scratch rules in kentucky

[jpops757]

Im just a fan . Not an owner or trainer. The problem with all the if,ands or buts, is you get the attorneys and some type of govt agency involved and we know this isnt good. I think Chuck offered a simple solution . Cut back on the number of races,increase the purses,develope some sort of curcits to eliminate regoinal compition and utilize regional coperation.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by jpops757

Im just a fan . Not an owner or trainer. The problem with all the if,ands or buts, is you get the attorneys and some type of govt agency involved and we know this isnt good. I think Chuck offered a simple solution . Cut back on the number of races,increase the purses,develope some sort of curcits to eliminate regoinal compition and utilize regional coperation.

Another idea with regard to the claiming rules is to tie the number a claims an owner can make to the number of starts they have. At the short meets it will be hard for a guy to make too many starts and the number of claims will be limited. So if you start a horse you can claim a horse. After you make 2 starts you can claim 2 horses. And so on. Because there are so many short meets it will limit the number of people that will be eligible to claim more than one horse.

[ELA]

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

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by ELA

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

The fact that tracks focus strictly on field size without regard to the quality of the racing at their meet tells you all you need to know about racetrack management. Sure field size is an important facet in the big picture but it is not nearly as important as they are stressing it to be. Because if you have a 12 horse field with 5 no hope 40-1 shots, how is that better than an 8 horse race where they all have a shot? It is like after 100 years they have discovered this magic formula. I suppose it is an easy way for track management to deflect blame when the handle is off.

[ELA]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The fact that tracks focus strictly on field size without regard to the quality of the racing at their meet tells you all you need to know about racetrack management. Sure field size is an important facet in the big picture but it is not nearly as important as they are stressing it to be. Because if you have a 12 horse field with 5 no hope 40-1 shots, how is that better than an 8 horse race where they all have a shot? It is like after 100 years they have discovered this magic formula. I suppose it is an easy way for track management to deflect blame when the handle is off.

Chuck, I agree with you completely. My question, while somewhat rhetorical in nature, should should shed light on the fact that -- as you said -- field size is not the end all, cure all; and it can't be looked at myopically. Thus, this entire solution is alleged at best, and might be an alleged solution to a problem that really doesn't exist, isn't important, etc.

I think field size can be addressed in a variety of other ways (also as you said). I read condition books constantly. I read some, and then see races that don't go, and I am shocked that race offices don't see the writing on the walls. Put 14 or 15 races in the book every single day. Have multiple duplicates two out of three or four days, with similars as well. No wonder why races don't go. And race offices are hustling to get 6, or maybe 7 with a scratch.

Personally, I think PJ Campo has done a great job with the cards he's been dealt. However, I don't understand why a losing proposition won't allow someone to say "Hey, maybe we should be looking at 10 races a day instead of 11" (or 9 instead of 10 for that matter).

What monster are you feeding here.

Eric

[The Indomitable DrugS]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Sure field size is an important facet in the big picture but it is not nearly as important as they are stressing it to be. Because if you have a 12 horse field with 5 no hope 40-1 shots, how is that better than an 8 horse race where they all have a shot?

It's mildly better because, assuming those longshots are all infact hopeless, whatever little bit of money those hopeless horses attract...it lowers the vig in a way. A fairly surprising number of people wheel horses with the all button.

I see your point though.

There's nothing a horse player should like more than a competitively bet field with a large field size.