Trainer protesting results

[Diagoras]

Jeremy Balan from BH:

Jason Jocher, who owned 2nd-place finisher Airfoil in the 6th race at Santa Anita (horse was claimed), says he is protesting the result. The basis of the protest is the contention that winning trainer Chuck Treece has more than 20 thoroughbred horses in his care in California.

[PoloUK6108]

Treece and Nunez (both had entries in this race) can be found up and down the Los Al quarter horse programs.

[Dave Schwartz]

Jeremy Balan from BH:

Jason Jocher, who owned 2nd-place finisher Airfoil in the 6th race at Santa Anita (horse was claimed), says he is protesting the result. The basis of the protest is the contention that winning trainer Chuck Treece has more than 20 thoroughbred horses in his care in California.

So, he is protesting an unfair playing field as a trainer?


What do you suppose the "fair" number should be?

LOL Clearly, he is a pure Californian.

[Fager Fan]

The race conditions specified that it was limited to trainers with 20 horses or less. The trainer appears to be right here, and it's ridiculous that the defense is that it's only "a guideline" and somehow doesn't really mean the trainer must have 20 horses or less.

It's a bad race condition anyway. It should be about the horses, not about the trainers.

[upthecreek]

Clm 10000b Purse $18,000 FOR FOUR YEAR OLDS AND UPWARD
THIS RACE RESTRICTED TO TRAINERS WITH 20 OR LESS HORSES IN THEIR CARE IN CALIFORNIA. Weight, 123 lbs. Non-winners Of A Race Since November 10 Allowed 2 lbs. Claiming Price $10,000

TVG's on air talent stated it was horses stabled at SA Obviouly wrong.

[cj]

So, he is protesting an unfair playing field as a trainer?


What do you suppose the "fair" number should be?

LOL Clearly, he is a pure Californian.

The conditions of the race were clear, and two trainers in the race were allowed to race despite clearly not meeting the printed conditions. It was the very first race with the new conditions. Obviously not much thought went into this.

[Tom]

Sounds like the trainer is 100% correct.
He should get a lawyer.

How do you come up with a condition like this and NOT even look at the entries for compliance?

Morons run that track.
Whe the hell is the racing secretary - and what was he drinking instead of doing his job?

Fire the bum.

[elhelmete]

So, he is protesting an unfair playing field as a trainer?


What do you suppose the "fair" number should be?

LOL Clearly, he is a pure Californian.
Nope.
It's in the condition book.

[elhelmete]

The conditions of the race were clear, and two trainers in the race were allowed to race despite clearly not meeting the printed conditions. It was the very first race with the new conditions. Obviously not much thought went into this.

No kidding! I find Hammerle's comments in the article to be breathtaking.

[jay68802]

Conditions are like like the distance of a race. They are guidelines and not meant to be exact. The solution will be the next time the conditions will read "ABOUT 20 horses in their care".

[Fager Fan]

Conditions are like like the distance of a race. They are guidelines and not meant to be exact. The solution will be the next time the conditions will read "ABOUT 20 horses in their care".

"About" would be 21 or 22. Not 35 or 60. It's hard to believe they're defending this or allowed the horses to run. If they couldn't fill the race, then scratch it and write new conditions.

[cj]

"About" would be 21 or 22. Not 35 or 60. It's hard to believe they're defending this or allowed the horses to run. If they couldn't fill the race, then scratch it and write new conditions.

It did draw 12, scratched down to 11, so filling wasn't an issue, at least this time.

[jay68802]

"About" would be 21 or 22. Not 35 or 60. It's hard to believe they're defending this or allowed the horses to run. If they couldn't fill the race, then scratch it and write new conditions.

And the next statement is obvious, that is your definition of "about". And yes it is hard to believe that they defend a lot of the things that happen in this sport.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Bad condition writing. Agree should be about the horse and not the trainers...this requires micro-analyses (by whom) to ascertain compliance...dollars to donuts the condition gets axed...

[onefast99]

I'm sure the forum lawyers will debate this one, what I see here it is pretty clear if you write a race and a horse doesn't fit the condition then you have to disqualify that horse from running, which is done all over the country many times a year. In the event the horse got into the race and won and it was missed by the racing secretary or the stewards, that horse should be disqualified and any and all horses moved up placement wise.

[oughtoh]

They came out and said the claiming horses at Los Al didn't count. I guess Los Al isn't in Ca. anymore.

[Fager Fan]

I'm sure the forum lawyers will debate this one, what I see here it is pretty clear if you write a race and a horse doesn't fit the condition then you have to disqualify that horse from running, which is done all over the country many times a year. In the event the horse got into the race and won and it was missed by the racing secretary or the stewards, that horse should be disqualified and any and all horses moved up placement wise.

I agree. I think CA has to eat this one. They need to disqualify the winner and place him last and move up the second-place horse. Then they need to give an amount equal to the purse to the DQd for taking the entry and now robbing them of the purse. It can come out of the racing secretary's pocket if they like.

