AQU "Watch" List

[philofbelloni]

TVG hosts made an excellent observation on Sunday afternoon regarding the lunacy that comprises the recently installed Aqueduct "Watch" list.
Essentially, if a horse finishes 25 lengths or more behind than the winner the -25 length horse is placed on a "watch" list. Once on the list, the horse must complete a 4F workout under 53 seconds within a specified number of weeks. Apologies for not recalling the time constraint between the race completion and the sub 53 workout.

In R2 and R5 on Sunday, three of the five non-winners (yes, 60%) finished within the "watch" parameters. The place horse in R5 missed out on the "watch" list due to Irad easing up on the winner 100 yards out. The whip should NEVER be out on a horse at the 16th pole when the winner is near crossing the line. Thankfully, we didn't see this on Sunday. But, as more horses find there way onto this dreaded list, isn't it inevitable that horses that just don't have it are pushed well beyond their means for a meaningless goal? Not much logic behind pushing horses harder in the name of equine health.

These are sad and troubling parameters implemented in the name of equine safety. I am remiss to think of a situation that this list will actually benefit a horse.

Look at the jockey perspective. The "watch" list now shifts undue pressure onto jockeys to push in races where their mounts simply don't have the gas. Which jockeys will feel this pressure more? Established riders on solid mounts or apprentice/journeymen praying to get another mount?

Ultimately, this "watch" list is an added layer to the blame game element. It's merely another unnecessary level of bureaucracy. Now, not only is the trainer potentially at fault for entering a horse who can't hang with the leader but the jockey also receives a black mark on his record for finishing in the -25 club.

A "bad" ride is one thing. Involving the jockey for taking a mount on a "bad" horse is criminal negligence. Why would the NYRA subject the jockeys to make this kind of decision? It's a split second choice that may impact their financial future versus the moral compassion of either easing up or a hand ride home?


-PHIL

[Inner Dirt]

That rule should not be set in stone, a $20,000 claimer that is pushed to a 22 flat first 1/4 in a mile race and backs up in the stretch to lose by 25 should not be viewed in the same light as a slow breaker who never picks up his feet and finishes dead last beaten by 25.

[davew]

So if a horse wins by more than 25 lengths, everyone else in the race gets put on the watch list? Are the stewards going to call in the winning jockey for winning by too much and give them days/fines as well?

[Stillriledup]

Its funny that i watched that "eased up" winner and thought to myself that i've never seen a horse eased up like that before the wire....never seen a winner run that slow in the final strides...now i know why, he was trying to keep the others in the 25 length parameters.

The reason the rule isn't so bad is this. Because horses normally have a "Worktab" before their next race anyway, if a horse loses by 25, even if he or she is the 2nd place finisher, its not the worst thing in the world to show the bettors that the horse is alive and well and can get to the track to have a published work.

If you are a horse who is not working one time between races, maybe you're running back too quick to begin with.

If you are dead set against having to work one time in 53, find a way to not enter a race where you're going to lose by 25 or find a way to enter a horse who's ready to run a good race. If you lose by 25 or more, you either entered in the wrong class or you didnt have your horse ready or a combination of both. Do a better job at that and you don't have to work.

As far as inner dirt's comment that horses who duel and stop should get some leeway on the 25 length rule, i would say to that if you have a horse who can't finish at all, maybe don't go 22 flat, jocks and the connections need to "know their horse" and know that their horse can't go 22 and be around at the finish.

Like i said before, if you are an owner or trainer that is so insulted that this rule is enacted, find a way not to lose by 25 and it will be problem solved.

[Brogan]

People in other threads cited perfect examples of why the 14-day and 25-length rules are hogwash.

If the Preakness were held at AQU, no horse that competed in the Kentucky Derby would be eligible. Yes, that means the winner of the Kentucky Derby would not be eligible for the Preakness.

Sticking with the Triple Crown theme, if the 1973 Belmont Stakes were held at AQU, the entire field, with the exception of Secretariat, would go on the watch list.

