NYRA to no longer accept entries from horses who ran <14 days ago

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

There were only 52 horses today in nine races at NYRA. Two 3-horse fields, two 4-horse fields. Five races that might have been playable on the card. Andy Serling must have been tearing his remaining hair out today.

I agree that the "final" product that NYRA put out yesterday was embarrassing. That said, you do realize that many of the scratches on Sunday were the result of confusion on the application on the 14-day rule.

For all the bashing of Aqueduct, my impression is that the maiden, allowance and stakes racing so far at the meet has been pretty good. The upper level claiming races have also been competitive. The "problem area," if you will, has been the bottom-level claimers; that's where the vast majority of the break-downs have occurred. I don't understand why NYRA was unwilling to acknowledge this fact (rather, stating that there was no factor linking a majority of the breakdowns). Had the decision been mine, I would have raised the bottom claiming level to $20,000 and then do the best you can in terms of filling races (and this would be partially contrary to self-interest, as our partnership owns one horse that my proposed rule would likely result in us having to ship out of town to run). If you only run six or seven races a day, or cut back the number of race days per week, that's the price you have to pay in this political environment.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I agree that the "final" product that NYRA put out yesterday was embarrassing. That said, you do realize that many of the scratches on Sunday were the result of confusion on the application on the 14-day rule.

For all the bashing of Aqueduct, my impression is that the maiden, allowance and stakes racing so far at the meet has been pretty good. The upper level claiming races have also been competitive. The "problem area," if you will, has been the bottom-level claimers; that's where the vast majority of the break-downs have occurred. I don't understand why NYRA was unwilling to acknowledge this fact (rather, stating that there was no factor linking a majority of the breakdowns). Had the decision been mine, I would have raised the bottom claiming level to $20,000 and then do the best you can in terms of filling races (and this would be partially contrary to self-interest, as our partnership owns one horse that my proposed rule would likely result in us having to ship out of town to run). If you only run six or seven races a day, or cut back the number of race days per week, that's the price you have to pay in this political environment.

Like most tracks, the majority of stock is cheap claimers and maidens. by raising the minimal claiming price to 20K, you would not be eliminating the cheap claimers-the 10K horse would just run, virtually protected, for 20k instead.

No track can possibly do what they are trying here and expect to live.

Particularly when you are competing with Gulfstream, Tampa, FG, Oaklawn, etc. this time of year.
In my opinion, the only way to work this (and this will be an extremely unpopular opinion) is to run a 3 day week, running two of those days on industry dark days to limit the exposure to competition. That way you will get attention to 5 horse fields when it's the only game going.

Save the best fields/stake races for Saturday, and run live with what you can fill on Monday and Tuesday. And pray like a bandit for the Main Track to open early.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

Like most tracks, the majority of stock is cheap claimers and maidens. by raising the minimal claiming price to 20K, you would not be eliminating the cheap claimers-the 10K horse would just run, virtually protected, for 20k instead.

I understand your point, and that's why the decision to raise the bottom from $12,500 to $16,000 for maiden claimers was a distinction without a difference.

As for "open" claimers, I think raising the bottom would have a significant effect. A few years ago, when the first rash of inner track fatalities occurred, the bottom claiming level for the winter meet was $7500, and there were many Finger Lakes horses wintering here. NYRA raised the bottom to $12,500 last winter, and few of those horses were here last winter. If NYRA were to raise the bottom to $20,000, will there be some horsemen running their horses over their heads? Sure. But the difference in New York between $20,000 and $10,000 is far greater than the difference between, for example, $5,000 and $8,000 at a track like Tampa.

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

As for "open" claimers, I think raising the bottom would have a significant effect. A few years ago, when the first rash of inner track fatalities occurred, the bottom claiming level for the winter meet was $7500, and there were many Finger Lakes horses wintering here. NYRA raised the bottom to $12,500 last winter, and few of those horses were here last winter. If NYRA were to raise the bottom to $20,000, will there be some horsemen running their horses over their heads? Sure. But the difference in New York between $20,000 and $10,000 is far greater than the difference between, for example, $5,000 and $8,000 at a track like Tampa.

Looking at this weekend's action, if the bottom level was set at $20,000, Sunday's card would have only presented five races unless some of those in the $10,000 and $16,000 claiming levels (from the remaining 52) agreed to "play up" ... and if that were the case, what would have been the difference? NYRA is not putting $10,000 claimers on the oval and holding back an eight-horse $20-$25,000 claimer.

