Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board

Go Back   Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com - Horse Racing Message Board > Thoroughbred Horse Racing Discussion > General Racing Discussion


Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old 05-24-2022, 08:58 AM   #16
biggestal99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 4,436
he merely shortened a 5f work to 4f for rule purposes. (stupid rule imho) to make a horse eligible to enter.

i could tell you stories about real falsification of works but thats for another day, kiddies.

Allan
biggestal99 is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-24-2022, 09:02 AM   #17
Robert Fischer
clean money
 
Robert Fischer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Maryland
Posts: 22,144
issue getting some buzz, but another that falls into the "IDK" category for me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage View Post
Again, if what he says is true (and until all the facts come out, we really can't say one way or another), it wasn't a lie if the reported time for 4f is true, as part of the overall 5f work.

Sounds like some sort of technicality. If anything.

But not a lie. Unless what was reported publicly wasn't true.

If the horse worked 4f in that time, how is it a lie?

Don't horses work out further all the time past the actual reported workout? Worked 6f in 112 and galloped out 7f in 125...or something like that? Happens all the time, right? This case is kind of the opposite of that. But again, not a lie until proven otherwise.
this is much the same as my take

If he simply ran a 13.27 fifth furlong, and four furlongs are acceptable, it should be fine.
__________________
Preparation. Discipline. Patience. Decisiveness.
Robert Fischer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-24-2022, 10:34 AM   #18
Spalding No!
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage View Post
Again, if what he says is true (and until all the facts come out, we really can't say one way or another), it wasn't a lie if the reported time for 4f is true, as part of the overall 5f work.

Sounds like some sort of technicality. If anything.

But not a lie. Unless what was reported publicly wasn't true.

If the horse worked 4f in that time, how is it a lie?
The more important issue is that presumably in NY, the stewards ultimately control the entries and the "poor performance" list.

If the racing office identified a horse that was ineligible on a technicality that could easily be rectified, it would have behooved them to notify the stewards of the issue first so they could sign off on it before having the clocker make a revision.
Spalding No! is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-24-2022, 10:39 AM   #19
classhandicapper
Registered User
 
classhandicapper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 18,490
It sounds like the rules should be reworded to say "at least 4F" and include a list of satisfactory times for each distance.

If 53 is satisfactory for 4F, then the official 5f time of 104 3/5 is CLEARY good enough because the difference between 53 and 104 3/5 is 11 3/5. He almost certainly beat 4F in 53 because I doubt this horse came home in 11 3/5. And if he did, he should be off the list anyway.

This horse was good to go and everyone knew it. Using the 51.33 that the clocker reported was no big deal and makes perfect sense given the official 5F time. Just tweak the rules so something like this won't happen again.

More important is the risk I brought up where the clockers miss a work and/or a trainer calls one in that may not have occurred.
__________________
"Unlearning is the highest form of learning"
classhandicapper is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-24-2022, 11:16 AM   #20
mountainman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,337
Having both worked as an official clocker and been involved on a higher level than that in dealing with situations similar to the one at issue, I do sympathize with the sanctioned official.

In my opinion, things should just never have progressed to the point at which a fictionalized increment came into play. And I suspect the devil is in the details.

I'd love to know who caught the initial problem, who, if anyone, higher up was consulted before refusing the entry, and who exposed and balked at the alteration.

Look, rules are rules in officialdom-except when they aren't. The book far from covers every contingency and situation, which means that at some point somebody in authority must step up, stick their neck out a bit, and make the right call for all involved.

And the right thing, again, just in my opinion, would have been for the clocker, entry clerk, and perhaps even the racing sec to cover themselves by seeking an ok from the stewards or state vet (nowadays being put on the steward's list is tantamount to making the vet's list) for the 5/8 work to suffice. In virtually any similar predicament I have witnessed, that ok would quickly have been issued.

One unfortunate aspect of working as a racing official is that trouble is ALWAYS coming and usually first appears in an innocuous seeming manner. In fact, I routinely advise my crew of that: Trouble is ALWAYS COMING, and it will find you.

And please, just a note to the sticklers and theorists on this board: Don't kill the messenger here. I'm just expounding about how these things generally get handled behind the scenes.

Last edited by mountainman; 05-24-2022 at 11:24 AM.
mountainman is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-24-2022, 01:36 PM   #21
Tom
The Voice of Reason!
 
Tom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Canandaigua, New york
Posts: 107,617
NYRA thought it serious enough to issue a 30 day suspension, so there's that.
__________________
Who does the Racing Form Detective like in this one?
Tom is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-24-2022, 02:42 PM   #22
$w1fT
SaratogaFan1
 
Join Date: Mar 2022
Posts: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom View Post
NYRA thought it serious enough to issue a 30 day suspension, so there's that.
Doesn't mean they are right for doing it. There are many infractions under NYRA that warrant a suspension that get nothing.
$w1fT is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-24-2022, 03:44 PM   #23
the little guy
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 6,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom View Post
NYRA thought it serious enough to issue a 30 day suspension, so there's that.
Tom, you need to read the article. NYRA did NOT issue a suspension ( or fine ). It was the Gaming Commission.
the little guy is online now   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-24-2022, 07:05 PM   #24
v j stauffer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by classhandicapper View Post
I'm pretty sure it's not that rare for certain trainers to call in bogus workouts to make horses eligible to race. That's obviously not a good practice, but it happens.
Bogus works exist. But a trainer can't just call one in. There would have to be other people involved. Not saying who. Could be any of several others.
__________________
"Just because she's a hitter and a thief doesn't mean she's not a good woman in all the other places" Mayrose Prizzi

Last edited by v j stauffer; 05-24-2022 at 07:16 PM.
v j stauffer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-24-2022, 07:08 PM   #25
v j stauffer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp View Post
Why would they stay the suspension, and why is this person (presumably) still working for NYRA? I assume that he also misled NYRA, his employer, and misled the gambling public about this work. He was messing with the integrity of the betting pools as well as helping his buddy get a possibly unsound horse into a race.

