their existence depends on their providing a competitive, fair, and entertaining fan experience. Why do you think the designated hitter rule was enacted, or the 3 point shot, or the forward pass, or lowering the height of the mound, or the instant replay, etc.? To put more excitement back in the game by increasing the number of scores, and to allow great players to continue playing past their prime, and to help assure fairness in the running of those events, etc..

The wagerers in horse playing aren't just fans, we are major interacting participants, who provide ALL the salaries for all the industry's members, tracks and employees, as well as the all owners, trainers, and jockeys.

[therussmeister]

The wagerers in horse playing aren't just fans, we are major interacting participants, who provide ALL the salaries for all the industry's members, tracks and employees, as well as the all owners, trainers, and jockeys.
Uh, no. At some tracks we pay very little of the salaries, the casino pays the lion's share.

[Striker]

Beside disclosing the claims before the races (which I would not find valuable, but I can understand if someone else might want that disclosure), why would the industry consult with players on this issue? Does Major League Baseball consult with fans on rule changes? The NFL? Maybe they do and I don't realize it???
It would help if they did consult with fans. How about even consulting with trainers and owners on this rule? Although I'm sure there are people that think this rule is good, I haven't seen or heard anything but trainers, owners, and horseplayers all saying how stupid this rule is.

[raybo]

Uh, no. At some tracks we pay very little of the salaries, the casino pays the lion's share.

And I suppose betting doesn't furnish that money too? Besides those tracks wouldn't need casino money if the horse racing had been healthy in the first place, and the players had been treated fairly in the first place, etc.. But, I was comparing horse racing against the other professional sports, not against casinos games. If you think we, as players, shouldn't have any say in the way the industry operates, then I assure you, you're in the minority.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The wagerers in horse playing aren't just fans, we are major interacting participants, who provide ALL the salaries for all the industry's members, tracks and employees, as well as the all owners, trainers, and jockeys.

If you want more transparency, I support you. But just because you're a customer, you shouldn't be able to dictate every facet of the sport. Southwest Airlines, a very well run company, has an interesting motto: the customer is NOT always right.

[Stillriledup]

If you want more transparency, I support you. But just because you're a customer, you shouldn't be able to dictate every facet of the sport. Southwest Airlines, a very well run company, has an interesting motto: the customer is NOT always right.

Bettors could get a LOT done if they would just stop betting for a few days or a week. (with, a representative who was the voice of the people, making their demands to the racing industry, of course).

[raybo]

If you want more transparency, I support you. But just because you're a customer, you shouldn't be able to dictate every facet of the sport. Southwest Airlines, a very well run company, has an interesting motto: the customer is NOT always right.

Who said anything about "dictating every facet of the sport"? I'm talking about being included, not controlling. But, this is all for nothing because it will never happen anyway. Don't worry, things will keep getting worse. Does it make you happy to hear that?

[raybo]

If you want more transparency, I support you. But just because you're a customer, you shouldn't be able to dictate every facet of the sport. Southwest Airlines, a very well run company, has an interesting motto: the customer is NOT always right.

First of all, I'm not a "customer" I'm a active participant. Secondly, the airline industry is responsible for the safety of those customers, and are regulated by a federal agency, there are distinct differences between the running of the horse racing industry, and the airline industry. I think you're grasping at straws, trying to rationalize your stance, regarding this particular segment of the discussion. Are you saying that the horse player should have no say, whatsoever, in the way the horse racing industry is run, or the rules that govern that industry, our industry? We are the major contributor, by a large margin, to that industry.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Who said anything about "dictating every facet of the sport"? I'm talking about being included, not controlling. But, this is all for nothing because it will never happen anyway. Don't worry, things will keep getting worse. Does it make you happy to hear that?

Given you want to be involved in, or included in, drafting the rules for claiming, I assumed you wanted to be involved in every facet of the sport. I guess I made an incorrect albeit logical assumption.

Does what make me happy? That horse players aren't involved in drafting claiming rules? No, it's just irrelevant to the prosperity or decline of the sport.

[raybo]

Given you want to be involved in, or included in, drafting the rules for claiming, I assumed you wanted to be involved in every facet of the sport. I guess I made an incorrect albeit logical assumption.

Does what make me happy? That horse players aren't involved in drafting claiming rules? No, it's just irrelevant to the prosperity or decline of the sport.

I think my posts were quite clear, to anyone who has average reading comprehension skills anyway. You're last sentence is stated as fact, I'm not aware of that fact. If you are, please post the supporting documents.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I think my posts were quite clear, to anyone who has average reading comprehension skills anyway. You're last sentence is stated as fact, I'm not aware of that fact. If you are, please post the supporting documents.

I'm not sure what's more charming your petulance or your condescension. Good luck.

[onefast99]

If a trainer in thoroughbred racing drops a horse from 40k to 10k, wouldnt you want to know if there are 7 claims entered or 0?
Not at all. If you have 7 in for the claim and they don't pick your pill from the shake you either dodged a bullet on a bad horse or missed out on a nice claimer!