Remember that the original task force report capped claimers to run for a purse at twice their claiming price. Taking a true $10,000 claimer and putting that horse into a $20,000 claimer to run for a $40,000 purse was a secondary problem that originally existed; perhaps a clause is required at your $20,000 baseline that says "only horses that finished in the top four at $16,000 may enter"?

Putting in a claiming floor as suggested will have a huge impact on Winter Racing in that you might not only lose the three races already sacrificed on Wednesdays through Friday, but you might lose another six to eight races per week in their entirety.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

Looking at this weekend's action, if the bottom level was set at $20,000, Sunday's card would have only presented five races unless some of those in the $10,000 and $16,000 claiming levels (from the remaining 52) agreed to "play up" ... and if that were the case, what would have been the difference? NYRA is not putting $10,000 claimers on the oval and holding back an eight-horse $20-$25,000 claimer.

Remember that the original task force report capped claimers to run for a purse at twice their claiming price. Taking a true $10,000 claimer and putting that horse into a $20,000 claimer to run for a $40,000 purse was a secondary problem that originally existed; perhaps a clause is required at your $20,000 baseline that says "only horses that finished in the top four at $16,000 may enter"?

Putting in a claiming floor as suggested will have a huge impact on Winter Racing in that you might not only lose the three races already sacrificed on Wednesdays through Friday, but you might lose another six to eight races per week in their entirety.

The purse "problem" from the task force isn't what you are citing. The issue was that you had $7500 claimers, in some instances, running for a $30,000 purse. Running a horse over its head, whether sound or not, is not going to result in significant earnings for the owner/trainer if the horses can't compete at the level.

I understand completely what the impact of raising the bottom claiming price to $20,000 might be. The issue is, in this political environment, how many races can NYRA, for want of a better word, "safely" conduct. If that number is only 25 or thirty per week, so be it. That is a lot better than having the political opportunists, feigning outrage over equine fatalities, shutting racing down altogether should more bottom level horses break down.

[ScottJ]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

The purse "problem" from the task force isn't what you are citing. The issue was that you had $7500 claimers, in some instances, running for a $30,000 purse. Running a horse over its head, whether sound or not, is not going to result in significant earnings for the owner/trainer if the horses can't compete at the level.

Agreed that the task force report issue is not *exactly* the situation at hand, but given how slippery this entire subject has been, I chose to go one step ahead; to wit, how long is it until you have a $10,000 plater running for a $20,000 tag and a $40,000 purse where that intermediate class aspect is lost in the discussion? At the end of the day, the report discussed claimers running for three, four, and five times their own price. This is precisely why I suggested a performance parameter before accepting lower grade claimers into your $20,000 basement price.

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I understand completely what the impact of raising the bottom claiming price to $20,000 might be. The issue is, in this political environment, how many races can NYRA, for want of a better word, "safely" conduct. If that number is only 25 or thirty per week, so be it. That is a lot better than having the political opportunists, feigning outrage over equine fatalities, shutting racing down altogether should more bottom level horses break down.

Which brings us all the way back to one of my very first posts in this entire thread (exchanged with Steve Byk). Explain again why NYRA should continue winter racing? Would anyone really miss January and February? Why not close from December 15th through March 15th?

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

Which brings us all the way back to one of my very first posts in this entire thread (exchanged with Steve Byk). Explain again why NYRA should continue winter racing? Would anyone really miss January and February? Why not close from December 15th through March 15th?

A number of turf writers like to wax poetically about the way things were in racing 40 years ago, but racing today is a far different sport than it was forty years ago. The landed gentry no longer operate the only stables, and economics does play a significant role for many participants in the game. With respect to New York racing, about half the participants during the winter meet are NY-breds (if I heard Martin Panza correctly during a pre-Saratoga appearance on Andy Serling's At the Post show). These are obviously not the same NY-breds that competed in the days of Fio Rito and Fratello Ed. If you shut down racing in New York for the period you are suggesting, it would have a very negative impact on the New York breeding industry - both in terms of declining values for New York-bred foals and diminished payments to breeders from breeder awards earned during the winter months.

Ill-informed journalists such as Joe Drape like to throw around numbers that make Aqueduct look like a financial loser for NYRA, but as I always heard Charlie Hayward explain it, the fact is that, because Aqueduct pays lower purses, it actually supplements significantly the purse account for Belmont (where the incremental increase in handle over Aqueduct on non-Belmont Stakes days would not otherwise support its purse structure). Aqueduct's signal is still the third highest handle producing track in the nation during the winter (behind only Gulfstream and Santa Anita). For those who don't like the product, there are plenty of other tracks on which wagers can be placed.

