Vet scratches running right back at different track?

[sammy the sage]

thoughts...plenty of that happening today in Fla...esp at Tampa...

Several VET scratched last week at Calder &/or GS now at Tampa....

Should publish REASONS FOR a Vet scratch...but then THAT would be closer to LEGIT...powers THAT be...certainly can't have that now can they... :bang: :mad: :(

[Tom]

Why would anyone feel obligated to provide information to the industry's customers?

Treating us like mushrooms has been a successful model for decades....why change now?

[green80]

They get those vet scratches because they have to in order to scratch. There is most likely nothing wrong with the horse, a better race came up, maybe at another track.

[therussmeister]

I've seen horses run one day and then are a vet scratch the very next day at a different track, so in some instances out must be mandatory to get a vet scratch if you don't want to run.

[davew]

I think knowing why the horses was a vet scratch is important -

I see horses getting scratched at the gate or close to post that I would have no problem betting in the next couple days

[goatchaser]

Was looking at tomorrows card for the contest at Aqu and noticed the #6 in the 2nd race at Aqu ran Dec 27th and is entered today Dec 29th. Is this a scratch you think by Vets tomorrow?

[Just a Fan]

Florida actually does publish some info about the horses on the vet list. See the link below. Its a little funky in my browser, it took a couple of minutes to load a pdf. Scroll down to the bottom of page 6 and you can see the horses currently on the vet list (and some other "bad" lists). Presumably if a horse shows up on the vet list, but the horse is entered somewhere and the horse has a recent workout, the work got the horse cleared to run.

They don't really tell you much about why the horse is on the vet list.

The below link also shows horses that actually bled. Rather than guessing/assuming which FTL horses actually bled in their previous out, you can verify it if you keep up to date with this list. The list isn't really designed for handicappers, but if you really follow a track closely, you can maybe keep tabs on the lists and add some Formulator notes.



http://www.gulfstreampark.com/racing/horsemen/ineligibles-list

[mountainman]

There SHOULD be more transparency concerning vet-scratches. Horsemen, however, would object vociferously. And to some extent, I understand their perspective. But these are the people who wanted me disciplined for simply disclosing how many shakes are in for claimed horses. That's the sort of secretive, proprietary culture you're dealing with. They horde and protect information that concerns them-to the exclusion of players who pay the freight.

All tracks, incidentally, honor the vet's list from other tracks, but not all state-vets post the info to "InCompass," the computerized management system tracks take entries and store info on, in a timely manner. Thus, horses do slip between the cracks on occasion.

The steward's list, conversely, is NOT invariably honored from track to track. And the starter's list is somewhat tenuous, since one person, the official starter at the track where a horse has been entered, has authority to ok the animal. When a horse is on the paddock list elsewhere, we usually accept the entry and give our identifier a heads-up that a ruff customer is on the way. We ignore the secretary's list, since the presumed transgression generally concerns the connections, and not the horse.

[Tom]

The problem is significant - those who "work" for the game are allowed to bet on it.

This is not good - no owner, trainer, rider should be allowed to bet any races at any track they are running horses at.

Not that it would probably do any good.

[Stillriledup]

There SHOULD be more transparency concerning vet-scratches. Horsemen, however, would object vociferously. And to some extent, I understand their perspective. But these are the people who wanted me disciplined for simply disclosing how many shakes are in for claimed horses. That's the sort of secretive, proprietary culture you're dealing with. They horde and protect information that concerns them-to the exclusion of players who pay the freight.

All tracks, incidentally, honor the vet's list from other tracks, but not all state-vets post the info to "InCompass," the computerized management system tracks take entries and store info on, in a timely manner. Thus, horses do slip between the cracks on occasion.

The steward's list, conversely, is NOT invariably honored from track to track. And the starter's list is somewhat tenuous, since one person, the official starter at the track where a horse has been entered, has authority to ok the animal. When a horse is on the paddock list elsewhere, we usually accept the entry and give our identifier a heads-up that a ruff customer is on the way. We ignore the secretary's list, since the presumed transgression generally concerns the connections, and not the horse.

Hopefully, as tracks go out of business and there becomes less and less tracks, it will be harder and harder for "horsemen" to run the show. Hopefully we can get a track that tells these people to "Fall in line" and that they're going to card the races for the BETTORS and not keep carding "horsemens races" that many people don't want to bet on.

[mountainman]

Hopefully, as tracks go out of business and there becomes less and less tracks, it will be harder and harder for "horsemen" to run the show. Hopefully we can get a track that tells these people to "Fall in line" and that they're going to card the races for the BETTORS and not keep carding "horsemens races" that many people don't want to bet on.

Our director of racing is tenacious and will battle horsemen when called for, but they are formidable, organized, have tradition on their side, and are notoriously resistant to change.

[Saratoga_Mike]

The problem is significant - those who "work" for the game are allowed to bet on it.

This is not good - no owner, trainer, rider should be allowed to bet any races at any track they are running horses at.

Not that it would probably do any good.

Absurd.

[green80]

The problem is significant - those who "work" for the game are allowed to bet on it.

This is not good - no owner, trainer, rider should be allowed to bet any races at any track they are running horses at.

Not that it would probably do any good.

There goes 90% of the on-track handle.

[classhandicapper]

The problem is significant - those who "work" for the game are allowed to bet on it.

This is not good - no owner, trainer, rider should be allowed to bet any races at any track they are running horses at.

Not that it would probably do any good.

A trainer/owner etc... betting against a horse they know has some issues that will prevent it from running its "A" race or betting on one that has had a procedure that will help it etc... (let alone one that has been illegally drugged or not) is pretty close to insider trading in the stock market.

[Zilla Racing]

At least in NY, often the vet scratches are simply a cough or the horse not eating well the night before the race.

Sometimes the trainers will use this excuse to get a scratch when a race comes up too tough.

However, vet scratches at the gate or right before the race is generally bad news.

I like using Thorograph as they show most of the vet scratches for the horses over their careers.