[Stillriledup]

Not at all. If you have 7 in for the claim and they don't pick your pill from the shake you either dodged a bullet on a bad horse or missed out on a nice claimer!

You should want to know. Those guys arent guessing, the well established serious claiming trainer knows more than just making a claim off what he sees on video or paper.

[v j stauffer]

I'm not sure what's more charming your petulance or your condescension. Good luck.

It's a WHACKER!

[raybo]

I'm not sure what's more charming your petulance or your condescension. Good luck.

Whatever you, or anyone else, gets out of my posts is largely a reflection of their intellect, and knowledge of the subject matter. So, if you get petulance and condescension from them, that's on you. My response to that is ---- whatever you think is who you are.

[raybo]

It's a WHACKER!

No, that's the kind of response one makes when they let their emotions override their brain.

[onefast99]

You should want to know. Those guys arent guessing, the well established serious claiming trainer knows more than just making a claim off what he sees on video or paper.
How will knowing change anything? Once the race is over if you knew you were the only one in on the claim(some hm's books let you know how many may be in the claim box before the latch is sprung)and the horse gets nosed out in a condition race and you now own him is all I want to know. What the void of claim rule states is simple, a trainer isn't going to take advantage of a situation where a broken down horse is put into a race on a suspicious drop and dumped on someone else.

[Stillriledup]

Jet Warrior, Race 3 at Hollywood, an easy winner, voided.

Hmmmm.

[Stillriledup]

How will knowing change anything? Once the race is over if you knew you were the only one in on the claim(some hm's books let you know how many may be in the claim box before the latch is sprung)and the horse gets nosed out in a condition race and you now own him is all I want to know. What the void of claim rule states is simple, a trainer isn't going to take advantage of a situation where a broken down horse is put into a race on a suspicious drop and dumped on someone else.

It changes things for me because if there's an alarming dropper and he has 7 claims in on him, i feel his chances of winning today are better than if he had 0 claims in on him. But, that's me, not all players care about this.

[v j stauffer]

Whatever you, or anyone else, gets out of my posts is largely a reflection of their intellect, and knowledge of the subject matter. So, if you get petulance and condescension from them, that's on you. My response to that is ---- whatever you think is who you are.

Wow that's not easy to do. Your response to someone suggesting petulance and condescension is even more petulant and condescending than the original reason for his post. That's strong:ThmbUp:

As for me. I feel like I have some intellect and I'm quite sure I have knowledge of the subject matter. Your take seemed petulant and condescending to me. That's what I think. Guess that means I am who I are. :)

[v j stauffer]

No, that's the kind of response one makes when they let their emotions override their brain.

Nah. Not that deep. I just love saying WHACKER!!:cool:

[Stillriledup]

Nah. Not that deep. I just love saying WHACKER!!:cool:

Give us a whacker call (if applicable) on Saturday, we will be listening! :ThmbUp:

[Saratoga_Mike]

Wow that's not easy to do. Your response to someone suggesting petulance and condescension is even more petulant and condescending than the original reason for his post. That's strong:ThmbUp:

As for me. I feel like I have some intellect and I'm quite sure I have knowledge of the subject matter. Your take seemed petulant and condescending to me. That's what I think. Guess that means I am who I are. :)

You're obviously overtaken with emotion here. We both need to cool off, put our emotions aside and see the light on this matter. Should I take up yoga or something? Please advise.

[onefast99]

It changes things for me because if there's an alarming dropper and he has 7 claims in on him, i feel his chances of winning today are better than if he had 0 claims in on him. But, that's me, not all players care about this.
That is very true, a suspicous dropper where no one put in a claim slip is something I would stay away from as a bettor. One thing to look out for is the outfit that is getting rid of the horse. I would never take from certain trainers and we all pretty much know who they are.

[Striker]

As for me. I feel like I have some intellect and I'm quite sure I have knowledge of the subject matter. Your take seemed petulant and condescending to me. That's what I think. Guess that means I am who I are. :)
Why is it so hard to give a reason as to why the horse was determined to be unsound then? Please with you advanced intellect on the matter, don't you agree that a simple explanation would eliminate this thread and the conspiracy theory with this rule?

[Tom]

Whatever the reasons, the players have a right to all available information. The bottom line of this entire industry is US betting OUR money on THEIR horses, whoever owns them or is buying them.

Make it so.

[jasperson]

In the 6th at Pimlico Jim The Dancer was c35000 to c7500 and was 3rd in the c35000 race. He went off as a top heave favorite,went to the lead and looked strong until the top of the stretch and faultered the horse was obviously in trouble and jockey pulled him up. I didn't bet this horse because of the low odds and suspicious class drop.

[iwearpurple]

In the 6th at Pimlico Jim The Dancer was c35000 to c7500 and was 3rd in the c35000 race. He went off as a top heave favorite,went to the lead and looked strong until the top of the stretch and faultered the horse was obviously in trouble and jockey pulled him up. I didn't bet this horse because of the low odds and suspicious class drop.

And he was claimed.