Late Blinker Changes

[EMD4ME]

Tonight's finale at Penn. 8 MTP Bogar says late change the 9 has Blinkers On.


9 Wires the field.

How is that fair to the PICK 4, DD, P3 players?

Or to the players who bet and went out after checking the changes?

Another reason PA sucks in terms of Horse Racing.

[green80]

Tonight's finale at Penn. 8 MTP Bogar says late change the 9 has Blinkers On.


9 Wires the field.

How is that fair to the PICK 4, DD, P3 players?

Or to the players who bet and went out after checking the changes?

Another reason PA sucks in terms of Horse Racing.

Most likely the trainer (or agent) forgot to say blinkers on when he entered the horse. Some places will let you change that before scratch time. I may have been in the program at the track and listed with the overweights & scratches.

I found this to see if it really makes a difference.

factor winners losers Win% ROI
================================================== ==============
blinkers on 193 384 33.4% 0.82
no blinkers changes 6591 11509 36.4% 0.86

total number of starters : 18677

[EMD4ME]

Most likely the trainer (or agent) forgot to say blinkers on when he entered the horse. Some places will let you change that before scratch time. I may have been in the program at the track and listed with the overweights & scratches.

I found this to see if it really makes a difference.

factor winners losers Win% ROI
================================================== ==============
blinkers on 193 384 33.4% 0.82
no blinkers changes 6591 11509 36.4% 0.86

total number of starters : 18677

I hear you green80 but every situation is different. It just irks me that they can do this.

[NorCalGreg]

Most likely the trainer (or agent) forgot to say blinkers on when he entered the horse. Some places will let you change that before scratch time. I may have been in the program at the track and listed with the overweights & scratches.

I found this to see if it really makes a difference.

factor winners losers Win% ROI
================================================== ==============
blinkers on 193 384 33.4% 0.82
no blinkers changes 6591 11509 36.4% 0.86

total number of starters : 18677


Blinkers on/off can be a signal of trainer intent, as well.

[Tom]

Or trainer stupidity if he "forgets."
Should not be allowed to add them.
Maybe next time the idiot will understand his job. :ThmbDown:

[NorCalGreg]

Blinkers on/off can be a signal of trainer intent, as well.

Another thing--since the trainer didn't declare B/on---there aren't B/on stats listed for the trainer, in the PP's---

She could have been lights-out $8 ROI with this equip. change. Unless you really know the local trainers--how would anyone know?

[v j stauffer]

Was this an actual equipment change or the adding of blinkers because the horse raced in them the previous time? If it's the latter it's no big deal. Happens all the time. Nothing deceptive. In fact every track has an extra set of blinkers at the gate in case that happens or the equipment breaks. Much more complicated if it was an actual equipment change.

There are supposed to be many checks and balances in situations like this. First the entry card. If there was supposed to be a change it should have been requested by whomever made the entry. Sometimes a sharp entry clerk will ask.

Next there is the draw. If the person is not totally sure the change request made the entry card he can confirm it when the race is drawn.

Next is the overnight. All equipment changes should be noted on the overnight. Here's where the trainer taking care of business comes into play. He should make sure the change is on the overnight.

Next is proofing the program. Racing office personal will cross check the entry cards with what was is to be printed on the program.

When the actual program comes out. If the change is not there the trainer can contact the stewards. They will investigate the matter and as long as betting on that race has not opened they will instruct both TV to run a crawl and the announcer to share the change.

If the horse gets all the way to the paddock. When the trainer attempts to put the blinkers on the paddock judge will stop him if the change isn't in the program.

Year before last we had this exact situation happen when I was a steward Del Mar. 1st race of the day. Vladimir Cerin put blinkers on his filly. Peter Miller and the paddock judge both noticed this. Miller objected saying there was no notation in the program and Cerin's filly wearing blinkers could change the dynamics of the race shape and strategy.

