Races taken off turf? Horses should not be allowed to scratch

[ZippyChippy423]

If you are going to enter a horse in a turf race there should be a clause that the horse must compete if its switched to dirt. Its bad enough field size has shrunk in recent years but turf scratching has gotten out of control.

[elhelmete]

If you are going to enter a horse in a turf race there should be a clause that the horse must compete if its switched to dirt. Its bad enough field size has shrunk in recent years but turf scratching has gotten out of control.

Just. Stop.

[Thomas Roulston]

If you are going to enter a horse in a turf race there should be a clause that the horse must compete if its switched to dirt. Its bad enough field size has shrunk in recent years but turf scratching has gotten out of control.


LAST EXIT BEFORE TROLL

[Cratos]

If a horse has preference for running well on turf and for some reason the turf race which it is entered is switched from the turf course to the main track, the trainer/owner have a legitimate right to scratched the horse because it would be performing on a surface which it doesn’t perform well; and more importantly the bettors would be wagering on a horse whose performance might be compromised by the surface change and that would be unfair to the bettors.

[thaskalos]

The trainers are entitled to scratch their grass horses when the race moves off the turf...but the racetrack should also be entitled to drastically reduce the size of the race-purse...when the race is scratched down to a ridiculous number of starters. When a field of twelve horses is downsized to four...then a comparative reduction of the purse should also come into effect...IMO.

[Clocker]

If you are going to enter a horse in a turf race there should be a clause that the horse must compete if its switched to dirt.


You may be able to make a horse start in a race, but you can't make it compete. :rolleyes:

[v j stauffer]

If you are going to enter a horse in a turf race there should be a clause that the horse must compete if its switched to dirt. Its bad enough field size has shrunk in recent years but turf scratching has gotten out of control.


Enough already!:puke:

[ronsmac]

If a horse has preference for running well on turf and for some reason the turf race which it is entered is switched from the turf course to the main track, the trainer/owner have a legitimate right to scratched the horse because it would be performing on a surface which it doesn’t perform well; and more importantly the bettors would be wagering on a horse whose performance might be compromised by the surface change and that would be unfair to the bettors. The horses should be allowed to scratch but how is it unfair to the bettors?

[098poi]

Zippy are you related to SRU?

[ZippyChippy423]

Enough already? Its my opinion. But allowing horses to race with a zig zagged rail at KD is safe right? Any back to my opinion. Course services all the time and you dont see the excessive scratches. There are not many t-breds
in the country that *strickly* run on grass. These are very versitile animals. When they write these races they can see weather patters a
week in advance. Dont write so many turf races for that day.

[Fred Mertz]

When they write these races they can see weather patters a
week in advance. Dont write so many turf races for that day.


Do you know what a condition book is? Would The Farmer's Almanac be a good source for the weather outlook?

[Thomas Roulston]

At many tracks, if a carded turf race is taken off the turf, any horse that runs receives one of those "stars."

I would not only do that but carry it one step further: If the track condition for a carded dirt race is muddy or sloppy, any horse that runs receives one of those "stars" as well.

[Tom]

Blame the racing secretary for the scratches, not the trainers.
NYRA never looks at the weather channel??

6 of 9 today and 6 of 10 tomorrow carded for the turf.
What could go wrong? :rolleyes:

NY, fall, hurricane on the map for over a week now.....surprise! more garbage racing, Toga Part Deux. Some of the toga race were downright :puke: 5 horse field, 3 of them 30-40 lengths behind......truly a waste of time.

I know the weather can't be changed, but it can't be ignored, either. We are not in 60% turf racing climates around here this time of year.

[Redboard]

I feel your pain Zippy. I like the turf races the best and it sucks to pour over pps the night before only to see it go poof. But scratches have always been part of the package. Seabiscuit, for example, was routinely scratched on any type of wet surface.

[ZippyChippy423]

Exactly Tom! It’s been a very frustrating summer of scratches up here in the
northeast. Heavy rain was predicted weeks before races were written at Toga but of course the races came and went with numerous scratches.

[turfnsport]

Zippy's namesake actually ran better than he posts.

[jay68802]

The trainers are entitled to scratch their grass horses when the race moves off the turf...but the racetrack should also be entitled to drastically reduce the size of the race-purse...when the race is scratched down to a ridiculous number of starters. When a field of twelve horses is downsized to four...then a comparative reduction of the purse should also come into effect...IMO.

