Churchill to test scratch horses

[justindew]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

I respect Chuck's opinion as he obviously understands the physical aspect of this much better than I ever will, but I don't think that's the only issue here, and I for one am happy any time any racetrack seems to pay attention to the horseplayers' interests. The simple fact is that horseplayers waste an enormous amount of time handicapping races that end up completely different than the ones they originally analyzed. In NY, race after race gets significantly altered by late scratches, and the handicapping of claiming races in particular becomes superfluous until the late scratches are given. And, furthermore, the same trainers seem to scratch the most, and often this seems to be because the race does not set up well for their entrants. These scratched horses also show up in the very near future quite often. While I blame the racing office for carding similar opportunities for these scratched horses, I blame the trainers too, who show little to no regard, far too often, for the overall best interests of the game. Why should they be allowed to enter and then have the option of deciding if the race is too tough for their horse at the expense of the overall good of the game? When an eight horse race scratches down to five this is dramatically the case. Horseplayers are given a poor wagering opportunity, thus the handle suffers significantly, and everybody loses.

Nobody is suggesting that a trainer run an ailing horse, but we all know that this is quite often not the case with scratched horses, and perhaps a plan like this will minimize the problem horseplayers face with abundant scratches. I understand there are opposing views to this, and I could probably argue some of them as well, but to me the bottom line is that the game is much better overall when original fields remain intact......and when there's a sense that this will be the case on a consistent basis.

Would trainers be less inclined to scratch if there was a rule that said any scratched horse cannot run for, say, 21 days? Maybe instead of testing horses, which like Chuck said will catch no one, they could force a horse to stay in the barn for a period of time. Perhaps that would separate the healthy from the sick, so to speak.

I also don't think this move has anything to do with protecting horseplayers' interests. That is incidental.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by justindew

I also don't think this move has anything to do with protecting horseplayers' interests. That is incidental.

Yes an no. Obviously it is being done to try to increase field size. However, this is because the larger the field size the larger the handle, and thus the more the track makes. However, the handle is bigger because horseplayers, obviously, have a greater desire to wager. Thus the differing interests are directly intertwined.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Yes an no. Obviously it is being done to try to increase field size. However, this is because the larger the field size the larger the handle, and thus the more the track makes. However, the handle is bigger because horseplayers, obviously, have a greater desire to wager. Thus the differing interests are directly intertwined.

I'm just big on not giving credit where credit isn't due. And were it not for the fact that larger fields mean more money for the track, this move would not have been made, even IF bettors asked for it.

Now, I'll be singing a different tune when tracks start refunding money or paying consolations when a multi-race bet is affected by a scratch instead of giving the post-time favorite. I hate that rule.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by justindew

I'm just big on not giving credit where credit isn't due. And were it not for the fact that larger fields mean more money for the track, this move would not have been made, even IF bettors asked for it.

Fair enough, but I am also for applauding a rule which has at least an auxilary benefit to horseplayers.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Fair enough, but I am also for applauding a rule which has at least an auxilary benefit to horseplayers.

Let's see what happens after CD weighs the cost of the testing against the added revenue from the increased handle, if there is any added handle.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by justindew

Let's see what happens after CD weighs the cost of the testing against the added revenue from the increased handle, if there is any added handle.

As I said before a state that is lacking in funding for proper testing is jsut wasting more time testing for things like this. CD could put its money into something more constructive that actually has a chance of doing something.

[phystech]

Originally Posted by justindew

Would trainers be less inclined to scratch if there was a rule that said any scratched horse cannot run for, say, 21 days? Maybe instead of testing horses, which like Chuck said will catch no one, they could force a horse to stay in the barn for a period of time. Perhaps that would separate the healthy from the sick, so to speak.

There's your solution. Make the horse stand in the barn so it can't make the next race it scratched to run in. To make this effective, though, they'd have to ensure cross-track communication so that I couldn't scratch out of Delpark to run at Charles Town, and get away with it.

A lot of condition books seem to be written on a 21 to 28 day cycle so make it 30 days.