changes in the claiming game?

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

Mandella thinks that potential claimants should eb able to examine a horse after it races...an interesting proposal...one that could change the game significantly if the idea takes hold.
http://news.bloodhorse.com/viewstory.asp?id=36671

When I read that, I immediately thought 'terrible idea'! I assumed from what you wrote that Mandella was simply suggesting adding an "examination/approval" step to the current claim procedures. That would be insane, because of the inevitable arguments and lawsuits that would follow.

However, the two suggestions made in the article are much more reasonable. Here's a key paragraph from the Bloodhorse article:

"Mandella said that, in addition to his original idea that claims should be voided for horses that do not finish races, another possibility would be to change claiming events to races in which runners are sold through an auction system after they compete. That format would allow prospective buyers to examine horses' soundness immediately after racing and thus would be an incentive for owners and trainers to provide runners with rest or treatment if they have physical ailments rather than using medications that allow continued racing even if a problem is lurking."

Both of those ideas make sense, because they minimize the possible arguments that would arise from an interpretation of a horse's condition after a race. I like the auction idea. I think it captures the essense of a claiming race while doing away with the trickery and gamesmanship.

--Dunbar

[Cannon Shell]

Interesting ideas but probably hard to actually implement. Where would the auction take place? where would you examine the horses postrace? Who determines the degree of lameness on an pulled up horse? Maybe tracks in Southern California may try something like this but hard to see smaller venues spending the money to do this.

[sumitas]

Athletes that are traded must pass team physicals. If a claimed horse fails an owner's physical the claim should be voided. I don't see a problem with that. The potential owner forks out the money if the horse is sound according to his standards.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by sumitas

Athletes that are traded must pass team physicals. If a claimed horse fails an owner's physical the claim should be voided. I don't see a problem with that. The potential owner forks out the money if the horse is sound according to his standards.

The problem is that everytime a horse that is claimed runs poorly, they will "fail the physical". Do you include breathing problems also? There will be 30 claims a race if they ever let you throw them back into the water if you dont like them. What about a horse that fails the physical? Are they allowed to run back or are they given a mandatory vacation? A nice idea but in reality not practical.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

The problem is that everytime a horse that is claimed runs poorly, they will "fail the physical". Do you include breathing problems also? There will be 30 claims a race if they ever let you throw them back into the water if you dont like them. What about a horse that fails the physical? Are they allowed to run back or are they given a mandatory vacation? A nice idea but in reality not practical.

isn't that why an auction would be a good idea though (just going with the original ideas....)? That way, if you don't like the way the horse ran, or you don't think the horse is sound post-race, you don't have to take him beacuse you just don't bid on him. Obviously then, the claiming price would be the minimum bid.

Sounds like a fantasy, but it could happen, right?

Cannon, maybe you can answer this -- what would that do to trainers who want to unload a horse for an owner because of the very same sorts of problems? While it's not really 'savory,' isn't it a way that an owner who wants out on a broken horse can get out? Drop the price so low that SOMEone has to bite on it just because the potential COULD be there?

That owner and trainer would be just stuck with the horse eternally in that case, which doesn't seem fair either. Sure, it's trickery, but doesn't that serve some purpose in the claiming game?

Or am I way off the mark here? I jsut remember conversations about this when I was going to Portland Meadows with my buddy there who was an exercise rider -- and how his trainer would get rid of broken horses...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

isn't that why an auction would be a good idea though (just going with the original ideas....)? That way, if you don't like the way the horse ran, or you don't think the horse is sound post-race, you don't have to take him beacuse you just don't bid on him. Obviously then, the claiming price would be the minimum bid.

Sounds like a fantasy, but it could happen, right?

When and where would this post race auction take place? I would love to hear more details.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

When and where would this post race auction take place? I would love to hear more details.

beats me. i was just going off of the other sort of ideas that came out of that article when they spoke of 'selling' races in britain....how an auction could be feasible. i don't know enough about the 'when' and 'where' of a racetrack to be able to really answer that.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

When and where would this post race auction take place? I would love to hear more details.

