Trainer protesting results
 

Jeremy Balan from BH:

Jason Jocher, who owned 2nd-place finisher Airfoil in the 6th race at Santa Anita (horse was claimed), says he is protesting the result. The basis of the protest is the contention that winning trainer Chuck Treece has more than 20 thoroughbred horses in his care in California.

Treece and Nunez (both had entries in this race) can be found up and down the Los Al quarter horse programs.

So, he is protesting an unfair playing field as a trainer?


What do you suppose the "fair" number should be?

LOL Clearly, he is a pure Californian.

The race conditions specified that it was limited to trainers with 20 horses or less. The trainer appears to be right here, and it's ridiculous that the defense is that it's only "a guideline" and somehow doesn't really mean the trainer must have 20 horses or less.

It's a bad race condition anyway. It should be about the horses, not about the trainers.

Actual conditions
 

Clm 10000b Purse $18,000 FOR FOUR YEAR OLDS AND UPWARD
THIS RACE RESTRICTED TO TRAINERS WITH 20 OR LESS HORSES IN THEIR CARE IN CALIFORNIA. Weight, 123 lbs. Non-winners Of A Race Since November 10 Allowed 2 lbs. Claiming Price $10,000

TVG's on air talent stated it was horses stabled at SA Obviouly wrong.

The conditions of the race were clear, and two trainers in the race were allowed to race despite clearly not meeting the printed conditions. It was the very first race with the new conditions. Obviously not much thought went into this.

Sounds like the trainer is 100% correct.
He should get a lawyer.

How do you come up with a condition like this and NOT even look at the entries for compliance?

Morons run that track.
Whe the hell is the racing secretary - and what was he drinking instead of doing his job?

Fire the bum.

Nope.
It's in the condition book.

No kidding! I find Hammerle's comments in the article to be breathtaking.

Conditions are like like the distance of a race. They are guidelines and not meant to be exact. The solution will be the next time the conditions will read "ABOUT 20 horses in their care".

"About" would be 21 or 22. Not 35 or 60. It's hard to believe they're defending this or allowed the horses to run. If they couldn't fill the race, then scratch it and write new conditions.

It did draw 12, scratched down to 11, so filling wasn't an issue, at least this time.

And the next statement is obvious, that is your definition of "about". And yes it is hard to believe that they defend a lot of the things that happen in this sport.

Bad condition writing. Agree should be about the horse and not the trainers...this requires micro-analyses (by whom) to ascertain compliance...dollars to donuts the condition gets axed...

I'm sure the forum lawyers will debate this one, what I see here it is pretty clear if you write a race and a horse doesn't fit the condition then you have to disqualify that horse from running, which is done all over the country many times a year. In the event the horse got into the race and won and it was missed by the racing secretary or the stewards, that horse should be disqualified and any and all horses moved up placement wise.