If a horse breaks down the claim would be rescinded. The proposal would also allow a claim to be voided if the horse is placed on the veterinarian's list as unsound or lame as a result of running in the race.
I am in favor of the rule. This, I believe, would have a serious impact on those trainers who drop horses that are physically compromised.
Here's a link to full article:
Read more: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/ ... z1KuorAKzl
CHRB Proposes Fatal Breakdown Claiming Rule
Moderators: Roguelet, hpkingjr, WaveMaster
CHRB Proposes Fatal Breakdown Claiming Rule
"Politicians should be limited to two terms, one in office and another in jail." Anonymous
You know this is always what bugged me about claiming, the horse is yours out of the starting gate supposedly but the former owner collects the money if it wins something but you collect a dead horse if it breaks down. Yeah yeah I know, that's the chance you take but c'mon....if that horse is yours the minute it leaves the gate then you should get the good along with the bad imo. Otherwise change it to the horse is yours immediately following the race. I'm all about risk and reward but claiming seems mostly too dependent on risk.
trying to come up with something brillant..... this may take a while. 
-
wangkw
- Restricted Stakes Winner
- Posts: 969
- Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2008 5:48 am
- Location: Singapore -- Small, Solid Island In Dictatorship
I started knowing the term claiming a horse not long ago..but puzzle remains..cant claiming be made conditional..say, any claiming
will be voided if the horse concerned earns nothing out of the particular race ? Naturally, the claiming fee is to be higher but made
good by quality.
will be voided if the horse concerned earns nothing out of the particular race ? Naturally, the claiming fee is to be higher but made
good by quality.
Last edited by wangkw on Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
Our Greatest Glory Is Not In Never Falling But In Rising Everytime We Fall
-
da hossman
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:08 am
- Location: KY
Hi Spex:
Think about it from an owner's perspective - why would you run a horse if you will not get the purse? That is what you propose; the owner runs a horse in a claimer but only gets the purse if no one claims the horse. This could not work.
The current claiming format is fair in that regard.
The claim being voided if the horse breaks down and is euthanized on the track is a good idea and easily enforced. However it would be very difficult to extend the rule (void the claim) to cover any non-fatal injury; this is a very gray area as all equine injuries are. In my opinon, non-fatal injuries should not void the claim.
Anyone have a different idea or a a proposal?
Think about it from an owner's perspective - why would you run a horse if you will not get the purse? That is what you propose; the owner runs a horse in a claimer but only gets the purse if no one claims the horse. This could not work.
The current claiming format is fair in that regard.
The claim being voided if the horse breaks down and is euthanized on the track is a good idea and easily enforced. However it would be very difficult to extend the rule (void the claim) to cover any non-fatal injury; this is a very gray area as all equine injuries are. In my opinon, non-fatal injuries should not void the claim.
Anyone have a different idea or a a proposal?
A difference of opinion is what makes horse racing and missionaries.
Will Rogers
Will Rogers
Hi dahossman-
I totally get where as an owner one would like it as it is but, as an owner if I drop a horse to try and win a race, then isn't that the chance I take?? My horse may win , return with the pot o' gold, and not get claimed or my horse wins gets claimed and I played a game of chance but I still don't lose because I have the claim money. To me that is the real game of claiming, playing the odds so that your horse doesn't get claimed and makes money, or your horse wins and gets claimed you still make money because you have essentially sold the horse. The object to me is to get that win, and if you calculate wrong you lose a horse.
But that's me and I'm weird. I guess I just never imagined that the claiming game while fun could be so damn shady too. To be fair in my eyes , honestly it should be transfer of ownership after the race no benefits or transfer COMPLETELY as soon as those gates flap open good bad whatever comes.
But keep in mind I am not a veteran racetracker, I'm still in newbie faze, fascinated/repulsed/awed/disgruntled/amazed/bewildered are all adjectives along with 20 others that could be interchanged to describe me in one day on a daily basis in this business.
I totally get where as an owner one would like it as it is but, as an owner if I drop a horse to try and win a race, then isn't that the chance I take?? My horse may win , return with the pot o' gold, and not get claimed or my horse wins gets claimed and I played a game of chance but I still don't lose because I have the claim money. To me that is the real game of claiming, playing the odds so that your horse doesn't get claimed and makes money, or your horse wins and gets claimed you still make money because you have essentially sold the horse. The object to me is to get that win, and if you calculate wrong you lose a horse.
