Q about Saturday's Golden Gate's 7th race

[The_Knight_Sky]

A sincere question for those with the Golden Gate pp's for Saturday.

a) How does #1 Sundance Kiddo qualify for this N1X allowance if he
has already tallied a N1X on January 23, 2010

b) How does #2 Richly Red qualify for this N1X allowance when he has
already won won a N1X on May 15, 2010.

c) How does #4 King Kelly qualify for this N1X allowance when he has
already won a N1X at Santa Rosa on July 31, 2010

The favored #6 Arrabiata coming off the maiden win at Santa Rosa
off the board facing these multiple winners. Something's not right here.

Was this a really a N2X but someone made a mistake in printing the conditions? Or something else?

[therussmeister]

It took me a long time to look this up; so I only did it for Sundance Kiddo. His January 23 victory was in an optional claiming race where he was entered to be claimed, which makes him still eligible.

[The_Knight_Sky]

Originally Posted by therussmeister

It took me a long time to look this up; so I only did it for Sundance Kiddo. His January 23 victory was in an optional claiming race where he was entered to be claimed, which makes him still eligible.

Yes I see no (N) listed for Sundance Kiddo's win.
So he must have run for a tag that day.

The same would hold true for #4 King Kelly winning with a tag on July 31st.

That's two crossed off.
The third is still a mystery though.

#2 Richly Red won a N1X with a (N)
and yet he continues to run in a N1X after that win for five straight starts.

I would okay his participation if this was an optional claimer and he was running for a tag, but this race is not written like that.
What gives

[cj]

Isn't it odd that none of these horses have run in Cal bred races?

[Tom]

Was the purse of his NW1 win under the $10K winner's share?

[cj]

Originally Posted by Tom

Was the purse of his NW1 win under the $10K winner's share?

I thought that might be the case, but I don't think that is possible looking at the PPs.

[RXB]

Originally Posted by The_Knight_Sky

#2 Richly Red won a N1X with a (N)
and yet he continues to run in a N1X after that win for five straight starts.

I would okay his participation if this was an optional claimer and he was running for a tag, but this race is not written like that.
What gives

As a Cal-bred, he can win that N1X condition twice as a non-claiming entrant. A bit strange, for sure, but that's what it is. Can't remember exactly when they made that decision-- maybe two years ago?

[lamboguy]

in finger lakes they have similar conditions for new york breds, they have a condition of new yorks breds that have never won a new york bred race. most the horses that run in golden gate are cal breds same as finger lakes has new york breds.

[RXB]

Those are not the same conditions or same circumstances.

[Light]

I think this has to do with the various incentives to keep Ca bred horses in Ca. Regarding repeating a condition,here is an excerpt from the DMR website from the racing secretary:

Should a horse win a Cal-Bred first conditioned allowance race and next win an open second-conditioned allowance race, that horse shall remain eligibility for the open second-conditioned allowance race.

I suppose you can translate the same for the first and third conditioned allowance races as well.

http://www.dmtc.com/horsemen/conditi...procedures.pdf

[shouldacoulda]

The way I am reading it is it is ignoring races where the win paid less than 10K$ (10K$ one time) or was a maiden claimer or starter allowance OR non winner of 2 races. I don't see where NW1 or claim price comes into play from these conditions.

[RXB]

Here's how I understand it to work:

If a Cal-bred horse has not won a state-bred N1X, it can win twice at the NoCal N1X level as a non-claiming entrant.

If a Cal-bred horse has won a state-bred N1X, it can only win once at the NoCal N1X level as a non-claiming entrant.

They rarely card state-bred allowances in NoCal, probably because it would become hell for people with horses bred outside the state to find an open N1X that would fill. So I think they made this change to appease the people who breed/own Cal breds on the NoCal circuit.

[The_Knight_Sky]

Originally Posted by Light

Should a horse win a Cal-Bred first conditioned allowance race and next win an open second-conditioned allowance race, that horse shall remain eligibility for the open second-conditioned allowance race.

I suppose you can translate the same for the first and third conditioned allowance races as well.

http://www.dmtc.com/horsemen/conditi...procedures.pdf

Thanks guys. I vaguely remember the rule change from a few years back. I hadn't put too much attention to it until Saturday's race. It's clearly not your grandfather's N1X.

This has got to be a nightmare for the person who checks for eligibility for each allowance race at Golden Gate Fields. I suppose they have at their disposal more then 10 running lines of pp's to go by.

This also presents a problem for the horsemen.
The 3 year old maiden winners are forced to tackle seasoned veterans in a N1X race such as this.

I would assume that the multiple winners have an edge here, as opposed to the other tracks n1x races where the 3 year olds would be the ones to back on the class raise.

[Tom]

I think it is very confusing ( and very minor league) that they not print the actual conditinos of the race in the race conditions.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Tom

I think it is very confusing ( and very minor league) that they not print the actual conditinos of the race in the race conditions.

NoCal is very minor league, but that isn't an excuse for not printing the exact conditions of the race.