changes in the claiming game?

[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...

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

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?

When and where would this post race auction take place? I would love to hear more details.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

When and where would this post race auction take place? I would love to hear more details.

beats me. i was just going off of the other sort of ideas that came out of that article when they spoke of 'selling' races in britain....how an auction could be feasible. i don't know enough about the 'when' and 'where' of a racetrack to be able to really answer that.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

When and where would this post race auction take place? I would love to hear more details.

The "auction" could be held right after the race. It could be a sealed bid auction. There could be something like a claim box, and interested owners would each be able to make a single sealed bid. Highest bid gets the horse. There would need to be a brief period after the race where prospective buyers could look over a horse.

There would probably have to be a minimum bid allowed, so that people do not buy horses for $100. The minimum bid should probably be set close to what the current "claim" price is. It would be posted as part of the conditions of the race.

I don't think this procedure would be any more expensive to implement than the current claim procedure.

A major reason for having claiming races is to offer a fairly level set of horses to the betting public. This "auction" structure would accomplish that goal far better than the current claiming structure. A trainer knows going in that if his/her horse wins the race, it will very likely be bought.

By moving the "claim" to after the race rather than before, you take away any chance of a trainer to unload an injured horse. You also take away the incentive to run the injured horse.

--Dunbar

Unfortunately, this would also remove my favorite angle in claiming races: betting against the overbet fav who does not logically belong in a race at a dropped down level.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Some of you may not be aware of this, but often times you can't even tell much about a horse's condition right after the race. You can tell much more a day or two later after all the drugs wear off. Horses will often times look fine right after the race but two days later they are totally lame after all the drugs wear off.

[Honu]

I just dont understand peoples ways of thinking. Its ok to run a horse that maybe shouldnt even be in a race because its really sore or just plain brokedown , its ok to drop that horse and hope someone claims it so you as the trainer dont have to figure out what you are going to do with it next. Its just fine and dandy to let the Sanford Shulmans of the world inject horses that have new fractures and drop them and run them killing the horse and the jockey , and for you as an owner and trainer to take that chance.
Its so true ,people in horseracing cant even open their small tunnel visioned eyes to even think about a new idea on how to make things better.

[Danzig]

no system is full proof. that being said, all systems can be improved, claiming would definitely be one of those.

i think a claim should be invalid if a horse fails to finish, or breaks down. that happens--who the hell wants to pay out money for a horse that sadly had to be put down? yet it happens. if there's any insurance at all on a horse who just got claimed, but is put down, who gets any payout? after all, the claimer hasn't paid on any policy. that part i feel definitely needs changing.
also, it would be nice if a claim wasn't put thru unless a horse was passed by a vet--a NEUTRAL vet. obviously if you put in a claim for a horse and he stinks up the track you wouldn't want the claimer to encourage his vet to find something so as to void the claim.

also, re this auction idea. how long after the race would you wait? some horses look ok immediately after a race, but once cooled down are lamer than the day is long. and look lame til warmed up.

presumably a horse has to be racing fit to race--but we're not that naive. but i know i wouldn't want to claim a horse and then find he's not fit for even the lowest level of racing.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Danzig188

no system is full proof. that being said, all systems can be improved, claiming would definitely be one of those.

i think a claim should be invalid if a horse fails to finish, or breaks down. that happens--who the hell wants to pay out money for a horse that sadly had to be put down? yet it happens. if there's any insurance at all on a horse who just got claimed, but is put down, who gets any payout? after all, the claimer hasn't paid on any policy. that part i feel definitely needs changing.
also, it would be nice if a claim wasn't put thru unless a horse was passed by a vet--a NEUTRAL vet. obviously if you put in a claim for a horse and he stinks up the track you wouldn't want the claimer to encourage his vet to find something so as to void the claim.

also, re this auction idea. how long after the race would you wait? some horses look ok immediately after a race, but once cooled down are lamer than the day is long. and look lame til warmed up.

presumably a horse has to be racing fit to race--but we're not that naive. but i know i wouldn't want to claim a horse and then find he's not fit for even the lowest level of racing.

