Saratoga maiden policy...

[Cannon Shell]

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/edito...e.cgi?id=29896

On turf this is probably a good idea. There are no issues with field size in 2 turn dirt maidens at Saratoga. But limiting 6f and 7f 2 yo maiden races to 8 makes little sense except for the politically correct among us.

Sure it only affects a few races but it furthers a continuing and disturbing trend of negative reinforcement that racing horses is a bad or dangerous activity BY the leaders of the sport. The idea that a 10 horse field going 7f is going to somehow take away from the "quality" that a 7 (there will always be a scratch) horse field provides is bizzare.

[Calzone Lord]

It's a little silly.

In the old days, you'd get 24 horse fields in 2yo MSW races at Belmont on the straightaway.

Fields of 12 were very common in early season 2yo races around a turn.

"Protecting our horses is an important mandate"

Anything to make the sport safer for the humans and horses is what they're trying to get across I suppose.

[Alabama Stakes]

ANYTHING promoting smaller fields is as dopey as it gets. That was stupidest line of reasoning I've ever read. I wonder if he even believes his own bulllsht

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

It's a little silly.

In the old days, you'd get 24 horse fields in 2yo MSW races at Belmont on the straightaway.

Fields of 12 were very common in early season 2yo races around a turn.



Anything to make the sport safer for the humans and horses is what they're trying to get across I suppose.

What is next? Each horse just sprints alone and we compare times?

[Linny]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

http://www.brisnet.com/cgi-bin/edito...e.cgi?id=29896

On turf this is probably a good idea. There are no issues with field size in 2 turn dirt maidens at Saratoga. But limiting 6f and 7f 2 yo maiden races to 8 makes little sense except for the politically correct among us.

Sure it only affects a few races but it furthers a continuing and disturbing trend of negative reinforcement that racing horses is a bad or dangerous activity BY the leaders of the sport. The idea that a 10 horse field going 7f is going to somehow take away from the "quality" that a 7 (there will always be a scratch) horse field provides is bizzare.

There is usually a high quality field going 7 on Labor Day weekend and it usually fills well. If I'm not mistaken, To Honor and Serve was second on debut in this race and it was a full field that day. My question is if they will have AE's. The first time that 8 horse field has 2 vet scratches, a stewards scratch and then a gate scratch (not that an AE would matter then) and becomes a 4 horse field will they still be bragging about the quality?

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

What is next? Each horse just sprints alone and we compare times?

If only dog racing was conducted that way!

[PatCummings]

Originally Posted by Linny

There is usually a high quality field going 7 on Labor Day weekend and it usually fills well. If I'm not mistaken, To Honor and Serve was second on debut in this race and it was a full field that day. My question is if they will have AE's. The first time that 8 horse field has 2 vet scratches, a stewards scratch and then a gate scratch (not that an AE would matter then) and becomes a 4 horse field will they still be bragging about the quality?

To Honor and Serve was second, and the jock claimed foul against Astrology, who won, and the foul was dismissed. It was a full field of 14 going 6 or 7 on dirt. A writer ridiculed the race and said it should've been divided into two, because, you know, a 14 horse field is so much more interesting than a 14...but still.

[Calzone Lord]

The top four finishers in that race were all subsquent Graded Stakes winners.

To Honor and Serve was a shockingly low price at 6/1 in that race. Bill Mott is such a terrible debut sire -- and most of the time, his horses won't get bet that much anymore on debut in tough looking races. He felt like a 15/1 or 20/1 shot on paper in that race.

[Cannon Shell]

What happens when a 2 yo turf race going 2 turns is taken off of the turf? They move the distance back to 7f making it a sprint. What if no one scratches? What if they have MTO's?

Limiting sprint races on the dirt to 8 horse fields is just another politiclly correct move that makes no sense, sends the wrong message and serves to make racing cards less playable to some degree especially if there are a few scratches.

The reasoning that they gave is embarrassing...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

The top four finishers in that race were all subsquent Graded Stakes winners.

To Honor and Serve was a shockingly low price at 6/1 in that race. Bill Mott is such a terrible debut sire -- and most of the time, his horses won't get bet that much anymore on debut in tough looking races. He felt like a 15/1 or 20/1 shot on paper in that race.

Where did you get the stats on Mott's sire record?

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What happens when a 2 yo turf race going 2 turns is taken off of the turf? They move the distance back to 7f making it a sprint. What if no one scratches? What if they have MTO's?