You can't apply hard and fast rules, such as these, to flesh and blood. These rules should be scrapped and more emphasis put on the state vets. Any horse wheeled back after short rest should get more than a cursory exam in the morning, and any horse getting distanced should be noted and also get more than a cursory exam the next time it is entered.

You may say that would put too much pressure on the state vets. Well, my response is that is their job. They must operate as a separate force within the track and not be subject to pressure from management, the race office, or the stewards.

[biggestal99]

if a horse can't make 53 for a timed half mile work perhaps they SHOULD be bared from racing.

Allan

[Stillriledup]

That's like saying to a parent that they can't apply fast and hard rules to their misbehaving children because other peoples children behave.

I'm glad you emphasized flesh and blood because the 14 day rule is there to not only prevent breakdownss, but its there to essentially "force" connections to manage the horse as if that horse's career is important.

A trainer can run a sound horse 7 times in 1 month and win a boatload of money knowing that this horse wont be his "problem" 2 or 3 months from now, but how does that "management" help this horse be happy and healthy 1 year from now? 2 years from now? Or, do we just think horses are disposable and can just "gut it out" and earn the robber barons of the sport cash and as long as they are "sound" they should be able to race as many times in a month as the horse can stand?

[philofbelloni]

if a horse can't make 53 for a timed half mile work perhaps they SHOULD be bared from racing.

Allan

Your point is correct. Dead on. However, my view is geared towards the hypocrisy borne in the heavy potential for 25 length rule AVOIDANCE rather than the "test" that follows within the follow-up workout. I'm analyzing this topic purely from a horse safety perspective. What are the benefits versus the risks? The horseplayer argument surrounding this is a completely separate issue. As a horseplayer, I'm generally not playing anything that can't breeze a half mile in 53 seconds.

Does anyone know if there's any type of trainer penalty if a watch list horse cannot complete the sub 53 second workout? If so, that's even more incentive for a trainer to urge the rider to make sure the horse finishes within the 25 length parameters.

-PHIL

[Stillriledup]

Your point is correct. Dead on. However, my view is geared towards the hypocrisy borne in the heavy potential for 25 length rule AVOIDANCE rather than the "test" that follows within the follow-up workout. I'm analyzing this topic purely from a horse safety perspective. What are the benefits versus the risks? The horseplayer argument surrounding this is a completely separate issue. As a horseplayer, I'm generally not playing anything that can't breeze a half mile in 53 seconds.

Does anyone know if there's any type of trainer penalty if a watch list horse cannot complete the sub 53 second workout? If so, that's even more incentive for a trainer to urge the rider to make sure the horse finishes within the 25 length parameters.

-PHIL

Its kind of a catch 22 in that if the game and the horses have gotten so soft that trainers are crying the blues if they have to work in 53 on a badly beaten horse, what does that say about what the trainers think about their horses? Are they essentially saying that i know this horse can't even stand ANY training in between races so i'm throwing a fit that i have to work one time very slowly? 53 is essentially a gallop, if your horse can't withstand a 53 in between races maybe that horse isn't ready to race and needs a lot more time off.

As far as jocks urging to keep up badly beaten horses, i think that a jock can get a fine or suspension for that type of stuff.....so, the jock isn't going to be tattooing a horse to lose by 25 and not 28 just so the guy doesn't have to work.....i would imagine the judges will be watching the back of the pack to see if jocks are beating up horses that are far back and that might not be tolerated.

[Brogan]

I'm glad you emphasized flesh and blood because the 14 day rule is there to not only prevent breakdownss, but its there to essentially "force" connections to manage the horse as if that horse's career is important.

Wow.

Its kind of a catch 22 in that if the game and the horses have gotten so soft that trainers are crying the blues if they have to work in 53 on a badly beaten horse, what does that say about what the trainers think about their horses? Are they essentially saying that i know this horse can't even stand ANY training in between races so i'm throwing a fit that i have to work one time very slowly? 53 is essentially a gallop, if your horse can't withstand a 53 in between races maybe that horse isn't ready to race and needs a lot more time off.

