Need help reading claiming price

[kernel]

In some past performances there is a "b" after the claiming price. What does it signify? Thanks!

[Market Mover]

The B at the end stands for "beaten claiming."

[Thomas Roulston]

But how does "beaten" differ from non-winners of a race within 6 months, a year, etc.?

[Overlay]

A "beaten claimer" is a claiming race with additional conditions attached. For example (from Dan Illman's DRF blog):

"Claiming. For three-year-olds or four-year-olds and upward that have never won three races."

This is a multi-tiered condition. Any three-year-old can enter this race no matter how many races they've already won. You could conceivably see a six- or seven-time winner in the field. Older entrants must be eligible for a N3L condition (they have never won three races). Some handicappers will give more weight to the younger horses in this race as they have more winning experience despite facing older and more seasoned foes.

[Pell Mell]

Can someone explain how the #1 horse in todays 4th at Portland is eligible for this race. In fact, how was it eligible for it's last race which it won. I must be missing something here but don't know what it is.

[startngate]

I don't have complete PP's in front of me, but according to the abbreviated ones on the TwinSpires replay system the horse's last win was in a NW2 race, which would make it eligible for this NW3.

It looks like the horse is showing two straight wins at the NW2 level, so I have to assume there was a DQ in the 1/5/09 race. If it doesn't show in the PP's then it was probably a bad test after the fact.

[cj]

Originally Posted by Pell Mell

Can someone explain how the #1 horse in todays 4th at Portland is eligible for this race. In fact, how was it eligible for it's last race which it won. I must be missing something here but don't know what it is.

According to the conditions in DRF, that horse should not have been in either race, the last win or today. I also checked the charts and didn't see any extra conditions that could have let the horse in.

[cj]

Originally Posted by startngate

I don't have complete PP's in front of me, but according to the abbreviated ones on the TwinSpires replay system the horse's last win was in a NW2 race, which would make it eligible for this NW3.

It looks like the horse is showing two straight wins at the NW2 level, so I have to assume there was a DQ in the 1/5/09 race. If it doesn't show in the PP's then it was probably a bad test after the fact.

Yes, but those show up in the PPs too. I agree though, one of the wins must not count for some reason, but the info isn't in the PPs.

[boomman]

Originally Posted by startngate

I don't have complete PP's in front of me, but according to the abbreviated ones on the TwinSpires replay system the horse's last win was in a NW2 race, which would make it eligible for this NW3.

It looks like the horse is showing two straight wins at the NW2 level, so I have to assume there was a DQ in the 1/5/09 race. If it doesn't show in the PP's then it was probably a bad test after the fact.

Haven't looked this up, but jballscalls is the man to ask on anything regarding Portland Meadows. balls: Your phone is ringing.......

Boomer

[cj]

Originally Posted by boomman

Haven't looked this up, but jballscalls is the man to ask on anything regarding Portland Meadows. balls: Your phone is ringing.......

Boomer

Normally I can find the answer to questions like this. But whatever it is with this one, it is not in the conditions, PPs, or charts.

[Pell Mell]

And even if the stewards scratch it today it still doesn't explain the last win.

[RonTiller]

I checked all the official data for Surelybell. Here's what I found:

Surelybell has won 3 races going into today's race.
There were no disqualifications in any of the 3 races.
All 3 wins were in Thoroughbred races (i.e. no quarter horse race wins)
All 3 wins were official.
No positive drug tests noted and more importantly, no change in official finish position in any of the 3 races.

Here's the full official conditions of each race:
PM 01/21/2009 Race 7
FOR FILLIES AND MARES FOUR YEARS OLD AND UPWARD WHICH HAVE NEVER WON TWO RACES. Four Year Olds, 122 lbs.; Older, 123 lbs. Non-winners of a race since October 1 Allowed 3 lbs. Claiming Price $2,500.

PM 01/05/2009 Race 4
FOR FILLIES AND MARES FOUR YEARS OLD AND UPWARD WHICH HAVE NEVER WON TWO RACES. Four Year Olds, 122 lbs.; Older, 123 lbs. Non-winners Of A Race Since October 1 Allowed 3 lbs. Claiming Price $2,500.

GRP 06/28/2008 Race 1
For Maidens Fillies and Mares, Three Year Olds and Older. Three Year Olds 122 lbs. Older 124 lbs. Claiming Price $4,000.

In other words, the data says this horse has 3 official wins going into today's race, including 2 claiming wins at Portland Meadows in the past month and a maiden claiming win 6 months ago at Grants Pass.

So either:
1) the official Equibase data is wrong
2) for reasons not transparent to us, the racing secretary's office is not counting one of those wins in the horse's eligibility
3) the horse is in fact not eligible

Here's the interesting part. If you check the condition book for Portland Meadows at http://www.portlandmeadows.com/NR/rd...to02112009.pdf you'll find that race 4 was originally carded as an open claiming race:

FOURTH RACE CLAIMING
Purse $3,600. (Includes $400 from ORC Hub Funds) For Fillies And Mares
Four Years Old and Upward.
Four Year Olds 122 lbs. Older 123 lbs.
Non-winners of a race since October 1 3 lbs.
CLAIMING PRICE $2,500
SIX FURLONGS

The race actually being run looks to be substitute race 2:

Purse $3,400. (Includes $400 from ORC Hub Funds) For Fillies And Mares
Four Years Old and Upward Which Have Not Won A Race Since April 1,
2008 or Which Have Never Won Three Races.
Four Year Olds 122 lbs. Older 123 lbs.
CLAIMING PRICE $2,500
ONE MILE AND SEVENTY YARDS

Is it possible that Surelybell signed up for the race when it was OPEN (thus being eligible), the substitute race was carded, with restrictions rendering her ineligible, and nobody noticed (or nobody spoke up)? I don't know how these things work.

Ron Tiller
HDW

[startngate]

Originally Posted by RonTiller

Here's the interesting part. If you check the condition book for Portland Meadows at http://www.portlandmeadows.com/NR/rd...to02112009.pdf you'll find that race 4 was originally carded as an open claiming race:

The race actually being run looks to be substitute race 2:

Is it possible that Surelybell signed up for the race when it was OPEN (thus being eligible), the substitute race was carded, with restrictions rendering her ineligible, and nobody noticed (or nobody spoke up)? I don't know how these things work.

Ron Tiller
HDW

The overnight lists the race as being S2, so you are correct there, however races are rarely run in the order they are presented in the condition book, so don't put too much stock in the 4th race in the condition book as being a factor.

It's highly doubtful that a horse would 'if' from an open race going short into a conditioned race going long. Doesn't make any sense. I'm 99.99% sure the horse would have not been entered in race #4 to begin with. It would even have been unlikely going the other way (starting in S2 and going to 4).

Bottom line is that there had to be a DQ in the race on 1/5/09 ... sometime after the fact. Otherwise the horse would not have been eligible for the race on 1/21/09 either.

I guess the other possibility would be the race at Grant's Pass doesn't count at Portland Meadows because it's a fair meet ... otherwise the horse is ineligible.

[mountainman]

None of the possibilties raised so far sound viable. Most barns request split samples on bad tests, thus putting the outcome on hold, and in such cases, both the first and second finishers are considered winners for purposes of weights and eligibility. So final resolution on nearly all drug dqs takes weeks.
My professional guess would be that the maiden win (at Grant's Pass??) doesn't count at Portland Meadows. While any win picked up by drf used to be recognized regardless of the locale, different distinctions are now made and can vary from state to state.

[Tom]

Sounds like Pell Mell is more on the ball than the people that are paid to ensure racing rules are followed!

PM, you should ask to go to the company picnic at least!