Well, this isn't good...

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

Surely you understand why the jail rule would be good for horses and bettors? First, horses won't be bought for $15 or $20k and run back for $10k to steal a purse, whether they are healthy or not...and really, how many of them are? Second, when that is done, the races are often unbettable. It used to be you could bet against these kind, but not so much any longer. Trainers aren't trying to cash bets any more, they are just trying to suck up slots tokens.

Trying to cater to small time owners is helping to make things worse, not better, because guys like Jacobsen and the Eclipse award winning owner Gill just take advantage of it.

My understanding is that NYRA was considering a relaxation of the jail rules early this past winter, as a way to help with field size, but ultimately (and thankfully, in my opinion) decided against it. With all the focus on horse welfare, I was really surprised to see California alter its rule, so that only the winner of a claiming race is stuck in jail for 25 days (as opposed to 30 days in NY).

I'm not sure where it was implemented (California or Arkansas?), but one rule change that I would like to see implemented on a broader basis is one where a claiming horse off more than six months can run "protected" for the first start off the layoff (provided it is running within a certain percentage of the price it ran for before the layoff). The ability to at least get a crack at two purses might encourage more owners to provide a break to a horse that needs one.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

My understanding is that NYRA was considering a relaxation of the jail rules early this past winter, as a way to help with field size, but ultimately (and thankfully, in my opinion) decided against it. With all the focus on horse welfare, I was really surprised to see California alter its rule, so that only the winner of a claiming race is stuck in jail for 25 days (as opposed to 30 days in NY).

I'm not sure where it was implemented (California or Arkansas?), but one rule change that I would like to see implemented on a broader basis is one where a claiming horse off more than six months can run "protected" for the first start off the layoff (provided it is running within a certain percentage of the price it ran for before the layoff). The ability to at least get a crack at two purses might encourage more owners to provide a break to a horse that needs one.

I don't have a problem with that rule. I think both states you mention have it.