Many of these rules that are put into effect are often done under the guise of not wanting to lose horses from the population, maintaining or improving field size, etc. -- however, while it appears like a good idea in theory, I have found that most of the time it doesn't work. There are always other ancillary effects and ramifications in other areas.
Where and when I can race has a direct impact on how I place my horse. If you want to reduce the # of horses claimed at a short meet like Keeneland -- change your eligibility to claim! Don't handcuff an owner on the back end. Maryland recently underwent similar rules proposals/changes. Personally, I would like to know what % of horses claimed race back elsewhere. Of course the #'s are going to be skewed at the end of a meet.
These types of rules hurt the smaller owner -- the backbone of this business. Most owners are not a Sanan, Ramsey, etc. Tell a small owner he has to pay $85 a day, plus vet, blacksmith, shipping, etc. -- but can't race-back in a competitive spot for X days. More importantly, locking an owner up and making them stay in a state, at another meet, etc. is absolute nonsense. This will not help field size.
Stupid question -- aside from state madates or something of the like, if you want to improve field size, why not cut back in the # of races carded daily?
Eric
|