But that's me and I'm weird. I guess I just never imagined that the claiming game while fun could be so damn shady too. To be fair in my eyes , honestly it should be transfer of ownership after the race no benefits or transfer COMPLETELY as soon as those gates flap open good bad whatever comes.
But keep in mind I am not a veteran racetracker, I'm still in newbie faze, fascinated/repulsed/awed/disgruntled/amazed/bewildered are all adjectives along with 20 others that could be interchanged to describe me in one day on a daily basis in this business.
trying to come up with something brillant..... this may take a while.
-
da hossman
- Allowance Winner
- Posts: 412
- Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:08 am
- Location: KY
Hi Spex -
Believe me, the fascinated/bewildered/etc will not entirely go away no matter how long you are in it! Glad you are enjoying the game and interested in learning more - bring a friend next time you go racing. Go to the track in the morning to watch them train. Go to the head of the stretch when watching races and listen for the jockeys yelling at each other.
Nothing else has as much flavor, variety or action as racing! The tracks just don't care about anything more than wagering...so no surprise that attendance drops.
Wishing you the best of raicng luck!
Believe me, the fascinated/bewildered/etc will not entirely go away no matter how long you are in it! Glad you are enjoying the game and interested in learning more - bring a friend next time you go racing. Go to the track in the morning to watch them train. Go to the head of the stretch when watching races and listen for the jockeys yelling at each other.
Nothing else has as much flavor, variety or action as racing! The tracks just don't care about anything more than wagering...so no surprise that attendance drops.
Wishing you the best of raicng luck!
A difference of opinion is what makes horse racing and missionaries.
Will Rogers
Will Rogers
ROFLMAO...
I do and then I hear..ok who should we bet, just not yours !!
Oh I do and I have issue with that being that I and my horses are more of the noon mindset.
Oh so they should be yelling at each other not me yelling at them??!!
lol.... I am begining to see the errors of my ways I think!! Ah who am I kidding......
Much luck to you too!!
bring a friend next time you go racing.
I do and then I hear..ok who should we bet, just not yours !!
Go to the track in the morning to watch them train
Oh I do and I have issue with that being that I and my horses are more of the noon mindset.
listen for the jockeys yelling at each other.
Oh so they should be yelling at each other not me yelling at them??!!
lol.... I am begining to see the errors of my ways I think!! Ah who am I kidding......
Much luck to you too!!
trying to come up with something brillant..... this may take a while.
ireneinwa wrote:If the claiming process changes we might as well change horseracing altogether. Maybe when pigs fly
Hi Irene,
Claiming horses has always been a risky business....but it is that risk of not knowing that allows a sharp trainer to jump in and steal some cash without losing a good horse. I agree with you....to change the process and make it a safer avenue to claim a sound horse, well that's just not the way it works....no guarantee's in horse racing. If you want to claim a horse you have to do your homework....that includes following, clocking and watching the horse in a couple races.....seeing that horse before and after he runs, follow him back and look for unsoundness in his movement....when you're convinced the horse is serviceably sound then you jump in....if you claim horses off paper because they are taking a sharp drop and you don't know what's going on....claimer beware! They may as well do away with claiming races and write races with conditions like.... Conditioned Allowance race, 'If this horses wins, make the owner an offer in the spitbox within 15 minutes after said race and we'll make a deal with a drink and a vet report, after 15 minutes no sale allowed....or has never won two races lifetime' :>)
Now the feds want to start making rules for racing....this is the beginning of the end for racing. What needs to be done is the track's need need to accept their responsibility in this and hire more knowledgable examining vets and give a more thorough pre-race exam.....especially to those horses that show a suspicious drop in class....we have enough technology to find a broken bone, chips, stress fractures or a weak tendon sheath etc right on the spot and those suspicious drops should undergo such a stringent pre-race exam to protect those in the claiming business...if the state vet passes a horse to run in a claiming race and that horse breaks down....I see the track's incompetence in their pre-race inspections as the cause/culprit. TJ
spex4me wrote:Hi dahossman-
I totally get where as an owner one would like it as it is but, as an owner if I drop a horse to try and win a race, then isn't that the chance I take?? My horse may win , return with the pot o' gold, and not get claimed or my horse wins gets claimed and I played a game of chance but I still don't lose because I have the claim money. To me that is the real game of claiming, playing the odds so that your horse doesn't get claimed and makes money, or your horse wins and gets claimed you still make money because you have essentially sold the horse. The object to me is to get that win, and if you calculate wrong you lose a horse.