:headbanger:

[Thomas Roulston]

The trainers are entitled to scratch their grass horses when the race moves off the turf...but the racetrack should also be entitled to drastically reduce the size of the race-purse...when the race is scratched down to a ridiculous number of starters. When a field of twelve horses is downsized to four...then a comparative reduction of the purse should also come into effect...IMO.



How's this for an awesome, creative solution - the only kind of solutions I ever come up with :D -

Make the purse distribution for every race 55% to 1st (NYRA opened the door for this), 20% to 2nd, 10%, 5% to 4th, 1.8% to 5th, 1.4% to 6th, 1.2% to 7th, 1.1% to 8th, 1% to 9th, .9% to 10th, .8% to 11th, .7% to 12th, .6% to 13th, and .5% to 14th - and if there are less than 14 starters, the unearned shares "revert to the Association" as they say, which means that if there is a four-horse field due to scratches only 90% of the total purse is given out.

[castaway01]

The trainers are entitled to scratch their grass horses when the race moves off the turf...but the racetrack should also be entitled to drastically reduce the size of the race-purse...when the race is scratched down to a ridiculous number of starters. When a field of twelve horses is downsized to four...then a comparative reduction of the purse should also come into effect...IMO.

So the idea is to punish the trainers that DON'T scratch by cutting the purse for them? Gee, that should keep the fields full... :bang:

[castaway01]

:headbanger:

The purse money is coming out of your bank account? And why would you cut the purse for the trainers who actually run? You want full fields and you punish those who don't scratch?

Common sense ain't very common anymore....

[Thomas Roulston]

Many tracks already have "reverts to the Association" policies for very short fields, including the NYRA tracks. And these policies do not reduce the shares of the purse awarded to the horses that do run.

The scheme I came up three posts up is "reverts to the Association" on steroids.

[toddbowker]

When they write these races they can see weather patters a week in advance. Dont write so many turf races for that day.Most condition books are written for at least a two week period. They also need a few days for printing, and most tracks take entries 72 hours out. That means Condition books are actually written between 2-3 weeks in advance of the first day of the book, and therefore will be over a month before the last day of the book.

If Racing Secretaries could predict the weather that well, they'd make a lot more money as meteorologists.

For a short meet like KY Downs or Keeneland condition books can be written even further ahead than that. Even for long meets, the first book is always out well in advance, often times being released when stall apps go out so owners/trainers can know whether they want to ship (or which horses to send) there before applying for stalls.

Back in the "old days" it wasn't unusual for stewards to "stick" a horse that wanted to scratch (even when races came off the turf). They rarely do that now. At every track I ever worked at, any horse that stayed in when a race came off the turf got preference when running back (either a star or a preferred date).

[westny]

Zippy are you related to SRU?

I think he is"related" to EMDME...same nonsense, and a long time troll.

[thaskalos]

So the idea is to punish the trainers that DON'T scratch by cutting the purse for them? Gee, that should keep the fields full... :bang:

You make this same argument, along with the same head-banging emoji, every time I submit such a post. Does it seem logical to you that the race should carry the same purse when a full field is decimated to such an extent? I've seen grass races at Parx moved off the turf where only 2 horses have entered the starting gate instead of the scheduled 10. Should the winner of a match race be entitled to the same winner's share as that of a race scheduled for ten horses?

How would such a policy "punish the trainers that DON'T scratch"? When a trainer enters a horse...he should be entitled to said purse only when the race goes off according to the pre-race conditions. If the late scratches decimate the field...then the race-purse should get accordingly decimated as well. THAT'S how you keep the fields full, friend...not the other way around. The other way has already been tested...and it has failed MISERABLY.

[thaskalos]

The purse money is coming out of your bank account? And why would you cut the purse for the trainers who actually run? You want full fields and you punish those who don't scratch?

Common sense ain't very common anymore....

The "common sense" approach was argued by the horsemen during the racino legalization process. "The racino profits would be used to augment the purses", the horsemen said..."and the end result would be that the fields would subsequently get larger and more competitive". This assertion by the horsemen was the epitome of "common sense"...except for one minor technicality: It brought about the exact OPPOSITE aftereffect than what this "common sense" had predicted. It seems that, the higher the purses rise...the less frequently the horses run.

So...please spare me the "common sense" conversation. "Common sense", and horse racing...don't seem to go together.

[TonyK@HSH]

Why would a trainer/owner choose not to run a horse as often as possible, especially for higher purses? This is how both make money in this business.

