Caixa Eletronica

[pweizer]

I love this horse, but he hasn't run in a claiming race since Repole claimed him in 2011 and still finds starter allowance conditions to fit. It is pretty amazing.

Paul

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by pweizer

I love this horse, but he hasn't run in a claiming race since Repole claimed him in 2011 and still finds starter allowance conditions to fit. It is pretty amazing.

I don't know that I would call it amazing, as much as it is a really ridiculous use/interpretation of the "condition eligibility" language in the NYRA condition book.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I don't know that I would call it amazing, as much as it is a really ridiculous use/interpretation of the "condition eligibility" language in the NYRA condition book.

Amazing that "graded stakes winners excluded" wasn't added to the condition after the 1st starter race he won at short odds. But it seems like racing in NY is for a few people's whims regardless of how negatively that it affects the cards. When they stopped having starter handicaps and replaced them with allowance condition starters with a 36 months of eligibility they open the door for more bad races.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Amazing that "graded stakes winners excluded" wasn't added to the condition after the 1st starter race he won at short odds. But it seems like racing in NY is for a few people's whims regardless of how negatively that it affects the cards. When they stopped having starter handicaps and replaced them with allowance condition starters with a 36 months of eligibility they open the door for more bad races.

To be fair, haven't you ever walked into a racing secretary's office and asked him or her to write a race a certain way that is beneficial for you and your owners. Does a day go by at any track that a trainer doesn't ask for a helping hand from the Racing office. I get your point and its fair. I find it a feather in Steve's Cap that Dee Tee seems to get their stock in on big days. Steve does a lot for racing and is a huge supporter of NYRA is it such a crime that 20 claimer gets used on Travers weekend? I see nothing wrong with cooperation and some favoritism. Is it so different then any other industry? While your point is fair that horse is very popular and people like seeing him race, would you rather see some Winning Move juice job up steal 60% of a 80k purse?

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by freddymo

To be fair, haven't you ever walked into a racing secretary's office and asked him or her to write a race a certain way that is beneficial for you and your owners.

This isn't about the racing office writing a race for a particular owner/trainer. It happens, and I don't have a problem with it. This is about how the NYRA racing office has uniformly interpreted the following "condition eligibility" provision in the fine print of the NYRA condition book:

CONDITION ELIGIBILITY
Preference by conditions beginning with graded stakes winners, open stakes winners within
the race condition providing they have finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th for $40,000 or more since
starting for less than $40,000 (New York Bred races $25,000).
Starter races for less than $20,000 will be considered claiming races for condition eligibility.

The language in question goes back to when Mike Lakow was the racing secretary and NYRA was running few, if any, starter allowance/handicaps. The purpose of the provision was that, in oversubscribed allowance races, horses that had run recently in either claiming or starter races would have last preference and often be relegated to the AE list. (Now, this most often impacts NY-bred NW1X allowance races.)

The issue as it relates to the starter races is that, when a horse runs in a starter for less than $20,000, the NYRA racing office has interpreted the condition eligibility provision (ostensibly aimed at establishing preference for allowance races) as if the horse actually ran for the tag less than $20,000. The bizarre result is that Caixa Electronica ran for $16,000 in May 2009; and that was the last time that he actually ran for a tag less than $62,500. However, because he ran in a $16,000 starter handicap in August 2010 and again in August 2011, he is treated the same as a horse that actually started for a $16,000 claiming tag in 2010 and 2011, even though he ran protected in both spots. By interpreting the provision this way, so long as the owner of the horse is smart enough to "re-qualify" his or her horse by running in a starter for less than $20,000, the horse will have perpetual eligibility for the condition, even though he could have never been claimed during the lookback period.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

This isn't about the racing office writing a race for a particular owner/trainer. It happens, and I don't have a problem with it. This is about how the NYRA racing office has uniformly interpreted the following "condition eligibility" provision in the fine print of the NYRA condition book:

CONDITION ELIGIBILITY
Preference by conditions beginning with graded stakes winners, open stakes winners within
the race condition providing they have finished 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th for $40,000 or more since
starting for less than $40,000 (New York Bred races $25,000).
Starter races for less than $20,000 will be considered claiming races for condition eligibility.

The language in question goes back to when Mike Lakow was the racing secretary and NYRA was running few, if any, starter allowance/handicaps. The purpose of the provision was that, in oversubscribed allowance races, horses that had run recently in either claiming or starter races would have last preference and often be relegated to the AE list. (Now, this most often impacts NY-bred NW1X allowance races.)

The issue as it relates to the starter races is that, when a horse runs in a starter for less than $20,000, the NYRA racing office has interpreted the condition eligibility provision (ostensibly aimed at establishing preference for allowance races) as if the horse actually ran for the tag less than $20,000. The bizarre result is that Caixa Electronica ran for $16,000 in May 2009; and that was the last time that he actually ran for a tag less than $62,500. However, because he ran in a $16,000 starter handicap in August 2010 and again in August 2011, he is treated the same as a horse that actually started for a $16,000 claiming tag in 2010 and 2011, even though he ran protected in both spots. By interpreting the provision this way, so long as the owner of the horse is smart enough to "re-qualify" his or her horse by running in a starter for less than $20,000, the horse will have perpetual eligibility for the condition, even though he could have never been claimed during the lookback period.

Or until the racing secretary writes the condition differently by excluding certain types of horses such as winners of x amount in certain period of time or excluding stake winners from gaining the condition eligibility via starter races.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Or until the racing secretary writes the condition differently by excluding certain types of horses such as winners of x amount in certain period of time or excluding stake winners from gaining the condition eligibility via starter races.

All they really need to do is distinguish between allowance and starter races, and revise the provision to state that, for the purpose of starter races, the horse actually had to be entered to be claimed for the price during the lookback period in order to be eligible for the starter race.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by freddymo

To be fair, haven't you ever walked into a racing secretary's office and asked him or her to write a race a certain way that is beneficial for you and your owners. Does a day go by at any track that a trainer doesn't ask for a helping hand from the Racing office. I get your point and its fair. I find it a feather in Steve's Cap that Dee Tee seems to get their stock in on big days. Steve does a lot for racing and is a huge supporter of NYRA is it such a crime that 20 claimer gets used on Travers weekend? I see nothing wrong with cooperation and some favoritism. Is it so different then any other industry? While your point is fair that horse is very popular and people like seeing him race, would you rather see some Winning Move juice job up steal 60% of a 80k purse?

Have I asked for a starter allowance race for a multiple graded stakes winner of a million dollars that would be 1-2 in a short field? Uh no. The racing secretary doesn't work for the horsemen, he works for the track which supposed to be carding competitive races for people to bet on. Sure on occasion there will be conditions that come up where a horse like this slips through but that shouldn't happen more than once.

Your assertion that Steve has any influence on the races carded on big days is the new topper on ridiculous things people say on the internet.

[freddymo]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Have I asked for a starter allowance race for a multiple graded stakes winner of a million dollars that would be 1-2 in a short field? Uh no. The racing secretary doesn't work for the horsemen, he works for the track which supposed to be carding competitive races for people to bet on. Sure on occasion there will be conditions that come up where a horse like this slips through but that shouldn't happen more than once.

Your assertion that Steve has any influence on the races carded on big days is the new topper on ridiculous things people say on the internet.

Wishing all the best to DT on Traver's Day... Hope to see you all in winners circle. Remember 9/28 is Fall Championship Day lets make it a double..lol