Owner protests non-enforcement of Santa Anita race condition

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

That is fine, but handicappers shouldn't have to read a Bloodhorse article to know what the real conditions are. As I always say, give us bettors accurate info...we'll take it from there.

So horseplayers would have moved up the winner because his trainer has some horses at Los Al running in $3K claiming races at 4F?

Sorry, but I find your argument specious in this particular case. We aren't judging horses by the number of horses a trainer has. Do we ever know it anyway.

You know where I stand on information to horseplayers, and I spend a good portion of my life at least trying to add to the information available to horseplayers, but I have trouble seeing where there was actually an issue here. We're handicapping horses...aren't we?

[Konk]

Just what the game needs - Fake conditions, to go with the fake distances run, and the fake times they run them in. What's next, they make the condition "about 20 horses" like GP did to explain the fake 7.5F turf races?

The article was true and the game needs more like it.
Irresponsible of SA.

Trainer of the place horse should take this to court.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

So horseplayers would have moved up the winner because his trainer has some horses at Los Al running in $3K claiming races at 4F?

Sorry, but I find your argument specious in this particular case. We aren't judging horses by the number of horses a trainer has. Do we ever know it anyway.

You know where I stand on information to horseplayers, and I spend a good portion of my life at least trying to add to the information available to horseplayers, but I have trouble seeing where there was actually an issue here. We're handicapping horses...aren't we?

As we discussed privately, this isn't what I meant. Bettors need to be able to trust printed conditions. I'm sure you agree they are often very important when handicapping a race. For this particular race, no, bettors had the PPs and bet accordingly. I just think having "spirit of the rule" conditions sets a bad precedent. We need to be able to trust what we read in black and white in the PPs. The racing secretary can't be this haphazard about it.

You or I could have written clear, concise conditions that matched the intent of the "new" race conditions in a few minutes I'd bet. Maybe even Steve too.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

As we discussed privately, this isn't what I meant. Bettors need to be able to trust printed conditions. I'm sure you agree they are often very important when handicapping a race. For this particular race, no, bettors had the PPs and bet accordingly. I just think having "spirit of the rule" conditions sets a bad precedent. We need to be able to trust what we read in black and white in the PPs. The racing secretary can't be this haphazard about it.

You or I could have written clear, concise conditions that matched the intent of the "new" race conditions in a few minutes I'd bet. Maybe even Steve too.

The spirit of the rule element is for horsemen and owners. The public has been clamoring for a way to give smaller outfits a better chance to compete and then criticize the early attempts to provide that chance.

There was nothing haphazard about the provisions of the race, as stated above: Horses listed as intended to run at SA during the meet, a list that every trainer is required to provide for insurance purposes. That's what was the benchmark from inside the racing office and for the stewards to OK the concept and running of the race.

What was haphazard was an alleged journalist distorting the circumstances around the race with incomplete information, creating an unnecessary reaction from people that have nothing about which to be aggrieved.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Kasept

The spirit of the rule element is for horsemen and owners. The public has been clamoring for a way to give smaller outfits a better chance to compete and then criticize the early attempts to provide that chance.

There was nothing haphazard about the provisions of the race, as stated above: Horses listed as intended to run at SA during the meet, a list that every trainer is required to provide for insurance purposes. That's what was the benchmark from inside the racing office and for the stewards to OK the concept and running of the race.

What was haphazard was an alleged journalist distorting the circumstances around the race with incomplete information, creating an unnecessary reaction from people that have nothing about which to be aggrieved.

The conditions should be clear (or easily verifiable) about which horses are eligible, especially for horsemen but also for bettors. That wasn't the case here. My posts had nothing to do with any journalist. This would have come up sooner or later the way the races were written.

[Kasept]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

The conditions should be clear (or easily verifiable) about which horses are eligible, especially for horsemen but also for bettors. That wasn't the case here. My posts had nothing to do with any journalist. This would have come up sooner or later the way the races were written.

I completely understand the point. I'm sure they'll work to clarify completely going forward.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

...I just think having "spirit of the rule" conditions sets a bad precedent. We need to be able to trust what we read in black and white in the PPs. The racing secretary can't be this haphazard about it.

You or I could have written clear, concise conditions that matched the intent of the "new" race conditions in a few minutes I'd bet...

Originally Posted by cmorioles

The conditions should be clear (or easily verifiable) about which horses are eligible, especially for horsemen but also for bettors. That wasn't the case here...

Exactly. I don't see how there can be any argument about this.