Are we to believe that they choose to run less frequently because purses are higher? Assume there is a horse that starts 10 times this year and makes $100k, are we to believe the trainer/owner chooses not to run 20 times and earn $200k? What kind of business decision is that?

From my experience, horses are entered to run when they are ready to run regardless of purse size. The exception may be those competing at the highest levels. In this case, trainers/owners plan out a set of races and point to having the horse at peak condition for these elite races.

Tony K

[Nitro]

I’m trying to figure out why there are those (as players I assume) who have any concerns about a topic like this. I mean no matter what goes on in any particular race there a dozens of reasons why a race should simply be passed.

Are these types of races so prevalent that we’re left with nothing else to play? I doubt it.
As a player why should we concern ourselves with how the purse sizes are determined or distributed? That has absolutely nothing to do with our involvement in this game.
Do sports bettors let their wagers be impacted based on how much the individual team players are earning?

As far as I’m concerned if the majority of horse players would just avoid wagering on races like this there’s only one thing that’s impacted: The size of the betting pools. Eventually this form of boycott just might be recognized by those paying out those purses as losing propositions no matter what the take-out % might be. It shouldn’t take an MBA much to figure out what the take is when the pools are dramatically reduced. I say let those involved in that part of the game come to obvious conclusions based on the support (or lack there of ) demonstrated by their wagering patrons.

The reason why many things about the game that are continuously complained about never change for the better (or bettor) is because there’s no real unity among the betting population. Has there ever been a suggestion for a set of wagering rules that ALL bettors should follow so that together their voices would be heard based on the support they provide in form of the volume of betting dollars. Sure sounds like a pipe dream. Right!?

[thaskalos]

Why would a trainer/owner choose not to run a horse as often as possible, especially for higher purses? This is how both make money in this business.

Are we to believe that they choose to run less frequently because purses are higher? Assume there is a horse that starts 10 times this year and makes $100k, are we to believe the trainer/owner chooses not to run 20 times and earn $200k? What kind of business decision is that?

From my experience, horses are entered to run when they are ready to run regardless of purse size. The exception may be those competing at the highest levels. In this case, trainers/owners plan out a set of races and point to having the horse at peak condition for these elite races.

Tony K

If that's really the case, then...why were the horsemen so adamant in their conviction that the casino-assisted purses would lead to larger and more competitive fields? Were they just being INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING in order to make a more convincing argument, so they could get what they wanted all along, regardless of how this would ultimately affect the "quality" and 'competitiveness' of the sport? And...why did the ultra-short fields start proliferating right at the arrival of the augmented purses? Coincidence?

[bobphilo]

The trainers are entitled to scratch their grass horses when the race moves off the turf...but the racetrack should also be entitled to drastically reduce the size of the race-purse...when the race is scratched down to a ridiculous number of starters. When a field of twelve horses is downsized to four...then a comparative reduction of the purse should also come into effect...IMO.

The problem with that is that it only punishes the ones that don't scratch. The very ones you want to encourage to keep the field size intact.

[TonyK@HSH]

If that's really the case, then...why were the horsemen so adamant in their conviction that the casino-assisted purses would lead to larger and more competitive fields? Were they just being INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING in order to make a more convincing argument, so they could get what they wanted all along, regardless of how this would ultimately affect the "quality" and 'competitiveness' of the sport? And...why did the ultra-short fields start proliferating right at the arrival of the augmented purses? Coincidence?

The sad fact is that trainers/owners relish short fields as they provide an easier path to purse money. While it might be short sighted, they would rather compete in a small field vs a highly competitive 12 horse field. At the same time horseman realize that betting is proportionately higher as field size increases.

But IMO, the real culprit in short fields is due to a shortage of horses. Fewer horses are being bred. According to Jockey club stats, slightly more than 35,000 foals were registered in 2008. In 2018 about 22,000 foals were registered. Fewer horses available. The timing of this trend does coincide with the proliferation of racinos.

While many other factors come into play here, fewer available horses pose a big problem for this industry.

TonyK

[Robert Fischer]

Field size - At least at my favorite track, the track at which I play most of my bankroll, - 'NYRA', a good portion of the smaller fields are done on purpose.


Not saying that NYRA necessarily in all cases has said "let's build a 6 horse race! *rubs palms together in a Machiavellian caricature* muhahahahaha*, but as far as either building a 6 horse race or 'passing' and carding one less race? - Yes, then they are purposely choosing the 6 horse field. There's become a concession or if not an open concession, - a 'procession' that presents a 6 horse field with a straight face.