Double wow.

So let's let the track dictate how a horse is trained and raced? Let's have the track hire a trainer supervisor and he can delegate to his minions how to care and manage the racing stock.

And btw, 53 is quite a bit faster than a gallop. Its not close to race speed, but its a lot faster than a gallop.

[Stillriledup]

Wow.



Double wow.

So let's let the track dictate how a horse is trained and raced? Let's have the track hire a trainer supervisor and he can delegate to his minions how to care and manage the racing stock.

And btw, 53 is quite a bit faster than a gallop. Its not close to race speed, but its a lot faster than a gallop.

Wow i got a double wow. :ThmbUp:

The track isn't dictating anything. There are rules in place and you, as the trainer, either follow them or don't race there. It doesn't seem like trainers should be having trouble grasping that.

[Ruffian1]

if a horse can't make 53 for a timed half mile work perhaps they SHOULD be bared from racing.

Allan

I shipped a horse to Rockingham for a summertime stakes race going 6F. She was an older mare and a solid allowance horse at Del Park and Md. in the 70's.
She did NOT like to workout , as a matter of fact, she hated it. Other trainers had MADE her workout and she all but refused. She had ankle problems but with plenty of therapy, she stayed sound race after race.
I went up 4 days before the race and three days out told the clockers I was going to be working her in a few minutes and pointed her out to them when she came on the track. The work was to be, "whatever she wanted to do but don't force her to do anything". She worked 3/8ths in 40 and change and I think she galloped out in about 55. The clockers started laughing at me. I was only 21 and back then the majority of old guys, but certainly not all of them, were sure I was an idiot and they were sharp as a tack. They said something like, we can't publish that. Try again tomorrow. I said, well that will be it until she runs because she ponies daily which means she goes out with no rider and a lead pony that runs her around the track a mile and a half or thereabouts. I also informed the Stewards of this.
She was coming off several wins in a row and was very consistent.
She led or vied most of the race and finished 2nd beaten one length by a nice filly of Lenzini's. She ran as well as she possibly could have.
Under this rule, she would have not been able to run. And while I get the reasoning for rules like this, horses are ALL DIFFERENT. Whatever the etched in stone rule is when it comes to times, lengths or whatever, it will ultimately clash with some horse, somewhere.
I am not saying no rules or I hate it. I always hated trainers that balk at anything just to balk. And, it doesn't affect me at all. I don't mean to muddy the waters either, just stating that every new rule will need interpretation at some point so they should prepare themselves for that to come and not be shocked when it does.It will happen , no question about it. With horses, it has too.
Just be ready to use common sense and have someone on board that understands the game well enough to not be B.S.'ed by a trainer but do understand who a horse might be, and everything will be fine with these rules.
Do know, that a state vet watches EVERY horse pullup every race and during my whole career, there was always a watch or vets list if the state vet did not like what he/she saw. So this really is nothing new.

[Brogan]

The track isn't dictating anything. There are rules in place and you, as the trainer, either follow them or don't race there. It doesn't seem like trainers should be having trouble grasping that.

The track isn't dictating anything? You have a strange definition of what rules are.

The issue is that the track is enacting rules to try to counteract bad choices made by a few problem trainers.However, these rules affect all trainers.

That's where I have a problem.

[Stillriledup]

The track isn't dictating anything? You have a strange definition of what rules are.

The issue is that the track is enacting rules to try to counteract bad choices made by a few problem trainers.However, these rules affect all trainers.

That's where I have a problem.

The problem is that "all trainers" feel they they aren't the problem and its the "other guy" who is making the bad choices.

Grade 1 horses aren't running back quick. They're spacing their races out with a steady worktab in between starts...that's how its done. Why would you have a problem with "cheap horses" being managed like good horses?