You can buy something called "claim insurance", so that if the horse you claim breaks down and is put down, you would get your money back.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

Some of you may not be aware of this, but often times you can't even tell much about a horse's condition right after the race. You can tell much more a day or two later after all the drugs wear off. Horses will often times look fine right after the race but two days later they are totally lame after all the drugs wear off.

There is some truth to this and the body produces endocrines naturally that will wear off after resting also.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Dunbar

The "auction" could be held right after the race. It could be a sealed bid auction. There could be something like a claim box, and interested owners would each be able to make a single sealed bid. Highest bid gets the horse. There would need to be a brief period after the race where prospective buyers could look over a horse.

There would probably have to be a minimum bid allowed, so that people do not buy horses for $100. The minimum bid should probably be set close to what the current "claim" price is. It would be posted as part of the conditions of the race.

I don't think this procedure would be any more expensive to implement than the current claim procedure.

A major reason for having claiming races is to offer a fairly level set of horses to the betting public. This "auction" structure would accomplish that goal far better than the current claiming structure. A trainer knows going in that if his/her horse wins the race, it will very likely be bought.

By moving the "claim" to after the race rather than before, you take away any chance of a trainer to unload an injured horse. You also take away the incentive to run the injured horse.

--Dunbar

Unfortunately, this would also remove my favorite angle in claiming races: betting against the overbet fav who does not logically belong in a race at a dropped down level.

Where would all of this take place? Where would you examine the horses? Right on the track? What time frame would there be? Do you really think it will be feasable for tracks that run a majority of claiming races a day to hold an auction after everyone of them? What about maiden claiming races for 2 yo's? Who would run a horse in them? Especially first time starters that run well? No one will take a chance in losing them. What you will create is more problems, litigation, etc.
Hundreds of horses are claimed every week. Most of them aren't so crippled that they cant race again. Most horses that run in cheaper claiming races aren't broke down, they are slow.

[Dunbar]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Where would all of this take place? Where would you examine the horses? Right on the track? What time frame would there be? Do you really think it will be feasable for tracks that run a majority of claiming races a day to hold an auction after everyone of them? What about maiden claiming races for 2 yo's? Who would run a horse in them? Especially first time starters that run well? No one will take a chance in losing them. What you will create is more problems, litigation, etc.
Hundreds of horses are claimed every week. Most of them aren't so crippled that they cant race again. Most horses that run in cheaper claiming races aren't broke down, they are slow.

You raise some good questions about time and place of the "examination". I'm guessing the length of the "examination" period would be on the order of 15" or 30". I don't see any reason why the whole process would have to be completed before the start of the next race. As far as the "auction" itself, it shouldn't take any more time than what it takes to drop a bid into a claim box.

Whatever shortcomings this process has in terms of lameness that doesn't show up until the following day, it would still be much safer for the buyer than the current procedure.

At any rate, I think it's a good topic for discussion. Maybe a procedure can evolve that satisfies your concerns.

--Dunbar

[The Bid]

Should just run one and send it directly to the auction ring. Dont give it any water, dont cool it out, just auction them off. Sounds almost foolproof.

Originally Posted by The Bid

Should just run one and send it directly to the auction ring. Dont give it any water, dont cool it out, just auction them off. Sounds almost foolproof.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

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...

I certainly can't speak for anyone else but I think this is the exact type of thing that this idea is trying to get away from...the idea that you 'never want to be the last one to claim a horse' is obviously true...but this idea would put pressure on the current owner to maintain the horse and not run it, if unsound to the point where it wouldn't get looked at post race...it's a fantasy sure...but imagine if it worked?
and also to pressure owners to retire horses that perhaps shouldn't be running...the last line about having more homes available for sound retirees than there are sound retirees is telling.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

I certainly can't speak for anyone else but I think this is the exact type of thing that this idea is trying to get away from...the idea that you 'never want to be the last one to claim a horse' is obviously true...but this idea would put pressure on the current owner to maintain the horse and not run it, if unsound to the point where it wouldn't get looked at post race...it's a fantasy sure...but imagine if it worked?
and also to pressure owners to retire horses that perhaps shouldn't be running...the last line about having more homes available for sound retirees than there are sound retirees is telling.