[oughtoh]

It is the trainers duty to know if a horse can be entered or not depending on the race. He knew he had more than 20 horses. He should get nothing and everyone else should be moved up. The lossers like always are the bettors.

[jay68802]

They came out and said the claiming horses at Los Al didn't count. I guess Los Al isn't in Ca. anymore.

It is "almost" in Ca.

[onefast99]

I agree. I think CA has to eat this one. They need to disqualify the winner and place him last and move up the second-place horse. Then they need to give an amount equal to the purse to the DQd for taking the entry and now robbing them of the purse. It can come out of the racing secretary's pocket if they like.
The horse that won should be disqualified and the purse monies re-distributed. I don't see any difference if a horse tested positive for an illegal substance or this. Both carry the same weight. is he fighting the claim as well?

[oughtoh]

It would be interesting if the horse that came in first got claimed and then got disqualified because he shouldn't have been in the race. Then would the claim still be good?

[Tom]

Conditions are like like the distance of a race. They are guidelines and not meant to be exact. The solution will be the next time the conditions will read "ABOUT 20 horses in their care".

THIS~!:pound:

[onefast99]

It would be interesting if the horse that came in first got claimed and then got disqualified because he shouldn't have been in the race. Then would the claim still be good?This isn't your normal scenario where a horse is dq'd for interfering with another horse as that claim would still be good, and the positive out of that for the new barn is if the horse was in for a certain condition the new barn now gets to race for that condition as the horse didn't lose the condition.
This scenario is: was the horse actually allowed to race since it didn't meet the condition? If the stewards rule any other way but to take this horse down, the other owners and trainers in the race have a legitimate case against the track. Maybe someone who knows California racing rules can chime in.

[onefast99]

Conditions are like like the distance of a race. They are guidelines and not meant to be exact. The solution will be the next time the conditions will read "ABOUT 20 horses in their care".A condition is exactly that, it separates the fields into more competitive racing. Distance is sometimes not exact in longer distance racing where there have been modifications to the track as in a shoot or placement of the starting gate.

[arw629]

The track should pay the connections of the other horses the difference of what they should have gotten had the winner not run. They shouldn’t punish the winner bc it was the track’s error.

[iamt]

This wasn't a case of an unknown ineligible horse accidently slipping through the cracks, this was actually mentioned pre-race

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/225449/santa-anita-tries-out-new-conditions-to-retain-owners

Santa Anita wrote a race aiming for a condition in spirit, not in fact.

[cj]

This wasn't a case of an unknown ineligible horse accidently slipping through the cracks, this was actually mentioned pre-race

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/225449/santa-anita-tries-out-new-conditions-to-retain-owners

Santa Anita wrote a race aiming for a condition in spirit, not in fact.

Another case of not giving bettors all the information. I shouldn't have to read Bloodhorse to know the conditions of a race aren't really the conditions.

[iamt]

If they really want to implement what they are trying, the condition should be for trainers who have had fewer than x thoroughbred starters in races with a purse greater than $y in the past 6 or 12 months. That would allow the LA barns to enter in most cases while also stopping any larger out of operations shipping in.

Much like with their new MSWs, they would have been better served borrowing from NYRA and running a $150,000/$200,000 maiden claim with their auction restriction to stop well bred homebreds from entering.

[VigorsTheGrey]

It's an interesting question (regarding eligibility for the race), because the racing secretary can write any conditions he wants," said steward Scott Chaney. "Ultimately we decide eligibility, but we give a lot of deference to the guy who wrote the condition, in terms of what his intent was."

So, if the stewards have information that a horse entered does not fit the condition of the race—which in this case, is stated as "restricted to trainers with 20 or less horses in their care in California"—are they obligated to scratch the horse?

"Yes, if we know 100% (that the horse does not fit the condition)," said steward Grant Baker.

Bloodhorse article cited above

[HuggingTheRail]

Maybe someone who knows California racing rules can chime in.

Heads or Tails, they use a quarter...

[theiman]

There was a horse about 5-6 years ago, at Hollywood Park, DQ'd after the race was official because he wasnt eligible for the condition.
I believe it was a Paul Aguirre trained horse who had a race at Turf Paradise in the Maiden OC $30K condition. I dont remember all of the details but I think he was entered in the straight maiden portion at Turf Paradise and it turns out the DRF lines and/or the horses papers showed he was entered for the claiming $30K portion. This made him eligible for a starter allowance in So Cal, which he won. Stewards got a tip after the race was run and official, that he was never in the claiming portion of the race at Turf P. I guess the stewards investigated and DQ'd him from the purse.

[Tom]

Heads or Tails, they use a quarter...

You sure it's not a Loonie?

[Fager Fan]

The horse that won should be disqualified and the purse monies re-distributed. I don't see any difference if a horse tested positive for an illegal substance or this. Both carry the same weight. is he fighting the claim as well?

This is different because the track knew beforehand that he didn't meet the conditions but allowed him to run. That's why I don't hold the trainer responsible. While the horse must still come down, in my opinion, and the second place horse be declared the winner and paid the purse, I'd let the owner of the DQd horse also keep the winnings since they used up a race on this horse. I see this as entirely the track's fault.

