Quote:
|
Originally Posted by paisjpq
|
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