But that's me and I'm weird. I guess I just never imagined that the claiming game while fun could be so damn shady too. To be fair in my eyes , honestly it should be transfer of ownership after the race no benefits or transfer COMPLETELY as soon as those gates flap open good bad whatever comes.
But the new owner didn't pay the bills on the horse for the past 30 days. Why should he get the horse and the purse? If the new owner wants to minimize the risk, there is always claim insurance.
Also I don't know how widely known this is but there are other sources of information besides the Form. There are private clockers and former trainers of the horse as a start.
Besides one person's shady is another's high stakes poker. The bad stuff doesn't happen nearly as much as gets reported on the Internet and actually dropping a claim isn't that common. Frankly I've found big name show trainers as shady or shadier than the track.
-
louis finochio
- Darley line
- Posts: 9181
- Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:21 am
- Location: Alhambra-Calif.
- Contact:
Changing the rules is just pandering to people who didn't take the time to get informed before they got involved. Not knowing the risks (breakdown) and not knowing the tools for managing that risk (claim insurance) means you either didn't ask or your new trainer saw you as an easy mark and didn't bother explaining things to you. People who know the risk and didn't buy insurance have no reason to complain when they get burnt.
The CHRB would be better off instituting a mandatory claim insurance where people have to sign a waiver before they opt out. This way nobody can say that they didn't understand the risk. Much simpler with fewer arguments about whether the horse got hurt in the race or afterwards.
The CHRB would be better off instituting a mandatory claim insurance where people have to sign a waiver before they opt out. This way nobody can say that they didn't understand the risk. Much simpler with fewer arguments about whether the horse got hurt in the race or afterwards.
Hi Dave and Sysonby,
I totally agree with the both of you...I'm really getting sick and tired of listening to the uneducated try to dictate what's best for horse racing. Horse racing is risky, they seem to want to eliminate the risk and that just won't happen. That happens at the trainer level....constant care and looking out for his charge. Running when they are right....yet that still doesn't mean fate and racing luck will be on your side when you bring them to the post. How many times have you been called by the racing office, to run your horse (who you puposely didn't enter because you thought it wouldn't be the best spot or best interest of/for your horse)....or the race didn't give your horse enough time to recoup from his previous start and additional pressure too soon could cause a physical problem? Then they put pressure on you to enter and if you want to keep your stalls you run....if the horse breaks down, or gets hurt because he ran back to quickly, does track management care....I don't think so. They sway in the direction that the wind is blowing....can you imagine what will happen when the feds put in their two cents. A bunch of talking heads without a clue about horse racing. They want to ban trainers after 3 positives. That is extreme and they will find they will be banning more trainers than there will be horses able to run back in short order after they do away with lasix and bute. TJ
I totally agree with the both of you...I'm really getting sick and tired of listening to the uneducated try to dictate what's best for horse racing. Horse racing is risky, they seem to want to eliminate the risk and that just won't happen. That happens at the trainer level....constant care and looking out for his charge. Running when they are right....yet that still doesn't mean fate and racing luck will be on your side when you bring them to the post. How many times have you been called by the racing office, to run your horse (who you puposely didn't enter because you thought it wouldn't be the best spot or best interest of/for your horse)....or the race didn't give your horse enough time to recoup from his previous start and additional pressure too soon could cause a physical problem? Then they put pressure on you to enter and if you want to keep your stalls you run....if the horse breaks down, or gets hurt because he ran back to quickly, does track management care....I don't think so. They sway in the direction that the wind is blowing....can you imagine what will happen when the feds put in their two cents. A bunch of talking heads without a clue about horse racing. They want to ban trainers after 3 positives. That is extreme and they will find they will be banning more trainers than there will be horses able to run back in short order after they do away with lasix and bute. TJ
Well I count myself amongst those speak against the way the tide currently flows in racing, but I hardly consider myself uneducated. Plus while I am sure claiming insurance is partaken of I seriously doubt that horses running for a tag of $7500 or lower have people that are going to take that measure. I too am also tired of the worn out argument that racing is risky so thats it ,case closed. Well life in general is risky and we sure as hell do a million things to try and not assume that risk. Just because something is deemed to have risk attached to it does not mean that it should be assumed that it can't be done with safer measures. I don't think a total overhaul needs to be done, but some change can't make it any worse than it is already.