The "auction" could be held right after the race. It could be a sealed bid auction. There could be something like a claim box, and interested owners would each be able to make a single sealed bid. Highest bid gets the horse. There would need to be a brief period after the race where prospective buyers could look over a horse.

There would probably have to be a minimum bid allowed, so that people do not buy horses for $100. The minimum bid should probably be set close to what the current "claim" price is. It would be posted as part of the conditions of the race.

I don't think this procedure would be any more expensive to implement than the current claim procedure.

A major reason for having claiming races is to offer a fairly level set of horses to the betting public. This "auction" structure would accomplish that goal far better than the current claiming structure. A trainer knows going in that if his/her horse wins the race, it will very likely be bought.

By moving the "claim" to after the race rather than before, you take away any chance of a trainer to unload an injured horse. You also take away the incentive to run the injured horse.

--Dunbar

Unfortunately, this would also remove my favorite angle in claiming races: betting against the overbet fav who does not logically belong in a race at a dropped down level.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

Cannon, maybe you can answer this -- what would that do to trainers who want to unload a horse for an owner because of the very same sorts of problems? While it's not really 'savory,' isn't it a way that an owner who wants out on a broken horse can get out? Drop the price so low that SOMEone has to bite on it just because the potential COULD be there?

That owner and trainer would be just stuck with the horse eternally in that case, which doesn't seem fair either. Sure, it's trickery, but doesn't that serve some purpose in the claiming game?

Or am I way off the mark here? I jsut remember conversations about this when I was going to Portland Meadows with my buddy there who was an exercise rider -- and how his trainer would get rid of broken horses...

I certainly can't speak for anyone else but I think this is the exact type of thing that this idea is trying to get away from...the idea that you 'never want to be the last one to claim a horse' is obviously true...but this idea would put pressure on the current owner to maintain the horse and not run it, if unsound to the point where it wouldn't get looked at post race...it's a fantasy sure...but imagine if it worked?
and also to pressure owners to retire horses that perhaps shouldn't be running...the last line about having more homes available for sound retirees than there are sound retirees is telling.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

I certainly can't speak for anyone else but I think this is the exact type of thing that this idea is trying to get away from...the idea that you 'never want to be the last one to claim a horse' is obviously true...but this idea would put pressure on the current owner to maintain the horse and not run it, if unsound to the point where it wouldn't get looked at post race...it's a fantasy sure...but imagine if it worked?
and also to pressure owners to retire horses that perhaps shouldn't be running...the last line about having more homes available for sound retirees than there are sound retirees is telling.

I dont think that you can ever legislate greed or morality. The idea of reforming claining is nice but not possible. Some owners are still going to run the sore ones if just to try to get a check, even if no one would claim them. Better would be a system of reporting all vet work done with draconian penalties for false reports. The info could be kept private but used in the case of suspicious drops that dont make the course. I dont agree with the way Christine Janks is going about geting her message accross but she is not far from the truth in many ways.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

I certainly can't speak for anyone else but I think this is the exact type of thing that this idea is trying to get away from...the idea that you 'never want to be the last one to claim a horse' is obviously true...but this idea would put pressure on the current owner to maintain the horse and not run it, if unsound to the point where it wouldn't get looked at post race...it's a fantasy sure...but imagine if it worked?
and also to pressure owners to retire horses that perhaps shouldn't be running...the last line about having more homes available for sound retirees than there are sound retirees is telling.

don't get me wrong, i'm hardly an advocate of running unsound horses looking for money or the sort of dishonesty that goes on in the claiming game as far as trying to get a broken horse off your hands before its too late.

i was mostly just sort of playing it out in regards to how it would affect the owners too -- and not just the greedy ones trying to run for a check, but maybe an owner who has a horse with some physical infirmities but who legitimately wants to get unload it...and allowing everyone to get a really close look before decided they don't want it -- when without an inspection, they may take a stab at it. it could go both ways it seems.

but i don't know a damn thing about the reality of it outside of some Portland conversations with the trainer and exercise rider, so I'm hardly saying I know what I'm talking about here, just sort of talking out the reality vs. the ideal.