I dont think that you can ever legislate greed or morality. The idea of reforming claining is nice but not possible. Some owners are still going to run the sore ones if just to try to get a check, even if no one would claim them. Better would be a system of reporting all vet work done with draconian penalties for false reports. The info could be kept private but used in the case of suspicious drops that dont make the course. I dont agree with the way Christine Janks is going about geting her message accross but she is not far from the truth in many ways.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by paisjpq

I certainly can't speak for anyone else but I think this is the exact type of thing that this idea is trying to get away from...the idea that you 'never want to be the last one to claim a horse' is obviously true...but this idea would put pressure on the current owner to maintain the horse and not run it, if unsound to the point where it wouldn't get looked at post race...it's a fantasy sure...but imagine if it worked?
and also to pressure owners to retire horses that perhaps shouldn't be running...the last line about having more homes available for sound retirees than there are sound retirees is telling.

don't get me wrong, i'm hardly an advocate of running unsound horses looking for money or the sort of dishonesty that goes on in the claiming game as far as trying to get a broken horse off your hands before its too late.

i was mostly just sort of playing it out in regards to how it would affect the owners too -- and not just the greedy ones trying to run for a check, but maybe an owner who has a horse with some physical infirmities but who legitimately wants to get unload it...and allowing everyone to get a really close look before decided they don't want it -- when without an inspection, they may take a stab at it. it could go both ways it seems.

but i don't know a damn thing about the reality of it outside of some Portland conversations with the trainer and exercise rider, so I'm hardly saying I know what I'm talking about here, just sort of talking out the reality vs. the ideal.

[paisjpq]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

don't get me wrong, i'm hardly an advocate of running unsound horses looking for money or the sort of dishonesty that goes on in the claiming game as far as trying to get a broken horse off your hands before its too late.

i was mostly just sort of playing it out in regards to how it would affect the owners too -- and not just the greedy ones trying to run for a check, but maybe an owner who has a horse with some physical infirmities but who legitimately wants to get unload it...and allowing everyone to get a really close look before decided they don't want it -- when without an inspection, they may take a stab at it. it could go both ways it seems.

but i don't know a damn thing about the reality of it outside of some Portland conversations with the trainer and exercise rider, so I'm hardly saying I know what I'm talking about here, just sort of talking out the reality vs. the ideal.

but if they really want to be rid of the horse they can 'unload' it to a rescue group and take the tax write off...YES i understand that it may be for a very limited amount of money...but they no longer have to pay the bills on it...so in the end if they are running a "broken" horse to try to unload it then it really is all about the money...cause they are hoping that either someone puts a claim in or the horse hits the board...

[The Bid]

Is claiming where all the corruption is? Why dont we tighten up guys trying to jerk owners for 100k when a horse is 300? Why dont we tighten up the sales a little bit. The claiming game is just fine, if you dont do your homework you get stuck with a cripple, tough ****.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by The Bid

Is claiming where all the corruption is? Why dont we tighten up guys trying to jerk owners for 100k when a horse is 300? Why dont we tighten up the sales a little bit. The claiming game is just fine, if you dont do your homework you get stuck with a cripple, tough ****.

Well that sort of attitude is just going to drive people from the claiming game. Maybe there are enough now but where are they going to attract new blood? If the attitude was a little more accomadating towards the person claiming a horse you might find more joining in which could only be a positive for the sport.

[The Bid]

Sniper,

There are some people who belong in this game, and there are ALOT of people who have no business in this game. If someone cannot sustain a financial hit for the full amount of the claim they are considering, they shouldnt play. We dont need anymore reform in the claiming game, infact its great the way it is. Guys get to dump horses, cheat with horses, steal horses, its what makes the game go. The claiming side of the game is where all the money is generated, its where all the fields are filled, where most of the players get action. Its basically racing, most of racing is claiming. You think they should change a system thats working well because a few guys claimed bad horses? I say F those guys........If a trainer or owner isnt willing to put in his homework to get a sound horse, they deserve whatever brokedown horse they get. Any trainer who cares about his owners will go out of his way to make sure they claim a sound productive horse. Sniper, I dont think we need to do anything with the way the claiming game works.

I know a few owners who get just as much joy out of stuffing a bad horse on someone as they do winning a race. If thats how they want to play the game let them play.