Backstretch people and exp horseplayers - "VET SCRATCH"

[Bobby Fischer]

Today's 1st at Belmont had a horse DRESSMAKER who had been VET scratched 4 days ago on the 19th over at Delaware park.

I'd like to know what you guys make of a "Vet" scratch designation like that??

The cynic/conspiracy theorist in me questions if the Vet designation was sneaky move by the trainer and friends after learning of the weak field for the Belmont race and to dissuade would-be Claims.

[Bobby Fischer]

it was kind of an odd race as far as the scratch report goes -

a separate horse - the favorite happened to be coming in off an 88 day layoff. However she is not only an old classy(relative for the class) mare who needs little to be race-ready, she was also twice entered for turf races in June where she was scratched for OFF THE TURF. So the 88day layoff shouldn't have been a negative to anyone.

Usually scratch info is not that big a deal to me, but this race was funny, and I really would like to know more about "Vet" scratches...

[chucklestheclown]

Didn't Rupert discuss that already ala IWR?

[Thoroughbred Fan]

Some vet scratches are really jockey scratches. Better to know the jockey than the vet.

[Bobby Fischer]

Originally Posted by chucklestheclown

Didn't Rupert discuss that already ala IWR?

yes, IWR and Pamplemousse.


one difference is with 3yo "stars", the connections wish for the paper trail to signal that all is well and healthy with the horses

with the drop-in-claimer game, the connections might actually prefer a "Vet" scratch over trainer scratch as the listed reason to ward off would be claimers...

Originally Posted by Thoroughbred Fan

Some vet scratches are really jockey scratches. Better to know the jockey than the vet.

I hadn't noticed that before. That seems like a confusing way of representing the information...

[Cannon Shell]

A vet scratch can be any number of things. If you scratch a horse because they are sick or coughing it is considered a vet scratch. It isnt necessarily a lameness issue.

[chucklestheclown]

I never thought a vet scratch meant "lameness": I thought it meant the horse wasnt fit to run for whatever reason. Maybe they should have to designate-lame;lungs;colic-whatever.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Bobby Fischer

yes, IWR and Pamplemousse.


one difference is with 3yo "stars", the connections wish for the paper trail to signal that all is well and healthy with the horses

with the drop-in-claimer game, the connections might actually prefer a "Vet" scratch over trainer scratch as the listed reason to ward off would be claimers...



I hadn't noticed that before. That seems like a confusing way of representing the information...

I would say that it would be highly unlikely that a trainer or owner would somehow get the vet to scratch their horse. The only time I have ever heard of something like this happening was many years ago. When you run a horse in a claiming race, if there are any trainers that are planning on claiming your horse, you will usually see them looking at your horse closely when the horse enters the paddock and/or receiving barn. I have heard stories of cases where a trainer that did not want his horse to get claimed, asked the jockey to try to get the horse scratched by the vet in the post parade so that the horse would not get claimed. But I have never heard of a case of someone somehow getting their horse scratched by the vet to avoid getting claimed on some future date.

[chucklestheclown]

And the plot thickens...This is great!

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by chucklestheclown

Didn't Rupert discuss that already ala IWR?

That was an unusual circumstance. That is not the norm.