The pressure was really on to make a fast decision. It was about 14 minutes to post. We contacted the racing office and sure enough there was the request for BLINKERS ON right where it should be on the entry card. However we had to consider the bettors who made advance wagers not knowing of the change. It was the start of the pick 5 and of course many other bets had been made. We could have had Trevor announce the change and let the horse run. But what about the people who had made their bets and left?

We decided to give Cerin the option of either running without the blinkers or scratching with no penalty. He chose to scratch. He was given what's called a super-star which means his filly would get first preference regarding eligibility for the next race he wished to enter her in. He was really pissed because he rightfully said he had done nothing wrong. He was correct but we as stewards had bigger issues to decide. In the end we chose to take the path we thought had the least chance of being unfair to the public.

Cerin got over it and said he would always personally check the overnight to double check that similar mistakes didn't happen again.

After a thorough investigation the Del Mar racing office staff was fined $400. Peter Miller was reprimanded for unprofessional comments made to the paddock judge.

[EMD4ME]

This horse was first time blinkers. Not listed in the DRF or in Formulator.

[Donttellmeshowme]

Was this an actual equipment change or the adding of blinkers because the horse raced in them the previous time? If it's the latter it's no big deal. Happens all the time. Nothing deceptive. In fact every track has an extra set of blinkers at the gate in case that happens or the equipment breaks. Much more complicated if it was an actual equipment change.

There are supposed to be many checks and balances in situations like this. First the entry card. If there was supposed to be a change it should have been requested by whomever made the entry. Sometimes a sharp entry clerk will ask.

Next there is the draw. If the person is not totally sure the change request made the entry card he can confirm it when the race is drawn.

Next is the overnight. All equipment changes should be noted on the overnight. Here's where the trainer taking care of business comes into play. He should make sure the change is on the overnight.

Next is proofing the program. Racing office personal will cross check the entry cards with what was is to be printed on the program.

When the actual program comes out. If the change is not there the trainer can contact the stewards. They will investigate the matter and as long as betting on that race has not opened they will instruct both TV to run a crawl and the announcer to share the change.

If the horse gets all the way to the paddock. When the trainer attempts to put the blinkers on the paddock judge will stop him if the change isn't in the program.

Year before last we had this exact situation happen when I was a steward Del Mar. 1st race of the day. Vladimir Cerin put blinkers on his filly. Peter Miller and the paddock judge both noticed this. Miller objected saying there was no notation in the program and Cerin's filly wearing blinkers could change the dynamics of the race shape and strategy.

The pressure was really on to make a fast decision. It was about 14 minutes to post. We contacted the racing office and sure enough there was the request for BLINKERS ON right where it should be on the entry card. However we had to consider the bettors who made advance wagers not knowing of the change. It was the start of the pick 5 and of course many other bets had been made. We could have had Trevor announce the change and let the horse run. But what about the people who had made their bets and left?

We decided to give Cerin the option of either running without the blinkers or scratching with no penalty. He chose to scratch. He was given what's called a super-star which means his filly would get first preference regarding eligibility for the next race he wished to enter her in. He was really pissed because he rightfully said he had done nothing wrong. He was correct but we as stewards had bigger issues to decide. In the end we chose to take the path we thought had the least chance of being unfair to the public.

Cerin got over it and said he would always personally check the overnight to double check that similar mistakes didn't happen again.

After a thorough investigation the Del Mar racing office staff was fined $400. Peter Miller was reprimanded for unprofessional comments made to the paddock judge.



Why was Miller reprimanded ? I see nothing wrong in what he did.

[v j stauffer]

Why was Miller reprimanded ? I see nothing wrong in what he did.

He was very aggressive including inappropriate language during his objection.

His point was well taken but delivered in an unprofessional manner.

[green80]

This horse was first time blinkers. Not listed in the DRF or in Formulator.

For First time blinkers in this jurisdiction you have to break from the gate with blinkers and get an ok. Somebody really dropped the ball there. Once you have run with blinkers, you can announce on or off at entry.

