Q about Saturday's Golden Gate's 7th race

[The_Knight_Sky]

http://i51.tinypic.com/akwjth.jpg

A sincere question for those with the Golden Gate pp's for Saturday.

a) How does #1 Sundance Kiddo qualify for this N1X allowance if he
has already tallied a N1X on January 23, 2010

b) How does #2 Richly Red qualify for this N1X allowance when he has
already won won a N1X on May 15, 2010.

c) How does #4 King Kelly qualify for this N1X allowance when he has
already won a N1X at Santa Rosa on July 31, 2010

The favored #6 Arrabiata coming off the maiden win at Santa Rosa
off the board facing these multiple winners. Something's not right here.

Was this a really a N2X but someone made a mistake in printing the conditions? Or something else?

[therussmeister]

It took me a long time to look this up; so I only did it for Sundance Kiddo. His January 23 victory was in an optional claiming race where he was entered to be claimed, which makes him still eligible.

[The_Knight_Sky]

It took me a long time to look this up; so I only did it for Sundance Kiddo. His January 23 victory was in an optional claiming race where he was entered to be claimed, which makes him still eligible.


Yes I see no (N) listed for Sundance Kiddo's win.
So he must have run for a tag that day.

The same would hold true for #4 King Kelly winning with a tag on July 31st.

That's two crossed off.
The third is still a mystery though.

#2 Richly Red won a N1X with a (N)
and yet he continues to run in a N1X after that win for five straight starts.

I would okay his participation if this was an optional claimer and he was running for a tag, but this race is not written like that.
What gives :confused:

[cj]

Isn't it odd that none of these horses have run in Cal bred races?

[Tom]

Was the purse of his NW1 win under the $10K winner's share?

[cj]

Was the purse of his NW1 win under the $10K winner's share?

I thought that might be the case, but I don't think that is possible looking at the PPs.

[RXB]

#2 Richly Red won a N1X with a (N)
and yet he continues to run in a N1X after that win for five straight starts.

I would okay his participation if this was an optional claimer and he was running for a tag, but this race is not written like that.
What gives :confused:

As a Cal-bred, he can win that N1X condition twice as a non-claiming entrant. A bit strange, for sure, but that's what it is. Can't remember exactly when they made that decision-- maybe two years ago?

[lamboguy]

in finger lakes they have similar conditions for new york breds, they have a condition of new yorks breds that have never won a new york bred race. most the horses that run in golden gate are cal breds same as finger lakes has new york breds.

[RXB]

Those are not the same conditions or same circumstances.

[Light]

I think this has to do with the various incentives to keep Ca bred horses in Ca. Regarding repeating a condition,here is an excerpt from the DMR website from the racing secretary:

Should a horse win a Cal-Bred first conditioned allowance race and next win an open second-conditioned allowance race, that horse shall remain eligibility for the open second-conditioned allowance race.

I suppose you can translate the same for the first and third conditioned allowance races as well.

http://www.dmtc.com/horsemen/conditionbook/static/racingsecretaryrulesprocedures.pdf

[shouldacoulda]

The way I am reading it is it is ignoring races where the win paid less than 10K$ (10K$ one time) or was a maiden claimer or starter allowance OR non winner of 2 races. I don't see where NW1 or claim price comes into play from these conditions.

[RXB]

Here's how I understand it to work:

If a Cal-bred horse has not won a state-bred N1X, it can win twice at the NoCal N1X level as a non-claiming entrant.

If a Cal-bred horse has won a state-bred N1X, it can only win once at the NoCal N1X level as a non-claiming entrant.

They rarely card state-bred allowances in NoCal, probably because it would become hell for people with horses bred outside the state to find an open N1X that would fill. So I think they made this change to appease the people who breed/own Cal breds on the NoCal circuit.

[The_Knight_Sky]

Should a horse win a Cal-Bred first conditioned allowance race and next win an open second-conditioned allowance race, that horse shall remain eligibility for the open second-conditioned allowance race.

I suppose you can translate the same for the first and third conditioned allowance races as well.

http://www.dmtc.com/horsemen/conditionbook/static/racingsecretaryrulesprocedures.pdf




Thanks guys. http://i56.tinypic.com/2zqr6v5.gif I vaguely remember the rule change from a few years back. I hadn't put too much attention to it until Saturday's race. It's clearly not your grandfather's N1X.

This has got to be a nightmare for the person who checks for eligibility for each allowance race at Golden Gate Fields. I suppose they have at their disposal more then 10 running lines of pp's to go by.

This also presents a problem for the horsemen.
The 3 year old maiden winners are forced to tackle seasoned veterans in a N1X race such as this.

I would assume that the multiple winners have an edge here, as opposed to the other tracks n1x races where the 3 year olds would be the ones to back on the class raise.

[Tom]

I think it is very confusing ( and very minor league) that they not print the actual conditinos of the race in the race conditions. :ThmbDown::ThmbDown::ThmbDown:

[cj]

I think it is very confusing ( and very minor league) that they not print the actual conditinos of the race in the race conditions. :ThmbDown::ThmbDown::ThmbDown:

NoCal is very minor league, but that isn't an excuse for not printing the exact conditions of the race.

[Light]

NoCal is very minor league,


It's not restricted to NoCal. Its goes for all Cal breds which means SoCal as well.