Nor do I see bans on trainers after 3 positives, especially if it becomes drug free, as extreme. That's like saying after 3 driving while intoxicated convictions you lose your license. There has to be repercussions, because there really isn't much of anything in place as it stand now. If there was the Delahoussayes, Biancones, and Dutrows of the world would not have trained as long as they did without the sky eventually beginning to fall.
Not to mention seems that every other racing jurisdiction worldwide seems to find more than enough horses to run without fear of trainer shortage.
As an owner, I am completely fine with the fact of dropping my horse in lower to WIN , thats the point of claiming races to get that win....well isn't it pandering to me if I take that RISK that someone claims my horse but if it does well I get the cash on the spot and they don't I'm even more enriched, but if it keels over right out of the starting gate I can walk off an say "Damn lucky day I had today, I sold me a dead horse."
Again I am not looking to bicker back and forth, I am just stating my opinion on the matter. If racing held it's act together in the first place you wouldn't have these "interventions" from outside sources. jmo.
Nor do I see bans on trainers after 3 positives, especially if it becomes drug free, as extreme. That's like saying after 3 driving while intoxicated convictions you lose your license. There has to be repercussions, because there really isn't much of anything in place as it stand now. If there was the Delahoussayes, Biancones, and Dutrows of the world would not have trained as long as they did without the sky eventually beginning to fall.
Not to mention seems that every other racing jurisdiction worldwide seems to find more than enough horses to run without fear of trainer shortage.
As an owner, I am completely fine with the fact of dropping my horse in lower to WIN , thats the point of claiming races to get that win....well isn't it pandering to me if I take that RISK that someone claims my horse but if it does well I get the cash on the spot and they don't I'm even more enriched, but if it keels over right out of the starting gate I can walk off an say "Damn lucky day I had today, I sold me a dead horse."
Again I am not looking to bicker back and forth, I am just stating my opinion on the matter. If racing held it's act together in the first place you wouldn't have these "interventions" from outside sources. jmo.
trying to come up with something brillant..... this may take a while.
TJ wrote:Hi Dave and Sysonby,
I totally agree with the both of you...I'm really getting sick and tired of listening to the uneducated try to dictate what's best for horse racing. Horse racing is risky, they seem to want to eliminate the risk and that just won't happen. That happens at the trainer level....constant care and looking out for his charge. Running when they are right....yet that still doesn't mean fate and racing luck will be on your side when you bring them to the post. How many times have you been called by the racing office, to run your horse (who you puposely didn't enter because you thought it wouldn't be the best spot or best interest of/for your horse)....or the race didn't give your horse enough time to recoup from his previous start and additional pressure too soon could cause a physical problem? Then they put pressure on you to enter and if you want to keep your stalls you run....if the horse breaks down, or gets hurt because he ran back to quickly, does track management care....I don't think so. They sway in the direction that the wind is blowing....can you imagine what will happen when the feds put in their two cents. A bunch of talking heads without a clue about horse racing. They want to ban trainers after 3 positives. That is extreme and they will find they will be banning more trainers than there will be horses able to run back in short order after they do away with lasix and bute. TJ
It's the Internet echo chamber fueled by the high profile breakdowns of Eight Belles and Barbaro. Even though neither horse ever ran in a single claiming race, people are trying to use their deaths to change the claiming rules without IMO fully understanding basics like how to read condition books, manage a racing stable and the claiming game in the first place.
As a result, these message boards are like word association tests - claiming equals bad and cheap horses are cripples and that just keeps getting repeated without examination. That's not to say there's no room for debate but is this really the biggest issue California racing is facing?
Really?