[v j stauffer]

For First time blinkers in this jurisdiction you have to break from the gate with blinkers and get an ok. Somebody really dropped the ball there. Once you have run with blinkers, you can announce on or off at entry.

Was the horse a first time starter?

[NorCalGreg]

Was the horse a first time starter?

No, 6th lifetime start. For what it's worth...this trainer probably isn't used to having a live mount:

****** Maria Cuprill 2015-2016 - 32 0% 9% -2.00

And thanks for the info, Vic.....it's refreshing to have a "normal" conversation.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Dollar to donuts the horse was entered with blinkers on, but it was written on the card rather than entered that way using the computer. The clerk forgot to click it and trainer caught it when given the card or trainer forgot to mention it until the signing the card and was scribbled on the card then, some such thing. When the overnight was proofed nobody caught the note and it went out, then program finalized, without the change made on the card. Trainer pays no attention to any of this until he/she tries to put them on in paddock, argues with paddock judge, who then calls stews, who then decide to check entry card, in turn call the office, who discover the mistake. Basically the same scenario as Vic's tale but with the small track solution of saying 'yup, was entered with blinkers on, make the announcement, and let them run with blinkers.' Been there done that and much prefer to see the Cal stew compromise as the precedent than the 'ignore that there is any kind of betting going on' precedent. It isn't asking too much for trainers to check the overnight for equipment changes that they made to be doubly sure that there's no confusion in the paddock.

[TonyK@HSH]

According the stewards at Pen, here are the pertinent facts.

1) The addition of blinkers must be declared at the time of entry. Exceptions are sometimes granted in the event of an office or system error. In almost all cases, the correction is made in time to be announced to the public.
2) Hidden Pearl received a blinkers card prior to her 1-7-16 start.
3) Hidden Pearl was not permitted to wear blinkers on 1-7-16 due to an error by the trainer or entry clerk (not clear on the error). But all parties involved were made aware that Hidden Pearl is eligible to run with blinkers.
4) When trainer entered for 3-3-16 race, she did not declare first blinkers as this occurred on 1-7-16.
5) Because Hidden Pearl did not race with blinkers on 1-7, the supporting systems did not reflect the fact that she earned a blinker card.
6) when the trainer arrived at the paddock with blinkers, the stewards quickly reviewed the facts and felt the trainer should not be penalized for this error.
7) This was not an easy call, but one the stewards felt was most fair considering all the facts.

[PaceAdvantage]

In other words, screw the bettors again...or something to that effect.

[v j stauffer]

According the stewards at Pen, here are the pertinent facts.

1) The addition of blinkers must be declared at the time of entry. Exceptions are sometimes granted in the event of an office or system error. In almost all cases, the correction is made in time to be announced to the public.
2) Hidden Pearl received a blinkers card prior to her 1-7-16 start.
3) Hidden Pearl was not permitted to wear blinkers on 1-7-16 due to an error by the trainer or entry clerk (not clear on the error). But all parties involved were made aware that Hidden Pearl is eligible to run with blinkers.
4) When trainer entered for 3-3-16 race, she did not declare first blinkers as this occurred on 1-7-16.
5) Because Hidden Pearl did not race with blinkers on 1-7, the supporting systems did not reflect the fact that she earned a blinker card.
6) when the trainer arrived at the paddock with blinkers, the stewards quickly reviewed the facts and felt the trainer should not be penalized for this error.
7) This was not an easy call, but one the stewards felt was most fair considering all the facts.

Good stuff. Thanks.

[Ruffian1]

In other words, screw the bettors again...or something to that effect.


Sadly, yes.

Although it was a odd circumstance that created the problem, once it was created, nobody took it to the next and last step that would have informed the customer by way of the entry which assures, or is supposed to assure, that the public be notified before the windows open.

The trainer could have brought it to the attention of the entry clerk but he or she chose not to.