There are also enough times that the leading trainers have multiple horses within those 6 horse fields.

An easy example to remember was the Alydar Stakes at Saratoga this summer. What an UGLY race that was on paper. You have this FAKE $100K Blacktype Restricted-Stakes. Supposedly 17 nominations...
And you somehow end up with 2 Pletchers and 2 Browns in a 5 horse field. Were the other nominators idiots? Were they also 80% Brown/Pletcher/SameOwners ? Were they entered in better races? You'd think some more OC type horses would've ventured up in class to face 6 or 7 or 8 insider top trainers in some fake restricted stakes, right? Regardless, then there were five... The race is slightly easier to remember than a post-ambien'd cocktail only because the 5th horse; REALM, (the longest-shot-on-the-board for Tagg/Alvarado) won as a logical contender to reward the Handicappers, while the Public for some reason placed both Browns and both Pletchers on a pedestal. This tiny betting coup (can a small % of the pools that wasn't crushed, but merely covered by the wiseguys even be properly attributed 'coup'?) was the only thing that saved the race from being the forgotten vomit remnants of an intentionally-carded short field.

This ugly specific example aside, there were a lot of races that seemed to be fielded with at the very least - 'input' - from Trainers and Owners and which resulted in inadequate fields of 7,6, or less.

Not only do these garbage insider races pay a favor forward to the trainers and owners who hold such a strong market position, but they also funnel money into the PICK-5 and/or make the PICK-5 more playable. Whether this is a smart idea on the part of NYRA to boost their growing NYRA-BETS LATE PICK-5, and cater to the inputs/needs of their big P5 clientele while at the same time catering to their supertrainers/owners, or whether this was just a coincidence that happened to do so, - either way- , it worked out well for them. Expect to see more of the same, unless they are just random lucky zombies.

If you are a pick-3 player, or a spot player looking for playable races, you may be revolted at some of these 6 horse or 5 horse races, but they align with the incentives of the trainers/owners/p5-players.

Expect to see more of the same.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I feel your pain Zippy. I like the turf races the best and it sucks to pour over pps the night before only to see it go poof. But scratches have always been part of the package. Seabiscuit, for example, was routinely scratched on any type of wet surface.

I remember Leroy Jolley (Foolish Pleasure, Genuine Risk, General Assembly, Manilla) also would scratch his horses if there was any kind of moisture in the track.

[jay68802]

The reason why many things about the game that are continuously complained about never change for the better (or bettor) is because there’s no real unity among the betting population. Has there ever been a suggestion for a set of wagering rules that ALL bettors should follow so that together their voices would be heard based on the support they provide in form of the volume of betting dollars. Sure sounds like a pipe dream. Right!?

I have handicapped cards with you in the past, on this forum. We, as handicappers have a completely different styles or methods. We end up on the same horses once in a while, other times we see the races completely different. We would show the same differences of opinion on if a race should be bet or not. So the problem of having a united front as players becomes simple, we all have our own opinion and act accordingly. That said, I agree with you 100%, a united front as players would help send a very strong message to the tracks and horsemen. If a united front could be organized, but that is a big if.

[Tom]

It gets old fast, handicapping a couple of cards til the wee hours, then come an hour before post time, half the cards are scratched and 60% of the races are switched to the main track.

That is when Netflicks starts to look better than racing.

[Tom]

If a united front could be organized, but that is a big if.

Never happen. Even if it did, the Whales would still trump us all.
Racing here is not for players any more. It is for whales and picnicning families.

Care for a sandwich?

[bobphilo]

I remember Leroy Jolley (Foolish Pleasure, Genuine Risk, General Assembly, Manilla) also would scratch his horses if there was any kind of moisture in the track.

I remember Riva Ridge couldn't run if someone so much as spit on the track.
Absolutely floundered in the sloppy going in the Preakness.

[thaskalos]

It gets old fast, handicapping a couple of cards til the wee hours, then come an hour before post time, half the cards are scratched and 60% of the races are switched to the main track.

That is when Netflicks starts to look better than racing.

It's the 21st-century version of our favorite game. We have no idea as we handicap the night before, what the fields will look like at race-time. And we don't know as we place our wagers, what the eventual payoff will be...should we be fortunate enough to hold a winning ticket.

