RULE CREATES SPECIAL CONDITION FOR LAYOFF HORSES

[rrbauer]

CHRB Press Release:

SACRAMENTO , CA – A new rule goes into effect Saturday in California allowing horses returning from layoffs of at least six months to be entered in claiming races in which they will be ineligible to be claimed, just one time, in an effort to encourage owners to give horses needed time off.

As originally proposed by the Thoroughbred Owners of California, to be eligible for the non-claiming option, the horse must be entered at a claiming level equal to or greater than the price for which it last started and must be returning from a layoff of at least 180 days.

“We would like to have horses have the opportunity to be rested, lengthening their career,” said TOC Director Tom Bachman in testimony before the Board. “It is to the owner’s advantage to be able to bring that horse back and run one time (and) not have to worry about somebody claiming the horse and taking advantage of the time and money spent in the rehab of the horse. It’s as simple as that.”

CHRB Chairman Richard B. Shapiro endorsed the concept and commented, “We’re trying to find a way to give the owner an incentive to put a horse out for some R&R. The owner’s made an investment in rehabilitating the horse and he doesn’t want to see that first time back he loses the horse and the investment.”

Vice Chairman John Harris commented that stopping on a horse, giving the horse ample time to recover from an injury, and then getting the horse back into racing can easily cost several thousand dollars. “Allowing a horse to run at the price it last ran may better encourage horses being returned to racing,” he explained. “It is good for all concerned. Longer term, I think we can do even more to encourage this area of good equine management.”

The Board conducted a public hearing and adopted this rule in May. The rule then passed review by the Office of Administrative Law and was filed with the Secretary of State, effective September 20, 2008.

Horses entered for the non-claiming option will be identified in the official program, and Equibase is taking steps to identify horses running for this condition in their past-performance lines beginning next month.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good idea?

[Tampa Russ]

Without giving it to much thought (often dangerous), seems like an okay thing to do.

[Cangamble]

I don't like this rule. It means a stake horse can potentially run for the cheapest claiming tag.
How are horse owners of cheap claimers supposed to be compete, it is hard enough to win a race when the horse is running for what it is worth.
Also, it could create very low odds payoffs in these situations as well.

[Tom]

Take a decent allowance horse, stick him for $10K, stiff him at 1-9 and clean up on a bet on something else.

Good idea. California racing doesn't stink enough, let's really cover it in horse poop.
:ThmbDown::ThmbDown::ThmbDown::ThmbDown::ThmbDown:

[banacek]

I don't like this rule. It means a stake horse can potentially run for the cheapest claiming tag.
How are horse owners of cheap claimers supposed to be compete, it is hard enough to win a race when the horse is running for what it is worth.
Also, it could create very low odds payoffs in these situations as well.

Doesn't this take care of it?

"the horse must be entered at a claiming level equal to or greater than the price for which it last started and must be returning from a layoff of at least 180 days."

[Tom]

Oopps. Missed that same level clause. :blush:

Cal racing sucks less now.

[DJofSD]

If I own a horse and it is entered into a race where one of these protected runners shows up, I would expect it to be well intended and I would expect my chances of getting a major part of the purse has just been lessened. I'd probably want to withdraw my horse and enter it in another race, avoiding the one that's returning and can't be claimed. So, by extension, I think if horses like these start showing up regularly, they'll end up running in short fields.

How far off base am I?

On the other end of things, how will this change the way trainers enter horses knowing they can lay it up for 6 months and a day then re enter it at the same level, protected from any possibility of a claim?

I guess I see lots of possibilites for more claimer games and handicapping just got a little more complicated.

Final comment: on the surface this looks like a good thing for owners and the TOC will be able to assert what a good thing they've done for their members. However, is there anything the CHRB can or should do for the bettors such as having the horse entered for purse money only and not be a part of the betting?

[Imriledup]

I don't like this rule either, a claiming race is a claiming race. You put the horse in for his value.

If you don't want the horse claimed, don't put him in a claiming race.

[Cangamble]

Doesn't this take care of it?