The Stewards could have made it mandatory in direct language to the trainer and or the racing office , that even though blinkers on is already in, it is NOT in the system so please enter stipulating such at time of entry, but they apparently did not.

The racing office could have marked the "cut" in the book that blinkers on needed to be stipulated but they did not. In all fairness, it probably would have been the paddock judge who might have been in the best position to remember to do this, just after the problem arose but he/she didn't.

It could have been worked out, but everyone dropped the ball. That's a shame and terribly unfair to the customers.

I cant believe that anyone meant to drop the ball, it just happened, but with no voice and in my opinion an after thought more often than not, informing the public in a timely fashion apparently never occurred.

[PaceAdvantage]

Nobody cares about the bettor one single bit if it means screwing a horseman. That's the bottom line, and it's always been the bottom line.

"Oh, somebody would have had this horse in a Pick-X race if they had known he was going to wear blinkers or vice versa? Too bad. This poor horseman has trained this horse for this race, and even though somebody screwed up along the way, why should we penalize the horseman when we can penalize the PICK-X players instead...we don't even really care about them anyway...we don't deal with them personally on a day-in day-out basis like we do the horsemen. So the addicted gambler loses another bet...we're talking about a HORSEMAN here...a trainer on our esteemed grounds trying to get his magical steed into the gate."

It's pathetic. I'm honestly surprised sometimes that this game hasn't been abandoned entirely by a customer base that has never been at the top of the priority list.

[johnhannibalsmith]

According the stewards at Pen, here are the pertinent facts.
...
3) Hidden Pearl was not permitted to wear blinkers on 1-7-16 due to an error by the trainer or entry clerk (not clear on the error). But all parties involved were made aware that Hidden Pearl is eligible to run with blinkers.
...

I don't want this to get beaten to death or anything, but I'm assuming that the 'error' that was made by one of the parties was neglecting to actually enter 'blinkers on' on the card itself?

So, basically, the starter gave trainer the green light to enter with blinkers. But trainer (agent) never actually does. Or if trainer (agent) does, someone screws up and the horse does not run in blinkers because of the error.

So then entering for this race, again the horse is not entered as 'blinkers on', whether it is a mistake again this time or not. But this time the horse gets to run in blinkers because she had gotten the okay from the starter, despite never actually entering 'blinkers on' in any verifiable way and despite being disallowed from adding blinkers for the same reason previously.

I'm trying to better understand this because the way that I read it they let the horse run in blinkers for the simple reason that the starter gave the green light to enter with blinkers. But no actual mention that the horse was ever entered with blinkers on. Which seems ridiculous.

Is it the case that if you get the okay from the starter you are automatically presumed to be entering 'blinkers on' in Pennsylvania and trainer (agent) needn't even bother entering that way? I hope that I'm wrong or that's another level of how to do things without any regard for the people playing.

[Ruffian1]

Nobody cares about the bettor one single bit if it means screwing a horseman. That's the bottom line, and it's always been the bottom line.

"Oh, somebody would have had this horse in a Pick-X race if they had known he was going to wear blinkers or vice versa? Too bad. This poor horseman has trained this horse for this race, and even though somebody screwed up along the way, why should we penalize the horseman when we can penalize the PICK-X players instead...we don't even really care about them anyway...we don't deal with them personally on a day-in day-out basis like we do the horsemen. So the addicted gambler loses another bet...we're talking about a HORSEMAN here...a trainer on our esteemed grounds trying to get his magical steed into the gate."

It's pathetic. I'm honestly surprised sometimes that this game hasn't been abandoned entirely by a customer base that has never been at the top of the priority list.

As a former trainer, I totally agree. It is totally pathetic.

I lost an awful lot of stalls over my early years training when I was in my early twenties because I advocated for the customer. I got in plenty of hot water. That was in the mid to late 70's.
I had to soften my stance because of that . After a while it was like beating my head against a wall.
My gut tells me that the trainer doesn't give a crap about the customer, nor do the other parties for that matter. But without knowing all the inner details, it seems too me to be unfair to take that stance. The trainer was in the best position to make sure everyone got it right. I know damn well I would have.