NYRA operates a year-round circuit. Several horsemen live year-round in New York. What would you have them and their families do during the period that Aqueduct is shuttered? If you force them to relocate (Florida and Maryland are improving their products these days and aggressively courting horsemen), you may never get them back. While the horsemen that live in New York on a year-round basis may not be supplying the majority of the stakes horses for the Belmont and Saratoga meets, they are supplying a vast majority of the horses that fill four or five races a day at those venues. Marin Panza recently stated that it is a problem that a small number of the horsemen earn very large percentages of the total purse money; shutting down Aqueduct would only exacerbate that problem. Overall, an Aqueduct-less NYRA probably results in weaker Saratoga and Belmont meets which, in turn, presents a whole host of other regional economic implications.

And this does not speak at all to the negative impact that closing Aqueduct for three months would have upon the OTBs and their governmental beneficiaries....

[ateamstupid]

Originally Posted by ScottJ

Which brings us all the way back to one of my very first posts in this entire thread (exchanged with Steve Byk). Explain again why NYRA should continue winter racing? Would anyone really miss January and February? Why not close from December 15th through March 15th?

You really just need to cut back on dates. I agree with you that it's foolhardy to try to run nine races a day, five days a week all throughout the winter, but I don't understand why anyone would think winter racing has to be eliminated altogether. There are still ample owners, trainers, jockeys and horses to run a winter program in NY. NYRA just can't plan to draw the cards as if it's spring or fall at Belmont. 3-4 days instead of 5 would accomplish much of what we're talking about in this thread: expanding field size and strengthening the product, while still allowing the horsemen to put food on their families.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I understand your point, and that's why the decision to raise the bottom from $12,500 to $16,000 for maiden claimers was a distinction without a difference.

As for "open" claimers, I think raising the bottom would have a significant effect. A few years ago, when the first rash of inner track fatalities occurred, the bottom claiming level for the winter meet was $7500, and there were many Finger Lakes horses wintering here. NYRA raised the bottom to $12,500 last winter, and few of those horses were here last winter. If NYRA were to raise the bottom to $20,000, will there be some horsemen running their horses over their heads? Sure. But the difference in New York between $20,000 and $10,000 is far greater than the difference between, for example, $5,000 and $8,000 at a track like Tampa.

I see your point Brian, but it is a scarcity of these types that is at issue.

I'm not willing to concede that it's cheap horses that are the main cause/source of breakdowns and by eliminating the venue for them you eliminate the breakdowns happening. And really don't want to rehash the argument of what is the cause.

I've definitely noticed an increase in Finger Lakes horses this meet (@ Tampa) - and just like their Fort Eire compatriots, they aren't winning here either.

The fact is, it's a horse shortage situation and the quality of product here has fallen as a result of having to write races for what you have available to run.

If NYRA is to continue down this path, they HAVE to cut race days. They aren't going to open anytime mid week to run a 6 race card. Players are not going to invest full price for handicapping material for 6 six horse field races (pre-scratch). Furthermore, chasing 60% of the barn off the property by removing their races would devastate and already exacerbated situation

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

I'm not willing to concede that it's cheap horses that are the main cause/source of breakdowns and by eliminating the venue for them you eliminate the breakdowns happening. And really don't want to rehash the argument of what is the cause.

The fact is, it's a horse shortage situation and the quality of product here has fallen as a result of having to write races for what you have available to run.

If NYRA is to continue down this path, they HAVE to cut race days. They aren't going to open anytime mid week to run a 6 race card. Players are not going to invest full price for handicapping material for 6 six horse field races (pre-scratch). Furthermore, chasing 60% of the barn off the property by removing their races would devastate and already exacerbated problem

While I realize that the problem is multi-faceted, and that bottom-level claimers are not inherently sore, here are the types of races in which the horses that suffered fatal musculoskeletal injuries competed: $25,000 NW2L; NY-bred $25,000 maiden claiming; $12,500 NW3L; NY-bred $25,000 maiden claiming; $12,500 NW2L; NY-bred MSW; $12,500 maiden claiming; $16,000 starter allowance (two fatalities); $12,500 maiden claiming; and $25,000 NW2L.

It's not as if NYRA won't be able to card good races; they may just have to run less of them. Yesterday, we ran in a state-bred NW2x allowance/optional claiming event that was split into two competitive divisions after 18 horses passed the entry box. The meet's maiden races have been particularly strong, to the point where several Pletcher shippers from Florida have been defeated (even in the state-bred ranks). Whether you think he can ultimately get a classic distance, the first inner track Derby prep was won by a very nice horse in El Kabier.