MD-bred and open allowance

[RXB]

Does anyone know if Maryland now has a stipulation similar to northern California where an in-state bred horse can win the first allowance condition twice?

Race 8 today, the Md-bred :6: Ginger N Rye won a N1X two races back but ran back at the N1X in her next race and does so again today. Neither her win nor the two subsequent races involved optional claiming prices, so that's not a factor.

[Saratoga_Mike]

Yes....
For Fillies And Mares
Three Years Old and Upward Which Have Never Won A Race Other Than
Maiden, Claiming, Waiver Claiming, Starter Or State Sired Races Or State
Bred Races or Which Have Never Won Two Races.

[RXB]

But the allowance race that she won wasn't a MD bred or sired race.

[Saratoga_Mike]

But the allowance race that she won wasn't a MD bred or sired race.

Sorry read your posts too quickly. Since they don't have restricted MD races beyond stake races, it must work the way you described.

[Tom]

The race she won shows as Restricted, but the charts do not agree.
Just another example of the incompetence that rules racing. How many other secret rules do tracks have that absolutely violate the condition of the races as presented to the public??? Must bed race conditions are suggestions, not really conditions. :rolleyes:

Race writing is a lost art. The guy at NYRA has no clue what a classified allowance race is - he calls then NW3 or NW4. Duh.

[johnhannibalsmith]

But the allowance race that she won wasn't a MD bred or sired race.

It has a restricted designation in the PPs I see, and looking back at the chart it shows a preference to MD breds/sired, MD breds, then MD sired in that order and it appears that most of the day on the 22nd of Aug was MD breds - so guessing that for the purposes of the condition and eligibility the 8/22 race was considered a N/C because of the state bred implications. Certainly it isn't clear what is going on with that race and dont have the patience to dig back through the book to see how it was originally written, but that seems the likeliest answer.

[RXB]

It has a restricted designation in the PPs I see, and looking back at the chart it shows a preference to MD breds/sired, MD breds, then MD sired in that order and it appears that most of the day on the 22nd of Aug was MD breds - so guessing that for the purposes of the condition and eligibility the 8/22 race was considered a N/C because of the state bred implications. Certainly it isn't clear what is going on with that race and dont have the patience to dig back through the book to see how it was originally written, but that seems the likeliest answer.

Yes, I think you're correct. One problem with TimeformUS is that most restricted allowance/stakes races appear as if they were unrestricted in their simplified conditions. This appears to be another example.

[cj]

Yes, I think you're correct. One problem with TimeformUS is that most restricted allowance/stakes races appear as if they were unrestricted in their simplified conditions. This appears to be another example.

I don't think it is a problem, you can only put so much in the running line. Most PP providers use abbreviations that are unreadable. A simple click on the conditions shows you everything instantly.

[RXB]

Nothing difficult or requiring extra space to put an "R" in the same location as where the state-bred abbreviation goes, which is the suggestion that I offered sometime ago.

[cj]

Aren't all allowance races restricted? How do you determine what gets an R and what doesn't is my point. Conditions can get very tricky in this regard. Sometimes there is an R for some horses in a race and not others.

[RXB]

"R" deals with a race condition, not a horse condition.

If a state-bred restriction is noted, why not alert people to other restrictions? Woodbine is littered with stakes that are Ontario-sired rather than Ontario-bred. The NY Stallion Series stakes races, same thing.

[cj]

"R" deals with a race condition, not a horse condition.

If a state-bred restriction is noted, why not alert people to other restrictions? Woodbine is littered with stakes that are Ontario-sired rather than Ontario-bred. The NY Stallion Series stakes races, same thing.

I guess I've just gotten used to the click, doesn't bother me. I'm not a big condition guy most times anyway. I do see your point.

[Saratoga_Mike]

I guess I've just gotten used to the click, doesn't bother me. I'm not a big condition guy most times anyway. I do see your point.

I must be dense - are you saying the win was in a true MD-bred/MD-sired race? I don't think they exist beyond stakes races.

[cj]

I must be dense - are you saying the win was in a true MD-bred/MD-sired race? I don't think they exist beyond stakes races.

I posted the exact conditions. If you can figure them out let me know. :)

[Saratoga_Mike]

I posted the exact conditions. If you can figure them out let me know. :)

Ok, I thought you were saying it was clear. I don't think MD-bred/MD-sired races exist in MD outside of stakes, but MD-bred/MD-sired horses get a preference (priority over say a KY-bred) at entry. The turf races are usually very full. Therefore, perhaps the Aug 22 race contained all MD-bred/MD-sired horse b/c of the entry preference, which effectively made it a MD-bred/MD-sired win.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Ok, I thought you were saying it was clear. I don't think MD-bred/MD-sired races exist in MD outside of stakes, but MD-bred/MD-sired horses get a preference (priority over say a KY-bred) at entry. The turf races are usually very full. Therefore, perhaps the Aug 22 race contained all MD-bred/MD-sired horse b/c of the entry preference, which effectively made it a MD-bred/MD-sired win.

:ThmbUp:

Saved me from having to look now that you guys had me curious if this was the case. Whenever I see the [R] restricted notation anymore I just figure its a clue to check the race conditions for some weird variation on a traditional condition, and this looked like a case where MD-bred race status itself was the weird variation.

[RXB]

I don't think MD-bred/MD-sired races exist in MD outside of stakes, but MD-bred/MD-sired horses get a preference (priority over say a KY-bred) at entry. The turf races are usually very full. Therefore, perhaps the Aug 22 race contained all MD-bred/MD-sired horse b/c of the entry preference, which effectively made it a MD-bred/MD-sired win.

I haven't noticed a Md-bred/sired entry preference in open allowance races, so I think that it was in fact a restricted race for Md-bred/sired horses. But written as such in an unclear, confusing manner.

[johnhannibalsmith]

I haven't noticed a Md-bred/sired entry preference in open allowance races, so I think that it was in fact a restricted race for Md-bred/sired horses. But written as such in an unclear, confusing manner.

I looked the date up for what its worth and it was "Maryland Pride Day". A showcase day for MD-breds and MD-sired horses with 4 breed stakes and 5 "restricted races".

[Saratoga_Mike]

I haven't noticed a Md-bred/sired entry preference in open allowance races, so I think that it was in fact a restricted race for Md-bred/sired horses. But written as such in an unclear, confusing manner.

Please see the full Equibase chart for 8/22/15. Preference was given to MD-bred/MD-sire horses for the race.

[RXB]

Please see the full Equibase chart for 8/22/15. Preference was given to MD-bred/MD-sire horses for the race.

That was the order of preference for eligible horses. But horses not Maryland bred or sired were not eligible to enter at all, I'm quite sure of that now. That's why the normal conditions note about Maryland restricted race wins not being counted against eligibility was not included.

[Saratoga_Mike]

That was the order of preference for eligible horses. But horses not Maryland bred or sired were not eligible to enter at all, I'm quite sure of that now. That's why the normal conditions note about Maryland restricted race wins not being counted against eligibility was not included.

Got it --- thanks, I think I learned something!

[Tom]

Me too.
Don't play Maryland tracks. :rolleyes: