changes in the claiming game?
 

Mandella thinks that potential claimants should eb able to examine a horse after it races...an interesting proposal...one that could change the game significantly if the idea takes hold.
http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=36671

When I read that, I immediately thought 'terrible idea'! I assumed from what you wrote that Mandella was simply suggesting adding an "examination/approval" step to the current claim procedures. That would be insane, because of the inevitable arguments and lawsuits that would follow.

However, the two suggestions made in the article are much more reasonable. Here's a key paragraph from the Bloodhorse article:

"Mandella said that, in addition to his original idea that claims should be voided for horses that do not finish races, another possibility would be to change claiming events to races in which runners are sold through an auction system after they compete. That format would allow prospective buyers to examine horses' soundness immediately after racing and thus would be an incentive for owners and trainers to provide runners with rest or treatment if they have physical ailments rather than using medications that allow continued racing even if a problem is lurking."

Both of those ideas make sense, because they minimize the possible arguments that would arise from an interpretation of a horse's condition after a race. I like the auction idea. I think it captures the essense of a claiming race while doing away with the trickery and gamesmanship.

--Dunbar

Interesting ideas but probably hard to actually implement. Where would the auction take place? where would you examine the horses postrace? Who determines the degree of lameness on an pulled up horse? Maybe tracks in Southern California may try something like this but hard to see smaller venues spending the money to do this.

Athletes that are traded must pass team physicals. If a claimed horse fails an owner's physical the claim should be voided. I don't see a problem with that. The potential owner forks out the money if the horse is sound according to his standards.

The problem is that everytime a horse that is claimed runs poorly, they will "fail the physical". Do you include breathing problems also? There will be 30 claims a race if they ever let you throw them back into the water if you dont like them. What about a horse that fails the physical? Are they allowed to run back or are they given a mandatory vacation? A nice idea but in reality not practical.

isn't that why an auction would be a good idea though (just going with the original ideas....)? That way, if you don't like the way the horse ran, or you don't think the horse is sound post-race, you don't have to take him beacuse you just don't bid on him. Obviously then, the claiming price would be the minimum bid.

Sounds like a fantasy, but it could happen, right?

Cannon, maybe you can answer this -- what would that do to trainers who want to unload a horse for an owner because of the very same sorts of problems? While it's not really 'savory,' isn't it a way that an owner who wants out on a broken horse can get out? Drop the price so low that SOMEone has to bite on it just because the potential COULD be there?

That owner and trainer would be just stuck with the horse eternally in that case, which doesn't seem fair either. Sure, it's trickery, but doesn't that serve some purpose in the claiming game?

Or am I way off the mark here? I jsut remember conversations about this when I was going to Portland Meadows with my buddy there who was an exercise rider -- and how his trainer would get rid of broken horses...

When and where would this post race auction take place? I would love to hear more details.

I certainly can't speak for anyone else but I think this is the exact type of thing that this idea is trying to get away from...the idea that you 'never want to be the last one to claim a horse' is obviously true...but this idea would put pressure on the current owner to maintain the horse and not run it, if unsound to the point where it wouldn't get looked at post race...it's a fantasy sure...but imagine if it worked?
and also to pressure owners to retire horses that perhaps shouldn't be running...the last line about having more homes available for sound retirees than there are sound retirees is telling.

I dont think that you can ever legislate greed or morality. The idea of reforming claining is nice but not possible. Some owners are still going to run the sore ones if just to try to get a check, even if no one would claim them. Better would be a system of reporting all vet work done with draconian penalties for false reports. The info could be kept private but used in the case of suspicious drops that dont make the course. I dont agree with the way Christine Janks is going about geting her message accross but she is not far from the truth in many ways.

don't get me wrong, i'm hardly an advocate of running unsound horses looking for money or the sort of dishonesty that goes on in the claiming game as far as trying to get a broken horse off your hands before its too late.

i was mostly just sort of playing it out in regards to how it would affect the owners too -- and not just the greedy ones trying to run for a check, but maybe an owner who has a horse with some physical infirmities but who legitimately wants to get unload it...and allowing everyone to get a really close look before decided they don't want it -- when without an inspection, they may take a stab at it. it could go both ways it seems.

but i don't know a damn thing about the reality of it outside of some Portland conversations with the trainer and exercise rider, so I'm hardly saying I know what I'm talking about here, just sort of talking out the reality vs. the ideal.

beats me. i was just going off of the other sort of ideas that came out of that article when they spoke of 'selling' races in britain....how an auction could be feasible. i don't know enough about the 'when' and 'where' of a racetrack to be able to really answer that.

but if they really want to be rid of the horse they can 'unload' it to a rescue group and take the tax write off...YES i understand that it may be for a very limited amount of money...but they no longer have to pay the bills on it...so in the end if they are running a "broken" horse to try to unload it then it really is all about the money...cause they are hoping that either someone puts a claim in or the horse hits the board...

Is claiming where all the corruption is? Why dont we tighten up guys trying to jerk owners for 100k when a horse is 300? Why dont we tighten up the sales a little bit. The claiming game is just fine, if you dont do your homework you get stuck with a cripple, tough ****.

Well that sort of attitude is just going to drive people from the claiming game. Maybe there are enough now but where are they going to attract new blood? If the attitude was a little more accomadating towards the person claiming a horse you might find more joining in which could only be a positive for the sport.

Sniper,

There are some people who belong in this game, and there are ALOT of people who have no business in this game. If someone cannot sustain a financial hit for the full amount of the claim they are considering, they shouldnt play. We dont need anymore reform in the claiming game, infact its great the way it is. Guys get to dump horses, cheat with horses, steal horses, its what makes the game go. The claiming side of the game is where all the money is generated, its where all the fields are filled, where most of the players get action. Its basically racing, most of racing is claiming. You think they should change a system thats working well because a few guys claimed bad horses? I say F those guys........If a trainer or owner isnt willing to put in his homework to get a sound horse, they deserve whatever brokedown horse they get. Any trainer who cares about his owners will go out of his way to make sure they claim a sound productive horse. Sniper, I dont think we need to do anything with the way the claiming game works.

I know a few owners who get just as much joy out of stuffing a bad horse on someone as they do winning a race. If thats how they want to play the game let them play.

some very uninspiring posts here. and a few good ones. this game has a long, long road to improvement. i hope the cheats, crooks, and horse abusers are thrown out on their ears someday.

ok people well numero uno i dont think is gonna fly over as a couple have mentioned in the thread. second of all, if some of you only knew the condition of some of the horses you bet and win on, some of the best ones are sore and some cant even come outta their stall for a few days after the race yet they have heart and run their eyeballs out everytime you stick em in a race. others spend several hundred just to getta horse to the paddock on raceday. i personally have layed my horse up on 2 occasions already, once for 4 months and again this year for 5 months and i havent even had him 2 years lol and have done nothing but spend spend spend. believe me hes not even half as bad physically as many of the horses you see running every single day but this is a business and most owners and trainers will strictly treat it as such and not take the time to layup a horse if theres any chance they can run

The "auction" could be held right after the race. It could be a sealed bid auction. There could be something like a claim box, and interested owners would each be able to make a single sealed bid. Highest bid gets the horse. There would need to be a brief period after the race where prospective buyers could look over a horse.

There would probably have to be a minimum bid allowed, so that people do not buy horses for $100. The minimum bid should probably be set close to what the current "claim" price is. It would be posted as part of the conditions of the race.

I don't think this procedure would be any more expensive to implement than the current claim procedure.

A major reason for having claiming races is to offer a fairly level set of horses to the betting public. This "auction" structure would accomplish that goal far better than the current claiming structure. A trainer knows going in that if his/her horse wins the race, it will very likely be bought.

By moving the "claim" to after the race rather than before, you take away any chance of a trainer to unload an injured horse. You also take away the incentive to run the injured horse.

--Dunbar

Unfortunately, this would also remove my favorite angle in claiming races: betting against the overbet fav who does not logically belong in a race at a dropped down level.

Some of you may not be aware of this, but often times you can't even tell much about a horse's condition right after the race. You can tell much more a day or two later after all the drugs wear off. Horses will often times look fine right after the race but two days later they are totally lame after all the drugs wear off.

I just dont understand peoples ways of thinking. Its ok to run a horse that maybe shouldnt even be in a race because its really sore or just plain brokedown , its ok to drop that horse and hope someone claims it so you as the trainer dont have to figure out what you are going to do with it next. Its just fine and dandy to let the Sanford Shulmans of the world inject horses that have new fractures and drop them and run them killing the horse and the jockey , and for you as an owner and trainer to take that chance.
Its so true ,people in horseracing cant even open their small tunnel visioned eyes to even think about a new idea on how to make things better.

no system is full proof. that being said, all systems can be improved, claiming would definitely be one of those.

i think a claim should be invalid if a horse fails to finish, or breaks down. that happens--who the hell wants to pay out money for a horse that sadly had to be put down? yet it happens. if there's any insurance at all on a horse who just got claimed, but is put down, who gets any payout? after all, the claimer hasn't paid on any policy. that part i feel definitely needs changing.
also, it would be nice if a claim wasn't put thru unless a horse was passed by a vet--a NEUTRAL vet. obviously if you put in a claim for a horse and he stinks up the track you wouldn't want the claimer to encourage his vet to find something so as to void the claim.

also, re this auction idea. how long after the race would you wait? some horses look ok immediately after a race, but once cooled down are lamer than the day is long. and look lame til warmed up.

presumably a horse has to be racing fit to race--but we're not that naive. but i know i wouldn't want to claim a horse and then find he's not fit for even the lowest level of racing.

You can buy something called "claim insurance", so that if the horse you claim breaks down and is put down, you would get your money back.

hmm.

thanks for the info!

but then, i should have figured that. i think you can insure anything anymore.

Where would all of this take place? Where would you examine the horses? Right on the track? What time frame would there be? Do you really think it will be feasable for tracks that run a majority of claiming races a day to hold an auction after everyone of them? What about maiden claiming races for 2 yo's? Who would run a horse in them? Especially first time starters that run well? No one will take a chance in losing them. What you will create is more problems, litigation, etc.
Hundreds of horses are claimed every week. Most of them aren't so crippled that they cant race again. Most horses that run in cheaper claiming races aren't broke down, they are slow.

Richi, how much does something like this cost, say on a 20k Claim

There is some truth to this and the body produces endocrines naturally that will wear off after resting also.

I believe 5% of claiming price. Some states HBPA's offer free claming ins to members under a group policy.

so 20k plus 1k to insure....interesting...

Yo Cannon, do first time owners have to hook a trainer up, up front, like a 5k advance to train the horse or is it on the honor system?

Even though I love your advance idea, usually you get billed at the end of the month.

I see why it is a pain in the ass then, people don't pay their regular life bills and then they have to pay for the friggin horse, which I am assuming is more then just the day rate but also the meds and medical maintence included in that monthly bill

I don't think it's nearly that expensive. It only costs 5% to insure a horse for the whole year. I think the claim insurance only insures the horse for one race. I don't think it would be 5% to insure a horse against a one-time chance of a breakdown in the race you claim him.

Some guys pay in adavance. I paid my horse from point of purchase at the sale until his first race. The trainer and I negotiated a fair rate.

You get a break for doing that?

Yes, the trainer needed liquid money, and I thought it would be a good deal for me to front the money and get a break on day rate. We both got what we considered a good deal.

Trainers always can use the liquid cash, its tough to keep over 10 in training if owners start backing you up, very tough

You raise some good questions about time and place of the "examination". I'm guessing the length of the "examination" period would be on the order of 15" or 30". I don't see any reason why the whole process would have to be completed before the start of the next race. As far as the "auction" itself, it shouldn't take any more time than what it takes to drop a bid into a claim box.

Whatever shortcomings this process has in terms of lameness that doesn't show up until the following day, it would still be much safer for the buyer than the current procedure.

At any rate, I think it's a good topic for discussion. Maybe a procedure can evolve that satisfies your concerns.

--Dunbar

Should just run one and send it directly to the auction ring. Dont give it any water, dont cool it out, just auction them off. Sounds almost foolproof.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!