This is wrong...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

How many horses can get a track to do this stuff? I hope you have one some day and I hope you learn that when you have a star its ok to get star treatment. Are you really offended that Porter got what he wanted and so did FG? BTW the other horses in the race that couldn't win will now have an extra 20k to whack up. Maybe the balance of the owners should "Just say thank you"

Star treatment? Rigging the game isnt star treatment, it is rigging the game. I don't care what either Porter or the track wanted. Like I said if they upped the purse to get the horse fine, no problem. But when you change the rules for one horse to the detriment of others why scratch your head when people call the sports integrity into question?

[Left Bank]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Star treatment? Rigging the game isnt star treatment, it is rigging the game. I don't care what either Porter or the track wanted. Like I said if they upped the purse to get the horse fine, no problem. But when you change the rules for one horse to the detriment of others why scratch your head when people call the sports integrity into question?

And then they wonder why there are only 4 and 5 horse fields.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Star treatment? Rigging the game isnt star treatment, it is rigging the game. I don't care what either Porter or the track wanted. Like I said if they upped the purse to get the horse fine, no problem. But when you change the rules for one horse to the detriment of others why scratch your head when people call the sports integrity into question?

You are going way too deep for Sir Frederick. Keep it simple please.

[The Devil]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Star treatment? Rigging the game isnt star treatment, it is rigging the game. I don't care what either Porter or the track wanted. Like I said if they upped the purse to get the horse fine, no problem. But when you change the rules for one horse to the detriment of others why scratch your head when people call the sports integrity into question?

[FGFan]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Star treatment? Rigging the game isnt star treatment, it is rigging the game. I don't care what either Porter or the track wanted. Like I said if they upped the purse to get the horse fine, no problem. But when you change the rules for one horse to the detriment of others why scratch your head when people call the sports integrity into question?

From my understanding of the situation the FG racing office went to an old condition book to give her the weight assignment and when they looked at a more recent condition book that's when they realized they gave HDG the wrong weight.
So it seems to me they didn't change the rules they screwed the pooch when they first told them the conditions. Really how do you screw up on the HOY giving out the correct rules in the first place, that should have been checked in triplicate.
And it is also my understanding per the interviews about this since HDG had already committed to the Azeri they asked the FG to up the purse 50K. Of course they would agree, why wouldn't they.
Although I really don't understand why 5 lbs would make such a difference on the HOY but apparently it did.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by FGFan

From my understanding of the situation the FG racing office went to an old condition book to give her the weight assignment and when they looked at a more recent condition book that's when they realized they gave HDG the wrong weight.
So it seems to me they didn't change the rules they screwed the pooch when they first told them the conditions. Really how do you screw up on the HOY giving out the correct rules in the first place, that should have been checked in triplicate.
And it is also my understanding per the interviews about this since HDG had already committed to the Azeri they asked the FG to up the purse 50K. Of course they would agree, why wouldn't they.
Although I really don't understand why 5 lbs would make such a difference on the HOY but apparently it did.

The stakes schedule is announced months ago. The fact is that they are running that races as under allowance conditions which will allow the reining horse of the year to carry 116 and possibly get weight from others in the race is a joke. I hope they get 1 entry and have to decided if they will run a walk over or not. People like Porter and Jones begging for weight and then only running the horse 5 times a year is something that should bring scorn, not praise.

[FGFan]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The stakes schedule is announced months ago. The fact is that they are running that races as under allowance conditions which will allow the reining horse of the year to carry 116 and possibly get weight from others in the race is a joke. I hope they get 1 entry and have to decided if they will run a walk over or not. People like Porter and Jones begging for weight and then only running the horse 5 times a year is something that should bring scorn, not praise.

Yes I know that and the nom forms have been out as long too.
I've been looking around because I really don't get why this weight became an issue, it is restricted to fillies and mares she's not taking on the boys.

I glance at the condition books but don't read them in detail, so perhaps I'm not understanding something.

I looked at both nom forms for the Azeri and NO Ladies
Azeri is 122 with weight drops for NON-Winners at certain distances which is normal.
NO Ladies is 123 with the same above, normal conditions.
Then the Azeri form says see reverse side for additional info but you can't look at that.
NO Ladies doesn't add any info on reverse.
So as I see it her last race out she won 300K in the in the BC classic, 210K in the Beldame and 450K in the Woodward, with a 4th last out, then prior 1st and 1st. And she carried 123 in the BC classic and the Woodward.

Where did her connections get that she would only carry 117 in the Azeri, while she was a non-winner it says non-winner of 60K. That's what started this whole thing,that she was going to get less weight in the Azeri. Am I reading something wrong?

I'm glad she is running here and I will get to see it... but I really don't understand why this has become an issue. I get the purse money issue but not the weight.
As an aside RA who the race was written for carried 123 to Zardana's 122
And Ravi's Song last years winner who runs some nice stakes races but is not on par with Rachel or HDG carried 121.
Your absolutely right that it screws the other entries, I was simply pointing out that the weight issue came up because of OP and the Azeri, it wasn't like the FG just said oh well let's give her a low weight. I had not looked at OP's nom form and now I'm really confused why this even became an issue.
Either way at either track shouldn't she be carrying 122 at OP and 123 at the FG?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by FGFan

Yes I know that and the nom forms have been out as long too.
I've been looking around because I really don't get why this weight became an issue, it is restricted to fillies and mares she's not taking on the boys.

I glance at the condition books but don't read them in detail, so perhaps I'm not understanding something.

I looked at both nom forms for the Azeri and NO Ladies
Azeri is 122 with weight drops for NON-Winners at certain distances which is normal.
NO Ladies is 123 with the same above, normal conditions.
Then the Azeri form says see reverse side for additional info but you can't look at that.
NO Ladies doesn't add any info on reverse.
So as I see it her last race out she won 300K in the in the BC classic, 210K in the Beldame and 450K in the Woodward, with a 4th last out, then prior 1st and 1st. And she carried 123 in the BC classic and the Woodward.

Where did her connections get that she would only carry 117 in the Azeri, while she was a non-winner it says non-winner of 60K. That's what started this whole thing,that she was going to get less weight in the Azeri. Am I reading something wrong?

Didn't bother with the Azeri, but in the Fair Grounds race, the conditions have a date contigency (ie non-winners since Dec. 17). Therefore, as she hasn't raced since November, she's allowed 6 lbs.

[FGFan]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Didn't bother with the Azeri, but in the Fair Grounds race, the conditions have a date contigency (ie non-winners since Dec. 17). Therefore, as she hasn't raced since November, she's allowed 6 lbs.

Thanks.
I don't usually pay a lot of attention to weight unless it's high or low, so I was not reading it correctly. I thought they actually had to have run during those prescribed dates, and if they didn't run they carried high.

The purse money I get, this weight thing is just not good on a horse like Havre De Grace.
I'm still happy that I get to see her run in person. It was fun to see Rachel Alexandra in person, even in loss.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by FGFan

I'm still happy that I get to see her run in person. It was fun to see Rachel Alexandra in person, even in loss.

I understand your point, but to be frank, Havre De Grace's entire bloated reputation is dependant on Rick Porter's opportunistic decision to run in the Woodward last year.

Beating Flat Out made all the difference between her being remembered as a HOY instead of a really good horse that finished second (or worse) in her most important starts.

Unless Porter continues to be successful tailoring the races she runs in with racing secretaries across the country, she will fall back down to earth as soon as she enters a race of any significance.