[PaceAdvantage]

As a former trainer, I totally agree. It is totally pathetic.

I lost an awful lot of stalls over my early years training when I was in my early twenties because I advocated for the customer. I got in plenty of hot water. That was in the mid to late 70's.
I had to soften my stance because of that . After a while it was like beating my head against a wall.
My gut tells me that the trainer doesn't give a crap about the customer, nor do the other parties for that matter. But without knowing all the inner details, it seems too me to be unfair to take that stance. The trainer was in the best position to make sure everyone got it right. I know damn well I would have.To be fair, this read to me as a racing office clerical error, and they decided not to unfairly punish the trainer for the racing office error, which I can totally understand.

BUT, they completely forgot about their other core-constituency, the bettor. They obviously did not take the ramification to their customer into account. Or if they did, they quickly dismissed it as inconsequential, as they always do.

[Ruffian1]

To be fair, this read to me as a racing office clerical error, and they decided not to unfairly punish the trainer for the racing office error, which I can totally understand.

BUT, they completely forgot about their other core-constituency, the bettor. They obviously did not take the ramification to their customer into account. Or if they did, they quickly dismissed it as inconsequential, as they always do.

Too me, I read it as a trainer error. Why? Because if I train that horse and enter it blinkers on and it does not appear in the form , I am ALL OVER IT, immediately. So too me, it doesn't matter who, it matters only to get it right.

What separates trainers in most cases, not including the drug nonsense, is attention to detail. The better trainers win that war. The lesser trainer's do not. That was pounded into me from day one as a hot walker, thankfully.

This, is attention to detail IMO, so regardless of who screwed up, the trainer can never not double check prior too, no matter if it's the blks. on, the proper bit , a tongue tie, bandages wherever or the shank over the lip, nose, or only touching the halter. It's detail, and that must be on the person in charge, in this case, the trainer.
That's my take.

[TonyK@HSH]

I don't want this to get beaten to death or anything, but I'm assuming that the 'error' that was made by one of the parties was neglecting to actually enter 'blinkers on' on the card itself?

So, basically, the starter gave trainer the green light to enter with blinkers. But trainer (agent) never actually does. Or if trainer (agent) does, someone screws up and the horse does not run in blinkers because of the error.

So then entering for this race, again the horse is not entered as 'blinkers on', whether it is a mistake again this time or not. But this time the horse gets to run in blinkers because she had gotten the okay from the starter, despite never actually entering 'blinkers on' in any verifiable way and despite being disallowed from adding blinkers for the same reason previously.

I'm trying to better understand this because the way that I read it they let the horse run in blinkers for the simple reason that the starter gave the green light to enter with blinkers. But no actual mention that the horse was ever entered with blinkers on. Which seems ridiculous.

Is it the case that if you get the okay from the starter you are automatically presumed to be entering 'blinkers on' in Pennsylvania and trainer (agent) needn't even bother entering that way? I hope that I'm wrong or that's another level of how to do things without any regard for the people playing.

In Pa there is no rule stating that you must run in blinks just because you are approved. But you pretty much summarized the activity in this case as I understand them.

[NorCalGreg]

Nobody cares about the bettor one single bit if it means screwing a horseman. That's the bottom line, and it's always been the bottom line.

"Oh, somebody would have had this horse in a Pick-X race if they had known he was going to wear blinkers or vice versa? Too bad. This poor horseman has trained this horse for this race, and even though somebody screwed up along the way, why should we penalize the horseman when we can penalize the PICK-X players instead...we don't even really care about them anyway...we don't deal with them personally on a day-in day-out basis like we do the horsemen. So the addicted gambler loses another bet...we're talking about a HORSEMAN here...a trainer on our esteemed grounds trying to get his magical steed into the gate."

