Owner protests non-enforcement of Santa Anita race condition
 

Santa Anita ran a race yesterday, according to Bloodhorse... which had the condition of "restricted to trainers with 20 or less horses in their care in California,"

The owner of the 2nd place finisher lodged a protest, saying that 2 of the entrants, including the first place finisher, were from barns with far more than 20 horses.

https://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-rac...race-condition

What struck me as awful policy was this bit in the Bloodhorse article:
"Earlier in the week, Santa Anita racing secretary Rick Hammerle said the condition was more of a "guideline" than a set-in-stone restriction on who can enter the race."

And this quoted statement (2 days before the race) from the Santa Anita racing secretary: "(Nunez's) horses are running for $3,200 and $4,000 (claiming prices during the nighttime races at Los Alamitos). I'm not counting those horses. When he applies for stalls here, he applies for six or something. We're not out to have an FBI investigation. How many starts does he make here? Not many." [emphasis added]

I can't find where the actual conditions are spelled out, but it they really say no more than 20 horses in training in California, then turning it into a fuzzy requirement is asking for trouble, IMO.

It's really not. What's asking for trouble is screaming fire in a crowded theater.

The horse parameter is based on stock on the stall list each trainer files before the meet starts.. Horses intended to run at Santa Anita. Those do not include quarter horses and bottom level thoroughbreds that run at night at Los Al.

A totally irresponsible article, the 2nd non-issue creation by this source since the start of the meet along with the stupidity over the opening day late P5 will pays.

Fire.... fire on the mountain

That is fine, but handicappers shouldn't have to read a Bloodhorse article to know what the real conditions are. As I always say, give us bettors accurate info...we'll take it from there.

So horseplayers would have moved up the winner because his trainer has some horses at Los Al running in $3K claiming races at 4F?

Sorry, but I find your argument specious in this particular case. We aren't judging horses by the number of horses a trainer has. Do we ever know it anyway.

You know where I stand on information to horseplayers, and I spend a good portion of my life at least trying to add to the information available to horseplayers, but I have trouble seeing where there was actually an issue here. We're handicapping horses...aren't we?

Just what the game needs - Fake conditions, to go with the fake distances run, and the fake times they run them in. What's next, they make the condition "about 20 horses" like GP did to explain the fake 7.5F turf races?

The article was true and the game needs more like it.
Irresponsible of SA.

Trainer of the place horse should take this to court.

As we discussed privately, this isn't what I meant. Bettors need to be able to trust printed conditions. I'm sure you agree they are often very important when handicapping a race. For this particular race, no, bettors had the PPs and bet accordingly. I just think having "spirit of the rule" conditions sets a bad precedent. We need to be able to trust what we read in black and white in the PPs. The racing secretary can't be this haphazard about it.

You or I could have written clear, concise conditions that matched the intent of the "new" race conditions in a few minutes I'd bet. Maybe even Steve too. :)

You mean the same Bloodhorse that misled bettors about the will pays on the opening day late P5? Now they're 0-for-2.

As someone working for DRF, I would think you'd know to check with a respected circuit reporter like Steve Anderson for added, in this case accurate/detailed, information. But your zeal to ridicule and attack seems to outweigh the propriety of reacting with the most complete possible set of facts.

The spirit of the rule element is for horsemen and owners. The public has been clamoring for a way to give smaller outfits a better chance to compete and then criticize the early attempts to provide that chance.

There was nothing haphazard about the provisions of the race, as stated above: Horses listed as intended to run at SA during the meet, a list that every trainer is required to provide for insurance purposes. That's what was the benchmark from inside the racing office and for the stewards to OK the concept and running of the race.

What was haphazard was an alleged journalist distorting the circumstances around the race with incomplete information, creating an unnecessary reaction from people that have nothing about which to be aggrieved.

The conditions should be clear (or easily verifiable) about which horses are eligible, especially for horsemen but also for bettors. That wasn't the case here. My posts had nothing to do with any journalist. This would have come up sooner or later the way the races were written.

I completely understand the point. I'm sure they'll work to clarify completely going forward.

:tro::tro:

Exactly. I don't see how there can be any argument about this.