D.Q.&Purse redistribution,Hollywood

[rwwupl]

Sunday,6-26-11

"Doc Can Dance" was disqualified from the 7th at Hollywood after being declared not eligible.

All purse money redistributed and the winner was declared to be "Preferred Behavior"

Pari-mutuel payouts are not affected and remain the same.

See website below for more info.

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/Stewards/Minutes/Minutes_Hollywood_Park/Minutes_HP_11_07_03.pdf


YES, I had "Prefered Behavior"

rw

[Spalding No!]

YES, I had "Prefered Behavior"

rw

You thought he could beat "Doc Can Dance"?

[rwwupl]

You thought he could beat "Doc Can Dance"?



Uhhh, I guess not. :) Foolish me.

[cj]

I don't see how anyone having the runner up can complain. They had PPs with the winner in them and could have bet him just like any other horse.

[Stillriledup]

I don't see how anyone having the runner up can complain. They had PPs with the winner in them and could have bet him just like any other horse.

Completely agree. The DQ of DCD was an administrative situation, the horse wasnt illegally drugged, everyone had access to the same exact PPs, his being 'ineligible' didnt mean he was 'far superior' to the other runners, if he was he would have been 2-5.

[takeout]

They should put the reason for the DQ in the result chart. Anyone noticing it at any point in the future will assume it was a drug positive. They have to go back into the chart to put the DQ in anyway.

[jotb]

I'm sorry but this DQ is absurd...If anything the horse should've been scratched on race day...Shame on the racing office, trainer, and owners of this horse..I would think a trainer would discuss with the owners what race they were pointing towards which is in the condition book..Apparently, both the trainer and owner didn't read the race conditions..."FOR 3YO'S WHICH HAVE BROKEN THEIR MAIDENS FOR A CLAIMING PRICE OF 40K OR LESS AND WHICH HAVE NEVER WON TWO RACES" Neither the trainer or owner knew he broke his maiden NOT for a tag back in Jan.

However, it's possible they THOUGHT they ran the horse for 30k in JAN given the fact they ran the horse 5 previous times for a MDN32K..If the connections were willing to lose the horse for 32k, I guess losing the horse for 30k would be no big deal..Right? I guess back in Jan. someone screwed up the entry and it went unnoticed on the overnight and in the program by the trainer and owner that he wasn't in for the "claiming price of 30k"..This could be the reason why they thought they were elgible for the race on June 10th..


Now the connections enter this horse on June 10th and it slips right through the racing office..When this horse was entered the program they use when taking entries should immediately show the horse was not eligible for the race..Does the program only recognize the horse won only one race and the entry goes through? That would mean the program they use when taking entries doesn't read the whole entry description where in this case would imediately kick the entry out of the system..If the program picks up the inelgibilty immediately on the horse then the person taking the entry needs to go back and look at the pp's on the horse to see why he's not elgible..

With all of this the horse ran anyway..Wins the race and finally someone takes notice the horse was never elgible for the race after the race is over..

[Stillriledup]

I'm sorry but this DQ is absurd...If anything the horse should've been scratched on race day...Shame on the racing office, trainer, and owners of this horse..I would think a trainer would discuss with the owners what race they were pointing towards which is in the condition book..Apparently, both the trainer and owner didn't read the race conditions..."FOR 3YO'S WHICH HAVE BROKEN THEIR MAIDENS FOR A CLAIMING PRICE OF 40K OR LESS AND WHICH HAVE NEVER WON TWO RACES" Neither the trainer or owner knew he broke his maiden NOT for a tag back in Jan.

However, it's possible they THOUGHT they ran the horse for 30k in JAN given the fact they ran the horse 5 previous times for a MDN32K..If the connections were willing to lose the horse for 32k, I guess losing the horse for 30k would be no big deal..Right? I guess back in Jan. someone screwed up the entry and it went unnoticed on the overnight and in the program by the trainer and owner that he wasn't in for the "claiming price of 30k"..This could be the reason why they thought they were elgible for the race on June 10th..


Now the connections enter this horse on June 10th and it slips right through the racing office..When this horse was entered the program they use when taking entries should immediately show the horse was not eligible for the race..Does the program only recognize the horse won only one race and the entry goes through? That would mean the program they use when taking entries doesn't read the whole entry description where in this case would imediately kick the entry out of the system..If the program picks up the inelgibilty immediately on the horse then the person taking the entry needs to go back and look at the pp's on the horse to see why he's not elgible..

