CHRB ~ The new rule

[my miss storm cat]

I was reading about Plenny of Henny (R1 at Hollywood) and how the new claiming rule was put into effect for the first time and was surprised at some of the comments.

I thought this was a good idea but, of course, am no expert on such things and was hoping for opinions.

What do you all think?

Hollywood Park: New rule used for first time to void claim of unsound horse

http://www.drf.com/news/hollywood-pa...-unsound-horse

CLAIMING RULE CHANGE TAKES EFFECT MAY 16

SACRAMENTO, CA – Claims (sales) will be voided in California beginning Thursday, May 16, whenever a claimed horse suffers a fatality or is placed on the Veterinarian’s List as lame or unsound after the race. The change to CHRB Rule 1658 was adopted by the California Horse Racing Board following a public hearing on February 23 and approved May 2 by the reviewing Office of Administrative Law.

Previously, the rule called for voiding a claim only “if the horse suffers a fatality during the running of the race (or) before the horse is returned to be unsaddled.” With the amendment, the stewards also will void a claim if “the racing or official veterinarian determines the horse will be placed on the Veterinarian’s List as unsound or lame before the horse is released to the successful claimant.”

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/press_release...ss_release.pdf

[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.

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by my miss storm cat

I was reading about Plenny of Henny (R1 at Hollywood) and how the new claiming rule was put into effect for the first time and was surprised at some of the comments.

I thought this was a good idea but, of course, am no expert on such things and was hoping for opinions.

What do you all think?

Hollywood Park: New rule used for first time to void claim of unsound horse

http://www.drf.com/news/hollywood-pa...-unsound-horse

CLAIMING RULE CHANGE TAKES EFFECT MAY 16

SACRAMENTO, CA – Claims (sales) will be voided in California beginning Thursday, May 16, whenever a claimed horse suffers a fatality or is placed on the Veterinarian’s List as lame or unsound after the race. The change to CHRB Rule 1658 was adopted by the California Horse Racing Board following a public hearing on February 23 and approved May 2 by the reviewing Office of Administrative Law.

Previously, the rule called for voiding a claim only “if the horse suffers a fatality during the running of the race (or) before the horse is returned to be unsaddled.” With the amendment, the stewards also will void a claim if “the racing or official veterinarian determines the horse will be placed on the Veterinarian’s List as unsound or lame before the horse is released to the successful claimant.”

http://www.chrb.ca.gov/press_release...ss_release.pdf

Some comments offered food for thought. Trainer drops horse. Horse wins. Vet inspecting horse post race is cushy with winning trainer. Declares horse unsound. Winning trainer gets horse back and repeats process over again after horse comes off vets list.

Maybe too risky for a vet to do this. I don't know.

[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

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Port Conway Lane

Some comments offered food for thought. Trainer drops horse. Horse wins. Vet inspecting horse post race is cushy with winning trainer. Declares horse unsound. Winning trainer gets horse back and repeats process over again after horse comes off vets list.

Maybe too risky for a vet to do this. I don't know.

surely that would get a huge red flag waving?

[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.

[Port Conway Lane]

Originally Posted by Danzig

surely that would get a huge red flag waving?

If repeated over again yes. What would prevent this from happening just once ? Maybe there should be two vets inspecting the horse post race.

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.

[pointman]

I admit that I neglected to read the press release which is posted at the beginning of the thread, but the CHRB press release clearly states that a claimed horse is to be examined by the CHRB or track vet after the race and if the vet places the horse on the vet list as lame or unsound they inform the stewards and the stewards void the claim.

[my miss storm cat]

Thanks for the insight, all of you.

[JBJake]

Does anyone know if there is a spot where you can see the claims that were voided? The only place I have seen it is where Vic announces the voided claims.

Originally Posted by JBJake

Does anyone know if there is a spot where you can see the claims that were voided? The only place I have seen it is where Vic announces the voided claims.

The stewards minutes. www.chrb.ca.gov