changes in the claiming game?

[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

[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...