With all of this the horse ran anyway..Wins the race and finally someone takes notice the horse was never elgible for the race after the race is over..

So this is what happened. The racetrack makes a mistake and the connections are the one who get punished.

[jotb]

I guess so...

[FenceBored]

So this is what happened. The racetrack makes a mistake and the connections are the one who get punished.

The connections made a mistake first by entering a horse who was ineligible. The racing secretary's office made the mistake of not catching the connection's mistake. Why should the connections of the place horse, who met the race conditions and would have been the winner had the ineligible horse not been there, be penalized for the mistakes of others?

[jotb]

The connections made a mistake first by entering a horse who was ineligible. The racing secretary's office made the mistake of not catching the connection's mistake. Why should the connections of the place horse, who met the race conditions and would have been the winner had the ineligible horse not been there, be penalized for the mistakes of others?


How did the "place horse" get penalized? The winner's purse was taken away..If anybody was penalized it was the horseplayer especially those who wagered on the place horse to win..

[FenceBored]

How did the "place horse" get penalized? The winner's purse was taken away..If anybody was penalized it was the horseplayer especially those who wagered on the place horse to win..

Stillriledup was saying Doc Can Dance's connections should have been allowed to keep the purse money. I'm saying that that outcome (which is not the one that did occur) would have punished the eligible horses' connections.

The horseplayers will get screwed in any post-raceday DQ until all wagering is done through accounts and they demand that redistribution of purses should include redistribution of payouts. Of course, someone will then invoke Irregular Rule of Racing no. 76.

[jotb]

Stillriledup was saying Doc Can Dance's connections should have been allowed to keep the purse money. I'm saying that that outcome (which is not the one that did occur) would have punished the eligible horses' connections.

The horseplayers will get screwed in any post-raceday DQ until all wagering is done through accounts and they demand that redistribution of purses should include redistribution of payouts. Of course, someone will then invoke Irregular Rule of Racing no. 76.


My mistake...True on the 2nd part..

[duncan04]

The horseplayers will get screwed in any post-raceday DQ until all wagering is done through accounts and they demand that redistribution of purses should include redistribution of payouts. Of course, someone will then invoke Irregular Rule of Racing no. 76.


Dumbest thing I've ever heard!

[FenceBored]

Dumbest thing I've ever heard!

Go watch CSPAN for awhile.

[Stillriledup]

The connections made a mistake first by entering a horse who was ineligible. The racing secretary's office made the mistake of not catching the connection's mistake. Why should the connections of the place horse, who met the race conditions and would have been the winner had the ineligible horse not been there, be penalized for the mistakes of others?

Because the race office is ultimately responsible for who's running in their races and in this example, the connections of the wrongly entered horse are footing 100% of the blame, while the race office is footing 0% of the blame.

Also, the connections of the place horse had ample opportunity to say something before the race, these races are drawn 2 or 3 days in advance, if they were running against a horse that they didnt want to run against, they had plenty of time to say something.

[FenceBored]

Because the race office is ultimately responsible for who's running in their races and in this example, the connections of the wrongly entered horse are footing 100% of the blame, while the race office is footing 0% of the blame.

Also, the connections of the place horse had ample opportunity to say something before the race, these races are drawn 2 or 3 days in advance, if they were running against a horse that they didnt want to run against, they had plenty of time to say something.

Which is it:
A) "race office is ultimately responsible" or
B) connections of [other] horses had ample opportunity to say something before the race, i.e. need to police entries for non-conformance?

Cause if it's (A) I can't see many owners/trainers spending their time making sure the other horses in the race meet the conditions (not sure the race office would look fondly on somebody who kept bringing these to their attention under those circumstances).

And if it's (B) then the connections of Doc Can Dance had primary responsibility for making sure their horse met the conditions, other connections at best had a secondary responsibility, and the race office could just sit back and munch popcorn watching the infighting.

But, to make you happy I'll say what needs to be said: Bad race secretary, bad!! No peppermint for you.

[jotb]

Which is it:
A) "race office is ultimately responsible" or
B) connections of [other] horses had ample opportunity to say something before the race, i.e. need to police entries for non-conformance?