It's pathetic. I'm honestly surprised sometimes that this game hasn't been abandoned entirely by a customer base that has never been at the top of the priority list.

I'm trying to figure out how this phantom "addicted gambler" wandered into this mess. Poor guy can't catch a break, even when he had nothing to do with this :D

[Ruffian1]

In Pa there is no rule stating that you must run in blinks just because you are approved. But you pretty much summarized the activity in this case as I understand them.

True in all the eastern jurisdictions I raced in when I was there as well. You can get a blks. on card but not use it if you chose not to. Same with blks. off.

[johnhannibalsmith]

In Pa there is no rule stating that you must run in blinks just because you are approved. But you pretty much summarized the activity in this case as I understand them.

I couldn't imagine that it possibly could be the case but it seems like the only way the events could be justified, so figured I'd rule it out before deeming the affair unjustifiable. Thanks for the details. :ThmbUp:

[SG4]

Was this an actual equipment change or the adding of blinkers because the horse raced in them the previous time? If it's the latter it's no big deal. Happens all the time. Nothing deceptive. In fact every track has an extra set of blinkers at the gate in case that happens or the equipment breaks. Much more complicated if it was an actual equipment change.

There are supposed to be many checks and balances in situations like this. First the entry card. If there was supposed to be a change it should have been requested by whomever made the entry. Sometimes a sharp entry clerk will ask.

Next there is the draw. If the person is not totally sure the change request made the entry card he can confirm it when the race is drawn.

Next is the overnight. All equipment changes should be noted on the overnight. Here's where the trainer taking care of business comes into play. He should make sure the change is on the overnight.

Next is proofing the program. Racing office personal will cross check the entry cards with what was is to be printed on the program.

When the actual program comes out. If the change is not there the trainer can contact the stewards. They will investigate the matter and as long as betting on that race has not opened they will instruct both TV to run a crawl and the announcer to share the change.

If the horse gets all the way to the paddock. When the trainer attempts to put the blinkers on the paddock judge will stop him if the change isn't in the program.

Year before last we had this exact situation happen when I was a steward Del Mar. 1st race of the day. Vladimir Cerin put blinkers on his filly. Peter Miller and the paddock judge both noticed this. Miller objected saying there was no notation in the program and Cerin's filly wearing blinkers could change the dynamics of the race shape and strategy.

The pressure was really on to make a fast decision. It was about 14 minutes to post. We contacted the racing office and sure enough there was the request for BLINKERS ON right where it should be on the entry card. However we had to consider the bettors who made advance wagers not knowing of the change. It was the start of the pick 5 and of course many other bets had been made. We could have had Trevor announce the change and let the horse run. But what about the people who had made their bets and left?

We decided to give Cerin the option of either running without the blinkers or scratching with no penalty. He chose to scratch. He was given what's called a super-star which means his filly would get first preference regarding eligibility for the next race he wished to enter her in. He was really pissed because he rightfully said he had done nothing wrong. He was correct but we as stewards had bigger issues to decide. In the end we chose to take the path we thought had the least chance of being unfair to the public.

Cerin got over it and said he would always personally check the overnight to double check that similar mistakes didn't happen again.

After a thorough investigation the Del Mar racing office staff was fined $400. Peter Miller was reprimanded for unprofessional comments made to the paddock judge.

Does California have the option to run for purse money only? I feel like I only ever see this done in NY, and even that has become extremely rare. Was this ever considered as the fairest option to all in this circumstance?

[v j stauffer]

Does California have the option to run for purse money only? I feel like I only ever see this done in NY, and even that has become extremely rare. Was this ever considered as the fairest option to all in this circumstance?

Running for purse money only would not have solved the problem. It's reasonable to assume the filly's form would be different.