[onefast99]

This is different because the track knew beforehand that he didn't meet the conditions but allowed him to run. That's why I don't hold the trainer responsible. While the horse must still come down, in my opinion, and the second place horse be declared the winner and paid the purse, I'd let the owner of the DQd horse also keep the winnings since they used up a race on this horse. I see this as entirely the track's fault.In a perfect world this would be the outcome, but since we have so many chiefs and very few Indians those who are in charge seem to "wait" long periods of time to decide these matters. That in itself makes all of those involved in this game very suspicious.

[Dave Schwartz]

The conditions of the race were clear, and two trainers in the race were allowed to race despite clearly not meeting the printed conditions. It was the very first race with the new conditions. Obviously not much thought went into this.

That seemed to be left out of the original post.

So, who can blame the guy for suing?

[jeebus1083]

Most of the horses in Charles Treece's care are Quarter Horses. If the race in question is a Thoroughbred race, and Treece doesn't have more than 20 head in his barn of Thoroughbreds, then in my opinion, Treece did not violate "the spirit of the rules" here. When was the last time Santa Anita ran a Quarter Horse race?

Of course, you can argue that the wording of the condition was poor (it never specified any particular breed). However, if Treece was a Standardbred conditioner with over 20 head, and suddenly entered a Thoroughbred, could this trainer have had grounds for a protest, especially since Standardbreds don't compete against Thoroughbreds?

[elhelmete]

Most of the horses in Charles Treece's care are Quarter Horses. If the race in question is a Thoroughbred race, and Treece doesn't have more than 20 head in his barn of Thoroughbreds, then in my opinion, Treece did not violate "the spirit of the rules" here. When was the last time Santa Anita ran a Quarter Horse race?

Of course, you can argue that the wording of the condition was poor (it never specified any particular breed). However, if Treece was a Standardbred conditioner with over 20 head, and suddenly entered a Thoroughbred, could this trainer have had grounds for a protest, especially since Standardbreds don't compete against Thoroughbreds?

Treece has over 20 TBs in his barns, pretty well known.

[upthecreek]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/more/la-sp-horse-racing-newsletter-20180112-htmlstory.html?utm_source=Horse+Racing&utm_campaign=be9b2a051b-HORSE_RACING_NEWSLETTER&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f97a24dcb5-be9b2a051b-82323621

[ultracapper]

There was a horse about 5-6 years ago, at Hollywood Park, DQ'd after the race was official because he wasnt eligible for the condition.
I believe it was a Paul Aguirre trained horse who had a race at Turf Paradise in the Maiden OC $30K condition. I dont remember all of the details but I think he was entered in the straight maiden portion at Turf Paradise and it turns out the DRF lines and/or the horses papers showed he was entered for the claiming $30K portion. This made him eligible for a starter allowance in So Cal, which he won. Stewards got a tip after the race was run and official, that he was never in the claiming portion of the race at Turf P. I guess the stewards investigated and DQ'd him from the purse.

Yes. I remember this race very well, and we actually discussed it on the board a year or two ago. It was indeed Aguirre, and the scenario you laid out is exactly what happened...except, in the form, it showed that the horse had not run for the tag with the N right there designating that the horse had not been eligible to be claimed, therefore running, and winning, under MSW conditions for the race. This was when the StAlN2L was for horses that had broken maiden at $40,000 or less, rather than the way the condition is written now, for horses that have run for $40,000 or less. Aguirre lost the purse a couple months later.

Here's another instance, from just the past week or two, showing all the things a trainer will do to get his horse in a favorable situation, and the stewards needing to be alert and ready to act. Cerin entered a horse in a StAl eligible to horses that had run for $12,500 or less and had not won a race since. His horse had been entered at EMD (if I'm not mistaken) in a claiming race priced at $15,000 back to $12,500. However, it had been the first race this horse had been entered in for about a year, and was eligible for the claiming waiver allowance, so therefore the horse was not eligible to be claimed in that $15k back. Cerin entered in the StAl, stating the race at EMD was open to horses for a tag of $12,500, and since this horse was ineligible to be claimed, wanted his horse to be considered entered in that race for $12,500, therefore making him eligible for the StAl race. The stewards must have just said to themselves, we're taking the easy road here and just scratching him as there is no real way to determine whether the horse was a $15k claimer or a $12,500 claimer in that EMD race since the horse had run under the waiver allowance.

The "20 head or less" condition is stupid. It's just a lame condition. They're trying to help the smaller outfits, and Treece qualifies in that way. But to help those outfits, they'll need to write it differently. It's a noble effort, if they can get it right.

I don't mind a "home-bred" MSW condition near as much, if the condition ever took hold. However, in Cali, the state-bred races are stuffed with home-breds as it is. Even Cali breds that sell at auction, for the most part, aren't really going anywhere but to the local circuit, but a home-bred, state-bred condition could potentially encourage breeding and running in the state. Just a home-bred condition would still get filled with Pegrams and Zayats and those Ky types when they're trying to accommodate the Ziebarths, Warrens, Tommytowns and Reddams.