And the industry wonders why our interest in the game is in a perpetual state of decline. :faint:

[Redboard]

I think he is"related" to EMDME...same nonsense, and a long time troll.

Nah, I don't think so. Hasn't said anything about the Ortiz brothers.

[jay68802]

Never happen. Even if it did, the Whales would still trump us all.
Racing here is not for players any more. It is for whales and picnicning families.

Care for a sandwich?

Meatloaf sandwich with a little cream cheese, and a cold Bud. If you happen to forget the sandwich order, just remember the beer.

[thespaah]

LAST EXIT BEFORE TROLL

:headbanger::lol:

[thespaah]

The trainers are entitled to scratch their grass horses when the race moves off the turf...but the racetrack should also be entitled to drastically reduce the size of the race-purse...when the race is scratched down to a ridiculous number of starters. When a field of twelve horses is downsized to four...then a comparative reduction of the purse should also come into effect...IMO.

I would tend to agree. However, the surface switch is not necessarily the fault of the owners/trainer of the entrant. So if Mrts Nature decides today is "no fund day" , then why punish the connections?
Its an interesting concept though..
Now, a few years ago NYRA had a tiered purse structure for some races. If the number of starters was a certain amount or over, the purse would be paid as advertised. If fewer than that certain amount went, the advertised purse was lower.
This encouraged trainers to not only enter their horses, but to actually start them.
And I believe it cut down on "warehousing" of horses.

[thespaah]

The horses should be allowed to scratch but how is it unfair to the bettors?

Because the surface change may compromise the horse's ability to perform and thus bettors with less information or a lower level of expertise, would be betting on a horse or horses that have little chance of performing their best.

[thespaah]

The sad fact is that trainers/owners relish short fields as they provide an easier path to purse money. While it might be short sighted, they would rather compete in a small field vs a highly competitive 12 horse field. At the same time horseman realize that betting is proportionately higher as field size increases.

But IMO, the real culprit in short fields is due to a shortage of horses. Fewer horses are being bred. According to Jockey club stats, slightly more than 35,000 foals were registered in 2008. In 2018 about 22,000 foals were registered. Fewer horses available. The timing of this trend does coincide with the proliferation of racinos.

While many other factors come into play here, fewer available horses pose a big problem for this industry.

TonyK

BINGO!....Fewer foals means fewer runners.
And here we go with the contraction argument.
There are two diametrically opposed camps in this vein. Those that see the inevitability of fewer racing facilities and those who oppose this notion based on their perception of having fewer wagering opportunities.
The bottom line here is with 38% fewer registered foals than just ten years ago, one would have to think there should be a proportionate number of races carded. 38% fewer races.
Those wanting the same number of wagering opps want the same sized bucket of water. However, there is less water in the bucket. Who cares if the bucket is the same size? It is the amount of water in the bucket that matters.
In order to have a full bucket, the size of the bucket must shrink.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

It rains in Europe all the time and they still run turf races. Maybe it's because they know how to keep a turf course well drained.

[ronsmac]

Because the surface change may compromise the horse's ability to perform and thus bettors with less information or a lower level of expertise, would be betting on a horse or horses that have little chance of performing their best.So I guess any race with a first-time starter is unfair to the bettors, as well as any race with a horse trying Turf for the first time or stretching out in distance for the first time.

[castaway01]

BINGO!....Fewer foals means fewer runners.
And here we go with the contraction argument.
There are two diametrically opposed camps in this vein. Those that see the inevitability of fewer racing facilities and those who oppose this notion based on their perception of having fewer wagering opportunities.
The bottom line here is with 38% fewer registered foals than just ten years ago, one would have to think there should be a proportionate number of races carded. 38% fewer races.
Those wanting the same number of wagering opps want the same sized bucket of water. However, there is less water in the bucket. Who cares if the bucket is the same size? It is the amount of water in the bucket that matters.
In order to have a full bucket, the size of the bucket must shrink.

If you looked in the same book of stats, you'd see that there are almost exactly half as many races in a year as there were in 1990. In the United States, the number of races was 74,000, now it's 37,000. There's also been a 25% decline in just the last 10 years. So this already happened. The number of races a year is steadily and rapidly declining, yet field size has not gone up.

In this case the math is pretty simple. There are fewer foals and fewer races. The horses that do run, run less often in a year than they used to---also in the fact book (was 11 starts a horse 50 years ago, 8 starts a horse 25 years ago, now it's 6 starts). So, fields are still smaller.