Thereby impacting the race shape and competitors strategy. If I had made an advance wager because I thought my horse would be alone on the lead. Then found out she was hard pressed by a horse wearing blinkers for the first time I would be livid. I would strongly argue the knowledge of the change could very easily changed the entire approach to my wager.

Remember we did give Cerin the option to run without them. It was his choice to scratch. Fair to Vlado? Certainly not. But sometimes a standard of justice that impacts thousands supersedes just one trainer or horse.

That sucks for them. I totally get that. Sometimes there isn't total justice for all. Our systems are inexact.

[johnhannibalsmith]

That's the perfect way to handle it, in my opinion. Really, if you made a change to equipment or medication it's going to be on the overnight or the blowoff of the past performances. If you're going to put in all the effort required to get a horse to a race, it isn't exactly an unreasonable expectation that owner/trainers look out for their own best interests and make sure something didn't get missed during proofing before or after the draw in the time before the final program is sent. Just about everyone can hardly wait to see the overnight, noticing that it says 'blinkers on' or 'L1' or whatever change you intended when you finally get your hands on one isn't any more challenging than anything else that goes into running a horse. I think that the Cal stew solution in your example is by far the most fair for everyone.

[mountainman]

The paddock judge gets paid to catch things like this.

[mountainman]

Most likely the trainer (or agent) forgot to say blinkers on when he entered the horse. Some places will let you change that before scratch time. I may have been in the program at the track and listed with the overweights & scratches.

I found this to see if it really makes a difference.

factor winners losers Win% ROI
================================================== ==============
blinkers on 193 384 33.4% 0.82
no blinkers changes 6591 11509 36.4% 0.86

total number of starters : 18677

I'm sure it's occurred to you, sir, that horses getting new blinks are less likely in good form than their "no change" counterparts.

[thespaah]

Tonight's finale at Penn. 8 MTP Bogar says late change the 9 has Blinkers On.


9 Wires the field.

How is that fair to the PICK 4, DD, P3 players?

Or to the players who bet and went out after checking the changes?

Another reason PA sucks in terms of Horse Racing.
On numerous occasions, I have seen where equipment changes do not make the program. The changes are announced before the beginning of the day's races. The information is made available.....
Now, i must as...Was this actually a 'late' change?....Of was it simply missed, not announced, announced and not heard?
Was this an "Attention please. Ladies and gentlemen. IN the ninth race there is an additional equipment change..."?

[Tom]

Hey, this industry can't time races, doesn't know how far races are actually run.
Why should we expect they could handle what equipment a horse is using? come on, this IS rocket science in an industry run by incompetents.

You have a saddle, a bit, stirrups, maybe 5-6 things.......what do you expect with those astronomical numbers?

2 out of 9 ain't bad.

[EMD4ME]

On numerous occasions, I have seen where equipment changes do not make the program. The changes are announced before the beginning of the day's races. The information is made available.....
Now, i must as...Was this actually a 'late' change?....Of was it simply missed, not announced, announced and not heard?
Was this an "Attention please. Ladies and gentlemen. IN the ninth race there is an additional equipment change..."?

I am 99% sure it was 1st announced at 8 MTP for the race and never before.

[thespaah]

I am 99% sure it was 1st announced at 8 MTP for the race and never before.
Have to wonder if there exists a rule addressing this....

[thespaah]

Here are the rules( 2) regarding equipment changes...
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/058/chapter163/s163.75.html
§ 163.75. Equipment changes.

(a) Permission for changes of equipment from that which a horse carried in his last race shall be obtained only from the stewards and shall be obtained before scratch time on the day when the horse is to run with changed equipment.

(b) Permission for a horse to add blinkers to his equipment or to discontinue the use of them shall be approved by the starter before being granted by the stewards.
Maybe the Starter was not available until the time announced?
In any event, it appears the rules in PA treat blinkers differently from "equipment"....
Don't shoot me....I'm just the messenger

[TonyK@HSH]

I am 99% sure it was 1st announced at 8 MTP for the race and never before.

