Waiver Claiming can anyone explain ?? -- Belmont 1st race

[TheOracle]

Does any one know what is Waiver Claiming?

I just saw it in the 1st at Belmont today. Does anyone know what type of race/class this is now?

If I didn't know any better I would swear they are making things more confusing on purpose.

I hope it's just a typo in the results chart.

[Tom]

I believe it is that a horse can run free from the claim in its first start back off of a lay off. There might be restrictions as to the price, but that is the gist of it. Myself, I see the word waiver and move along. No interest in convoluted conditions that favor owners instead of bettors.

[Saratoga_Mike]

What Tom said -- at Delaware Park the layoff must be 180 days or more and the horse must be entered in a claimer at or greater the price of his last claiming race. I don't know the required days off at NYRA for the waiver?

The rule was actually instituted to encourage owners/trainers to give horses that have problems time off (with the waiver, you don't risk losing the horse off a layoff). I think it's a good rule, and it doesn't hurt bettors in anyway (beyond the initial confusion of understanding it).

[Shemp Howard]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

What Tom said -- at Delaware Park the layoff must be 180 days or more and the horse must be entered in a claimer at or greater the price of his last claiming race. I don't know the required days off at NYRA for the waiver?

The rule was actually instituted to encourage owners/trainers to give horses that have problems time off (with the waiver, you don't risk losing the horse off a layoff). I think it's a good rule, and it doesn't hurt bettors in anyway (beyond the initial confusion of understanding it).

NYRA same days off as Delaware and California.

[Tall One]

Originally Posted by Saratoga_Mike

The rule was actually instituted to encourage owners/trainers to give horses that have problems time off (with the waiver, you don't risk losing the horse off a layoff). I think it's a good rule, and it doesn't hurt bettors in anyway (beyond the initial confusion of understanding it).

Unless the trainer has shown a knack for firing off the bench, you could consider(guess) that the W horse(s) are those just getting a race today.

Also, next race out, you'd notice the indicator, and judge accordingly for today.


Maybe some things to consider here, Tom.

[Tom]

It outright does not benefit the bettors, so I prefer to suspect some kind of chicanery is afoot and not bet them.

I am not very trusting of the industry at all.

[Donttellmeshowme]

I dont like the rule at all. If your a trainer worth anything you should be able to get the horse to win off the layoff. Trainers do it all the time. If you cant win off the layoff then bump the horse up in value where nobody will claim the horse. Pretty much the same thing as waiver claiming when you bump up.

[Appy]

"Pretty much the same thing as waiver claiming when you bump up."

No it isn't. Bumping up you are asking the horse to compete at a higher level than he was before the layoff and still risk losing your horse to claim.
A reasonable alternative might be to find a lower level Allowance (or optional claim where if not running for a tag the horse will carry more weight) in order to run protected, but you're still likely running against tougher competition than whatever your last claim/condition level was.

I don't understand why anyone would think such a minor variance to protect an owner from losing his horse is a slight against betters. It isn't at all unusual for a horse to need one or more starts after layoff to resume his best racing form.

[therussmeister]

Originally Posted by Appy

"Pretty much the same thing as waiver claiming when you bump up."

No it isn't. Bumping up you are asking the horse to compete at a higher level than he was before the layoff and still risk losing your horse to claim.
A reasonable alternative might be to find a lower level Allowance (or optional claim where if not running for a tag the horse will carry more weight) in order to run protected, but you're still likely running against tougher competition than whatever your last claim/condition level was.

I don't understand why anyone would think such a minor variance to protect an owner from losing his horse is a slight against betters. It isn't at all unusual for a horse to need one or more starts after layoff to resume his best racing form.

I fail to see what's the big deal.

[Tom]

The idea of claiming races is to add some risk to placing your horse.
Why don't you race him in a higher level or in an allowance race?
IT might not be a big slight but is no help at all, and that is all that matters.
People have been racing lay off horses in claimers for decades.
Now you can't do it any more?

[Appy]

My idea of the reasoning behind claiming races is to provide insurance that the game is open to all rather than just a sport for "kings", AND to provide avenue for distributing purse money to horses that cannot compete at higher levels. This is important as it creates value for horses regardless of competition level.

Unfortunately claiming races also provided an outlet for unscrupulous owners and/or trainers to unload a defective horse on unsuspecting claim buyers. Thankfully in recent years there have been a few tweaks implemented in the claiming process designed to protect buyers.

Betters are generally considered to be gamblers. People who gamble should understand there are risks inherent to that undertaking. Whether or not a horse is available to be claimed doesn't seem like much of a risk when knowing the horse is competing at a familiar level. In contrast, gamblers WELCOME the sight of horses dropping in class as they perceive that to be a potential edge. Never mind that ownership is facing the risk of losing their horse for returns guaranteed to be diminished.

[Tom]

Bettors understand that.
Trainers should understand it, too.
If you are afraid to run for a tag, find a race where your are not afraid.

[Pensacola Pete]

I don't have a problem with the rule, as long as the horse thus-entered isn't eligible for Starter races based on the claiming price in that race.

[fmolf]

Originally Posted by Pensacola Pete

I don't have a problem with the rule, as long as the horse thus-entered isn't eligible for Starter races based on the claiming price in that race.

it is for that reason that the criteria for protection under the waiver claim rule calls for said horse to be entered for the same price claimed or a higher tag.

[fmolf]

the rule that i really like is the claiming void rule....where if a horse is found unsound or lame after the race the claim may be voided by new owners.This rule not only protects potential new owners,but also prevents unscrupulous rainers fromrunning horses that are sore or unsound!