The slap on the wrist treatment of stuff like this doesn't send a good message to the gambling public about the integrity of the sport.
They would issue you a stay because of a pesky little thing called due process.
__________________
"Just because she's a hitter and a thief doesn't mean she's not a good woman in all the other places" Mayrose Prizzi
v j stauffer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-24-2022, 07:14 PM   #26
v j stauffer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,888
Are we sure the rule reads a horse must work "exactly" a 1/2 mile. I've never seen a jurisdiction who's rules read that way. I have seen said horse must work "at least" a 1/2 mile.

Perhaps NYRA is different. I don't know for sure. But I'd be surprised.
__________________
"Just because she's a hitter and a thief doesn't mean she's not a good woman in all the other places" Mayrose Prizzi

Last edited by v j stauffer; 05-24-2022 at 07:16 PM.
v j stauffer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-24-2022, 07:20 PM   #27
v j stauffer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,888
In many jurisdictions horses working off the poor performance list must work at a prescribed time and be witnessed by an association or State Vet. They also can be subject to post work testing. Just as if they had raced.
__________________
"Just because she's a hitter and a thief doesn't mean she's not a good woman in all the other places" Mayrose Prizzi
v j stauffer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-24-2022, 07:24 PM   #28
VeryOldMan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 844
Quote:
Originally Posted by v j stauffer View Post
Are we sure the rule reads a horse must work "exactly" a 1/2 mile. I've never seen a jurisdiction who's rules read that way. I have seen said horse must work "at least" a 1/2 mile.

Perhaps NYRA is different. I don't know for sure. But I'd be surprised.
From the underlying article:

In order to get off the poor performance list, a horse must work a half-mile in 53 seconds or faster. The rule, oddly, does not allow for a workout farther than a half-mile whereas rules governing horses returning from extended layoffs indicate a horse must have three workouts within 90 days of their start date and one of those works must be “at least” a half-mile.

From later in the article re the workout:

Gazer said he was told by the clocker who timed Papi On Ice that the horse did work a half-mile in 51.33 as part of the five-furlong move in 1:04.60.

If this had been recorded initially as a 4f work in 51.33 and the horse "galloped out" an extra furlong and was caught in 1:04.60, would this ever have seen the light of day as an "altered" (per the headline) workout? Seems like more of a technical or administrative issue coupled with a trainer brain-freeze re the need for the recorded work to be exactly 4f.
VeryOldMan is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-24-2022, 07:26 PM   #29
v j stauffer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spalding No! View Post
The more important issue is that presumably in NY, the stewards ultimately control the entries and the "poor performance" list.

If the racing office identified a horse that was ineligible on a technicality that could easily be rectified, it would have behooved them to notify the stewards of the issue first so they could sign off on it before having the clocker make a revision.
Again don't know specifically about NYRA. However there are many places that will accept an entry knowing full well a horse needs a work. But since many places enter as far as a week in advance or sometimes more. The trainer will be allowed to fulfill the working requirement and be eligible to compete.
__________________
"Just because she's a hitter and a thief doesn't mean she's not a good woman in all the other places" Mayrose Prizzi
v j stauffer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Old 05-24-2022, 07:31 PM   #30
v j stauffer
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,888
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeryOldMan View Post
From the underlying article:

In order to get off the poor performance list, a horse must work a half-mile in 53 seconds or faster. The rule, oddly, does not allow for a workout farther than a half-mile whereas rules governing horses returning from extended layoffs indicate a horse must have three workouts within 90 days of their start date and one of those works must be “at least” a half-mile.

From later in the article re the workout:

Gazer said he was told by the clocker who timed Papi On Ice that the horse did work a half-mile in 51.33 as part of the five-furlong move in 1:04.60.

If this had been recorded initially as a 4f work in 51.33 and the horse "galloped out" an extra furlong and was caught in 1:04.60, would this ever have seen the light of day as an "altered" (per the headline) workout? Seems like more of a technical or administrative issue coupled with a trainer brain-freeze re the need for the recorded work to be exactly 4f.
Thanks for that.

Wow! Regulators, rule writers deciding how trainers should train their horses is not something I'd be comfortable with.

What if the horse needs the air of a farther workout and will again perform poorly because of not being fit?

If trainers have to deal with absolute insurer rules. They IMO should have absolute say as to what they feel is best for their horse. Saying "at least" a 1/2 mile would give them that latitude.
__________________
"Just because she's a hitter and a thief doesn't mean she's not a good woman in all the other places" Mayrose Prizzi
v j stauffer is offline   Reply With Quote Reply
Reply




Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

» Advertisement
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:55 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 1999 - 2022 -- PaceAdvantage.Com -- All Rights Reserved
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program
designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.