I was at the races and the first time I heard the change was about 8 MTP. I believe it came to light when the trainer showed up to the paddock with blinkers on and the paddock judge told her they would have to be removed. The trainer then argued her position, involved the stewards and a decision was made.

[EMD4ME]

I was at the races and the first time I heard the change was about 8 MTP. I believe it came to light when the trainer showed up to the paddock with blinkers on and the paddock judge told her they would have to be removed. The trainer then argued her position, involved the stewards and a decision was made.

Boy, do I miss that 2nd floor overview of the paddock.

[Ruffian1]

Here are the rules( 2) regarding equipment changes...
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/058/chapter163/s163.75.html
§ 163.75. Equipment changes.

(a) Permission for changes of equipment from that which a horse carried in his last race shall be obtained only from the stewards and shall be obtained before scratch time on the day when the horse is to run with changed equipment.

(b) Permission for a horse to add blinkers to his equipment or to discontinue the use of them shall be approved by the starter before being granted by the stewards.
Maybe the Starter was not available until the time announced?
In any event, it appears the rules in PA treat blinkers differently from "equipment"....
Don't shoot me....I'm just the messenger


When you get approval from the starter it is gotten in the mornings during training hours. It is gotten by taking your horse to the gate and popping out of the gate to the satisfaction of the starter or whoever is in charge of the gate that day with the horse wearing the blinkers or if they are for blks. off, not wearing them. This happens days before or no later than the day of entry.
You tell them what you hope to get and if the horse does fine, they will grant it. It is not just asking the starter. If the horse does not break well, you won't get it.
To be clear, you request it, and if the horse performs well with or without the blinkers, you will be granted and handed a blinkers on, or off card. Or, they will turn the card in for you at the secretary's office prior to entry if you request it and there is time to do so before you enter.

Hope that helps.

[thespaah]

When you get approval from the starter it is gotten in the mornings during training hours. It is gotten by taking your horse to the gate and popping out of the gate to the satisfaction of the starter or whoever is in charge of the gate that day with the horse wearing the blinkers or if they are for blks. off, not wearing them. This happens days before or no later than the day of entry.
You tell them what you hope to get and if the horse does fine, they will grant it. It is not just asking the starter. If the horse does not break well, you won't get it.
To be clear, you request it, and if the horse performs well with or without the blinkers, you will be granted and handed a blinkers on, or off card. Or, they will turn the card in for you at the secretary's office prior to entry if you request it and there is time to do so before you enter.

Hope that helps.
Ok..Based on that, it looks like there was a screw up at Penn..

[EMD4ME]

Ok..Based on that, it looks like there was a screw up at Penn..

So, we're back to Post #1 :D :D :D

Just making a joke, thespaah, no offense meant :ThmbUp:

[thespaah]

So, we're back to Post #1 :D :D :D

Just making a joke, thespaah, no offense meant :ThmbUp:
I know.....
But, you are now most likely familiar with my style. I like to peel back the layers of the onion.....Some call that a 'troublemaker'..
:lol:

[EMD4ME]

I know.....
But, you are now most likely familiar with my style. I like to peel back the layers of the onion.....Some call that a 'troublemaker'..
:lol:

I LIKE that style! Keep it up.

After all, we're investing in a game where were looking to peel back past the obvious!

[TonyK@HSH]

Boy, do I miss that 2nd floor overview of the paddock.


Lol- so do I. Not a horseplayers design in my opinion. I believe they missed the opportunity to have a first class casino and racetrack

[EMD4ME]

Lol- so do I. Not a horseplayers design in my opinion. I believe they missed the opportunity to have a first class casino and racetrack


I believe their intent was to make sure no one could find the racetrack through the ugly racino.

[PaceAdvantage]

I'm trying to figure out how this phantom "addicted gambler" wandered into this mess. Poor guy can't catch a break, even when he had nothing to do with this :DReally, you can't figure it out? That's too bad I guess...