[Tom]

Because cheap horses are not like good horses.
It is not unusual to see cheap horse with no works between races.

In that one year study I posted a while back, it was blatantly obvious where to start looking for the problem - two trainers. Period.

I'll drill deeper this week and see what else pops up.

[Brogan]

The problem is that "all trainers" feel they they aren't the problem and its the "other guy" who is making the bad choices.

Grade 1 horses aren't running back quick. They're spacing their races out with a steady worktab in between starts...that's how its done. Why would you have a problem with "cheap horses" being managed like good horses?

I have no problem with cheap horses being cared for as well as good horses. Every horse is an individual and needs training that is best suited for it.

I do have a problem with the track managing the horses.

The problem is that "all trainers" feel they they aren't the problem and its the "other guy" who is making the bad choices.

That statement is total nonsense. Its pretty obvious who some of the bad characters are.

[Stillriledup]

I have no problem with cheap horses being cared for as well as good horses. Every horse is an individual and needs training that is best suited for it.

I do have a problem with the track managing the horses.



That statement is total nonsense. Its pretty obvious who some of the bad characters are.

Is it? If you asked the "bad characters" right to their faces if they were the bad characters they would say no, not me.

So, its your word against theirs.

As far as them managing the horses, if you own a runner who has one win in the last 6 months and the conditions of the race say that its a race specifically written for horses who haven't won a race in the last 6 months, isnt that the same as the conditions of the race reading "horses who have raced in the last 14 days ineligible"? Its just part of the conditions of the race, there are certain restrictions on who can enter what race...for example, horses who have at least one lifetime win can't enter maiden races. If you wanted to enter your 1 win horse in a maiden race and the race secretary said that you are ineligible, would you say they're "managing your horse"?

[Brogan]

Is it? If you asked the "bad characters" right to their faces if they were the bad characters they would say no, not me.

So, its your word against theirs.

And? What does that have to do with anything? The cheaters and abusers in the game don't normally line up to make a full and complete confession.

As far as them managing the horses, if you own a runner who has one win in the last 6 months and the conditions of the race say that its a race specifically written for horses who haven't won a race in the last 6 months, isnt that the same as the conditions of the race reading "horses who have raced in the last 14 days ineligible"? Its just part of the conditions of the race, there are certain restrictions on who can enter what race...for example, horses who have at least one lifetime win can't enter maiden races. If you wanted to enter your 1 win horse in a maiden race and the race secretary said that you are ineligible, would you say they're "managing your horse"?

Its not even remotely the same. The conditions you cite are classifications of horses, in the attempt to make competitive races. They do not wander into the area of determining if an animal is physically ready to race. That determination belongs to the trainer when the the horse is entered, and to the state vet when they conduct the pre-race exam.

[Stillriledup]

And? What does that have to do with anything? The cheaters and abusers in the game don't normally line up to make a full and complete confession.



Its not even remotely the same. The conditions you cite are classifications of horses, in the attempt to make competitive races. They do not wander into the area of determining if an animal is physically ready to race. That determination belongs to the trainer when the the horse is entered, and to the state vet when they conduct the pre-race exam.

I'm not saying the cheaters and abusers are going to line up, but who is a cheater and abuser is just an opinion. One person's cheater and abuser might be some other person's great and caring horsemen.

My point was that if the conditions of the race state no horse is eligible who's raced in the last 14 days, that's part of the condition.

Now, i don't know if the track has technically put that in the conditions of all the races or not, maybe they should just write that into the conditions of all the races...as far as them "Determining" when who is ready to race, they're not determining anything, they're writing races for horses who haven't raced in the last 14 days....either your horse is eligible to the race or he isnt, some horses are not eligible to certain races and that works the same way at every track, nobody is forcing you to race at Aqueduct, if you don't like the conditions of their races, go somewhere else, nobody is forcing any owner or trainer to do anything he or she doesn't want to.