Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper
I agree with what you are saying, but the rule is not rigid. It's idiotic. It's basically saying that if the horse worked 5F in 58 flat he couldn't run. 
Someone mentioned that they should have gone to a superior to try to get a sign off because the horse certainly beat the 4F in 53 requirement based on the 5F time. That makes the most sense to me. But they also need to improve that rule. |
Who made this idiotic rule? In addition to the 4f only clause, why are bottom maiden claimers treated the same as G1 stakes horses? Why is the 25 lengths the baseline? Every horses in Secretariat's Belmont would have had to work to prove they weren't lame?
In the end, the horse did work 4f in 53 seconds. Work distance has always been kind of arbitrary. They had the actual 4f time. Could for once somebody in racing use some common sense?