Limiting sprint races on the dirt to 8 horse fields is just another politiclly correct move that makes no sense, sends the wrong message and serves to make racing cards less playable to some degree especially if there are a few scratches.

The reasoning that they gave is embarrassing...

I'm just glad it doesn't affect many races, and I don't bet those kind anyway. This move makes ZERO sense and is, indirectly, yet another shot at bettors.

[Calzone Lord]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Where did you get the stats on Mott's sire record?

A+ for reading comprehension.

[Scav]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What happens when a 2 yo turf race going 2 turns is taken off of the turf? They move the distance back to 7f making it a sprint. What if no one scratches? What if they have MTO's?

Limiting sprint races on the dirt to 8 horse fields is just another politiclly correct move that makes no sense, sends the wrong message and serves to make racing cards less playable to some degree especially if there are a few scratches.

The reasoning that they gave is embarrassing...

I am wondering if another reason is that it will create more 2 year old winners (40 entries now creates 5 winners instead of 4) thus giving their graded stakes fields a boost. We all know that when you win a MSW with a 2 year old, the next logical step now days is a G2.

[parsixfarms]

With field size limited to eight horses, you can pretty much guarantee that all the 2YO races on dirt will be front-loaded in the card.

[Calzone Lord]

Things are becoming easier at all levels.

Look at some of the trainers at the cheap New York track, Finger Lakes this meet:

James S. Acquilano (82-40-14-10) 49% wins
Chris J. Englehart (122-50-34-11) 41% wins
Jeremiah C. Englehart (81-31-16-14) 38% wins
Charlton Baker (80-28-13-13) 35% wins
James T. Wright (31-10-12-5) 32% wins and 71% in exacta.
Michael S. Ferraro (62-17-12-12) 27% wins


You'll see races where five horses in the same race have different trainers winning at over 30% for the meet.

It's like a capitalism VS communism debate -- but in pro sports -- communism works better.

The Super Bowl winner is punished and has to draft 32nd overall. They have to play the tougher schedule next year. The team with the worst records draft highest and play an easier non conference schedule.

Ever since horse racing has drifted further and further away from handicaps -- it has resulted in softer, easier racing...where the best horses and trainers are no longer devalued by a competitive balance.

Handicaps are a huge part of what made trainers run horses. They were also stiff punishments that would truly devalue dominant horses at all class levels.

A horse like Rapid Redux would have been giving 45lbs away in the old days. A horse like Zenyatta would have had had to carry three bowling balls more in her saddle than she did in those narrow wins over terrible females like Rinterval and Anabaa's Creations. She gave just 4lbs to those horses.

After the 3yo classics, you have very few weight for age events. Horses had to either retire or run ... and defeats were absolutely inevitable and sometimes even welcomed early on by trainers of top horses coming back to keep their imposts under control for the more important races.

A lot of times, the goal was to win by as narrow a margin as comfortably possible and to make it look like the jockey was busier than he was. Sometimes the jockey would even still be selling it after the race. They'd pretend like they can't carry the saddle because it's too heavy and Hollywood it up.

The small-fry trainers with the cheap horses would run the living sh!t out of their horses.

[ontheoutside]

again protect the horses im ok with that
but protect the owners?
and protect the style of the nyra?
what about the most important thing here the betters
without us there is no horses or owners
going to a 8 horse feild knocks me out of betting triples
supers
there will be more favs starting or ending picks3's and 4's
again not putting the betters the ones who fuel this bisiness
in the conversation is beyond belief

[Calzone Lord]

They are under fire from the cities big newspaper.

It's PR.

Plus, you as a bettor, are supposed to benefit from these more cleanly run races.

So, it can be presented as a win/win for all.

I bet a lot of these 2yo races -- it's not a great big deal to me either way. It's silly, though.

[ateamstupid]

This is a joke, right? The circuit that can't get more than 5-6 horses to run in its Grade 1's is taking steps to limit field size?

[Bigsmc]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

This is a joke, right? The circuit that can't get more than 5-6 horses to run in its Grade 1's is taking steps to limit field size?

Horseplayers lose again.

I'm sure the minimal amount of handle they will lose will be more than made up for by the Slots Monster.

[hud8118]

from one who watches and studies the 2 year old maiden races looking for future opportunities...this decision will certainly reduce my play...will be fewer horses with trips and those who get them will be more obvious and less hidden, thus reducing their future odds...more horses = better opportunities for trip handicapppers, especially the subtle trips and hidden positive efforts in larger fields...just don't like this decision at all!!!!!!