CHRB ~ The new rule

[pointman]

Here is the problem that I have with this. The rule was put into place as I saw it to prevent owners/trainers from running lame horses so they can just pass the problem off to an unknowing party through the claim box. I get that and it provides a deterrent to run lame horses knowing that you will not get away with it by allowing the claim to be voided.

If that is the intent, then why should the new owner be able to void the claim if the horse was not declared by the vets to be lame before the race?

[Danzig]

some issues only show themselves after a horse has exerted itself.

[robfla]

Originally Posted by pointman

The rule was put into place as I saw it to prevent owners/trainers from running lame horses so they can just pass the problem off to an unknowing party through the claim box.

or, in a case like this, they could let the connections who submitted the claim the option of taking the horse or not. -
seeing the horse won for fun and maybe they could work with the horse's issues

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by pointman

If that is the intent, then why should the new owner be able to void the claim if the horse was not declared by the vets to be lame before the race?

Many horses pass the pre-race vet exam (despite issues) and come back unsound. This issue recently came up in NY when Sacred Success was claimed, but did not cool out well and needed a van ride from the test barn to her new trainer's barn. Because the NY rule only addresses a situation where the horse is vanned off the track, the claim stood. Under the CA rule, the claimant could have voided the claim.

Remember, the claim is voidable, not void. In the CA case, if the new owner/trainer knew the horse had issues but wanted to work through them, they could have kept the horse. Apparently, they chose not to do so.

All in all, I think it is a good rule.

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Many horses pass the pre-race vet exam (despite issues) and come back unsound. This issue recently came up in NY when Sacred Success was claimed, but did not cool out well and needed a van ride from the test barn to her new trainer's barn. Because the NY rule only addresses a situation where the horse is vanned off the track, the claim stood. Under the CA rule, the claimant could have voided the claim.

Remember, the claim is voidable, not void. In the CA case, if the new owner/trainer knew the horse had issues but wanted to work through them, they could have kept the horse. Apparently, they chose not to do so.

All in all, I think it is a good rule.

The new owners have no say in the matter whatsoever. If the horse is placed on the Vet's List the stewards have the power to void the claim.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by v j stauffer

The new owners have no say in the matter whatsoever. If the horse is placed on the Vet's List the stewards have the power to void the claim.

That was not how I read initial reports about the rule change, but if you are correct, then my opinion of he rule would change. If the purpose of the rule is to protect the claimant, I fail to see the logic of depriving him or her of the option to void the claim (and instead automatically voiding the claim). I have seen occasions where a horse was put on the vet's list and there was nothing wrong with the horse.

[Linny]

My understanding is that the claimant may void the claim following vet exam. The claim is not automatically void.

I'd be worried that a vet might be in cahoots with a trainer and simply "void" any claims on horses that the trainer didn't really want to lose. It seems like a lot of power in the hands of the state vet.