Cause if it's (A) I can't see many owners/trainers spending their time making sure the other horses in the race meet the conditions (not sure the race office would look fondly on somebody who kept bringing these to their attention under those circumstances).

And if it's (B) then the connections of Doc Can Dance had primary responsibility for making sure their horse met the conditions, other connections at best had a secondary responsibility, and the race office could just sit back and munch popcorn watching the infighting.

But, to make you happy I'll say what needs to be said: Bad race secretary, bad!! No peppermint for you.


I guess it depends what's written in the condition book track rules..I can say for sure that in the Charles Town race condition book it says," Owners and trainers are solely responsible for their horse's eligibility in races when they enter". Another track rule is "Owners and trainers must be careful to claim allowances at the time of entry, and state penalties, and are solely responsible if a horse starts with the incorrect weight and is therefore disqualified". I'm not sure what the track rules are at Hollywood but I would think the same rules apply there as well..

Could this have been avoided? Absolutely!!!! The problem is the "program" they are using when taking entries..I would think the program is from Equibase..If a trainer enters a horse in a MSW but has already won a race the entry will not go through..The program picks this up immediately..Now the person taking the entry over the phone or in the racing office will inform the trainer the horse is not eligible for the race..In the case of Doc Can Dance it's a bit different because the program shows the horse won only one race..It does not identify that he won the maiden race without the claiming tag which is what the horse needed to get into the race.."FOR 3YO'S WHICH HAVE BROKEN THEIR MAIDENS FOR A CLAIMING PRICE OF 40K OR LESS AND WHICH HAVE NEVER WON TWO RACES"

I'm pretty sure that Hollywood Park is aware of this little problem..If the entry clerk just took the time to make sure the horse broke its maiden for less then 40k then this does not happen..It takes less than a minute to check..If the track rules are the same at Hollywood as CT, then the connections don't have a leg to stand on.. I just can't believe that nobody picked this up before the horse ran..Entries are taken several days before..The racing office puts out the pp's for the race the same day the overnight comes out..I can't believe none of the agents,trainers, racing sec.,or stewards pick this up..

[Stillriledup]

I guess it depends what's written in the condition book track rules..I can say for sure that in the Charles Town race condition book it says," Owners and trainers are solely responsible for their horse's eligibility in races when they enter". Another track rule is "Owners and trainers must be careful to claim allowances at the time of entry, and state penalties, and are solely responsible if a horse starts with the incorrect weight and is therefore disqualified". I'm not sure what the track rules are at Hollywood but I would think the same rules apply there as well..

Could this have been avoided? Absolutely!!!! The problem is the "program" they are using when taking entries..I would think the program is from Equibase..If a trainer enters a horse in a MSW but has already won a race the entry will not go through..The program picks this up immediately..Now the person taking the entry over the phone or in the racing office will inform the trainer the horse is not eligible for the race..In the case of Doc Can Dance it's a bit different because the program shows the horse won only one race..It does not identify that he won the maiden race without the claiming tag which is what the horse needed to get into the race.."FOR 3YO'S WHICH HAVE BROKEN THEIR MAIDENS FOR A CLAIMING PRICE OF 40K OR LESS AND WHICH HAVE NEVER WON TWO RACES"

I'm pretty sure that Hollywood Park is aware of this little problem..If the entry clerk just took the time to make sure the horse broke its maiden for less then 40k then this does not happen..It takes less than a minute to check..If the track rules are the same at Hollywood as CT, then the connections don't have a leg to stand on.. I just can't believe that nobody picked this up before the horse ran..Entries are taken several days before..The racing office puts out the pp's for the race the same day the overnight comes out..I can't believe none of the agents,trainers, racing sec.,or stewards pick this up..

This 'disclaimer' that you speak of about owners being 'solely responsible' might be similar, legally, to a business owner putting up the sign that says "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"

Legally, the business owner might have a problem if they refuse someone based on race or religion or some other situation that gets them in hot water. Sure, the sign reads nice, but how strong is it legally. Would a court system outside of 'racing rules' rule in favor of the track if the track accepted a wrong entry because of some made up rule that the track just decided to go with?

Too bad this wasn't a Jerry Jam horse that got DQ'd because than we would see what the US judicial system has to say about stripping the purse money after the race track OK'd the entry.