6/23 Hollywood Race 5 Eligibility Question

[Uncle Salty]

Race 5 at Hollywood today (6/23) was an N1X turf sprint. Conditions were as plain and standard as you could get for this type of race (NW of 10K other than maiden, claiming or starter or never won 2 races).

The 1 and the 4 have already won statebred allowance races on 3/17/11 and on 7/16/10 respectively. The winners cut for the race on 7/16 was $25K....the other one I'm not sure but he probably won a similar amount.

Would that not make both of these horses ineligible for this race, having already won over $10K in a race that was neither maiden, claiming, nor starter? Conditions don't mention anything about statebred races. I am probably just unaware of some common knowledge as it pertains to this type of race, but I have never come across this before. Is there some kind of waiver to these conditions that they don't list?

The 1 and the 4 happened to be the exacta of this race. Paid $44.00 for a $1...

[Uncle Salty]

No, each one of them had won 3 races.

The 1 had won Md SpWt, the statebred N1X allowance and a stakes race. The 4 had won a Md Claiming, a starter allowance, and the statebred N1X allowance.

[There was a reply when I posted this...]

[skipaway100]

This is not the first time this has happened at Hollywood this meet.

[PhantomOnTour]

Seems like they leave out the phrase "or restricted" in California. I checked a race at Pln that didn't have the above phrase in it's Alw conditions either...hmmm. Those two words mean that state bred wins don't count against a horses' eligibility. Both horses mentioned in the 1st post had won Cal bred races that seemingly would've made them ineligible.

Weird

[Uncle Salty]

Are they letting these horses in just fill out the fields? The race in question was a 10 horse field...not allowing the two of the in would have still left an 8 horse race.

[cnollfan]

I don't have the rules in front of me but a California-bred is allowed to run in an open N1X race in California after winning a Cal-bred N1X race. I don't think this exception applies to other state-bred winners running in California, e.g. a New-York bred who won a NY-bred N1X race in New York would not be eligible to run in an open N1X race in California.

I'm less sure of this one, but in Northern California, I believe a California-bred that wins an open N1X race is allowed to run again in a N1X race in Northern California.

[bob60566]

I don't have the rules in front of me but a California-bred is allowed to run in an open N1X race in California after winning a Cal-bred N1X race. I don't think this exception applies to other state-bred winners running in California, e.g. a New-York bred who won a NY-bred N1X race in New York would not be eligible to run in an open N1X race in California.

I'm less sure of this one, but in Northern California, I believe a California-bred that wins an open N1X race is allowed to run again in a N1X race in Northern California.
These are great observations twice now who is the benifiting from this information or letting it happen.
It seems is picked up after the race has been run OhOh
Mac:confused: :confused:

[johnhannibalsmith]

There is a clause, but I'm too lazy and sleepy to see if it actually applies to these starters. I was pretty sure there was something in the rules somewhere about Cal-bred N1x winners, but only did a little search to see if I could find it. So, for what its worth, there may be something else out there in the rules that applies to this case of eligibility if this particular clause doesn't cut the mustard.

...A Cal-Bred horse which wins a non-winners of $3,000 other than maiden or claiming, or two races, for Cal-Breds, shall remain eligible for that comparable open allowance race, provided that horse did not win a race other than claiming or starter following that Cal-Bred win. Once a horse has won the two first condition allowance races (Cal-Bred and open), then the Cal-Bred win will be disregarded in future allowance races for eligi-bility purposes only.

...

[Uncle Salty]

Hey guys, thanks for the input on this one. That was not something I was aware of and I'm surprised I haven't heard about this little loophole before, given how many books I've read on the sport and how much time I've spent lurking and posting (well, mostly lurking haha) on this site.

I tried looking through the handicapping books I have for any mention of this rule...the only thing I could find was a small blurb in Davidowitz's Betting Throroughbreds Allowance chapter about NY horses winning a statebred N1X and that not counting towards their N2L eligibility. Don't know if that pertains to CA-breds too.

Regardless, this could be a not-insignificant class advantage, wouldn't you say? Going on the conventional wisdom that KY, FL, and CA breds races are not really that much weaker than open allowances, this basically allows horses that are really N2X runners into an N1X race. Am I looking at this correctly?

[cnollfan]

Hey guys, thanks for the input on this one. That was not something I was aware of and I'm surprised I haven't heard about this little loophole before, given how many books I've read on the sport and how much time I've spent lurking and posting (well, mostly lurking haha) on this site.

I tried looking through the handicapping books I have for any mention of this rule...the only thing I could find was a small blurb in Davidowitz's Betting Throroughbreds Allowance chapter about NY horses winning a statebred N1X and that not counting towards their N2L eligibility. Don't know if that pertains to CA-breds too.

Regardless, this could be a not-insignificant class advantage, wouldn't you say? Going on the conventional wisdom that KY, FL, and CA breds races are not really that much weaker than open allowances, this basically allows horses that are really N2X runners into an N1X race. Am I looking at this correctly?

Yes. I like playing the Cal-bred N1X winners when they run in open N1X.