"the horse must be entered at a claiming level equal to or greater than the price for which it last started and must be returning from a layoff of at least 180 days."
Yep. I missed that line. I don't think it was in the original proposal, and I admit I didn't read the entire article posted.

[JustRalph]

Oopps. Missed that same level clause. :blush:

Cal racing sucks less now.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I like it as an experiment. Should be interesting to see it work for a season or two. I would think some owners are going to think that it might be a chance to steal some money when a horse doesn't run well off a layoff.

How is the form going to *denote these horses? That should be interesting

[Cangamble]

I don't like this rule either, a claiming race is a claiming race. You put the horse in for his value.

If you don't want the horse claimed, don't put him in a claiming race.
Lets say a horse is in for 20,000, the same price as his or her last race before an injury took place. Who is going to claim that horse for 20,000 or more anyway?

[rrbauer]

Lets say a horse is in for 20,000, the same price as his or her last race before an injury took place. Who is going to claim that horse for 20,000 or more anyway?

I would guess that given the coverage that workouts receive in California that the horse's workout regimen would speak for its condition and be influential as to its value upon returning to the races.

[Cangamble]

I would guess that given the coverage that workouts receive in California that the horse's workout regimen would speak for its condition and be influential as to its value upon returning to the races.
I'm just saying, it is highly unlikely that the horse will be claimed, unless it was claimed in its last race because it was supposedly trying to take a huge edge.

In Ontario, it would be a different story. Lots of horses are put away in the later fall months for the next year because they might be running sour or have been over raced.
And near the end of our season (November to early December) outfits take into account how much it costs to winter a horse and get it back into racing condition, so horses are usually running for lesser values than normal at that time.
And the season doesn't start up until early April, so if the rule came here, there might be a lot more claiming near the end of our season.

[Imriledup]

If you are an owner who feels that you put money into a horse and it was claimed first off the vacation, just go out and do that to someone else and 'trade' horses. If you lose money on boarding and training when the horse can't race, just claim someone else's layoff horse and you'll be back to square one again.

[JohnGalt1]

California has plenty of optional claiming races.

Doesn't that take care of this situation if a horse is entered without a claiming price?

[plainolebill]

In an optional claimer in Socal they're going to be (at a minimum) running against nw1x or 40000 claimers. If the horse has already won at that condition he has to be entered for a tag.

This is going to be larceny - a horse is going sour, drop him to where he can win, if he's claimed he's turned out on someone elses dime. If he's not claimed you've hopefully got the purse money and a free pass after a layoff.

[Niko]

Why not 60 or 90 days? Too many horses that would take advantage of it? If you lay a horse off 180 days it needs a lot more than just rest. Wouldn't short rests be better for the game. I don't say I agree with it, just wondering why 180 days. To "reward" an owner and trainer for an injured horse to steal a purse and maybe a bet for their trouble. Maybe we should just go with different handicaps and get rid of claiming races like other countries. Is there an explanation behind this anywhere?

I hope this is well thought through. No steroids, no claims...no ??-- and as a bettor you get to guess who's help or hindered by it all.

[borntoride]

Oh boy, another handicapping factor/angle. Can we make it MORE complicated?

Don't bet poly anyway, so as long as what happens in Cal. stays in Cal. I'm OK.

[Hosshead]

Why not just write more starter alw. races for these layoff horses?
Then none in the field can be claimed, and he already fits the condition of having raced for a certain claiming price or less previously. He still might steal the purse, but he'd be running against better horses and none of the others would have to take a chance of getting claimed.
Just a thought.

[jotb]

I like to know how many horses got claimed off a 180+ days layoff? If there were many horses that were claimed coming back first off that 6 month layoff, then how many of them ran at the same claiming level? How many of these horses ran for a higher claiming price off a 6 month layoff? I don't know too many trainers that claim horses off that type of layoff. It can be very tempting to take a horse off a 6 month layoff especially if the horse has nice running lines, numbers, or race conditions left, but given the fact they were on the shelf for 6 months will scare most trainers away.

Joe