Clueless Clowns at it again

[miff]

Recent claim ready to go, with no place to run

By Dick Jerardi(DRF)


Owner Robert Cole has been unable to enter recent claim Aaron's Legend in any races as a result of new rules at Charles Town.
Over the last month, "only in horse racing" met up with Joseph Heller's "Catch-22."

I got a call last Saturday from owner Robert Cole, less than two weeks removed from getting that Special Eclipse for Rapid Redux's perfect 2011. He said he wanted to tell me a story.

Cole claimed a 5-year-old gelding named Aaron's Legend out of a 4 1/2-furlong $7,500 maiden claimer on Dec. 17 at Charles Town. Little did he know he was claiming a horse that was not eligible to run at Charles Town or, for 60 days, anywhere else.

On the day Cole claimed the horse, Aaron's Legend finished a solid second. The former trainer, Nancy Heil, was 1 for 40 in 2011 when the horse was claimed. Cole's trainer, Scooter Davis, was a solid 28 percent last year and 40 percent off the claim.

The horse had raced 12 times since his August 2010 debut, with five seconds and earnings of $21,830. The horse got a 39 Beyer Speed Figure on the day he was claimed. He was with the pace in just about every race. He was quite competitive and had gotten dirt Beyers as high as 56 and 57.

Cole entered the horse for maiden $10,000 on Jan. 4.

"Just a typical spot, 4 1/2, nothing fancy, just where the horse figured to run," Cole said. "And they refused to take the entry."

Cole was confused. Then, he was bewildered. Finally, he decided to call me.

Seems that without much, if any notice, it was decided that any maidens that were 6 years old or older and had started at least 10 times would no longer be eligible to run at Charles Town in 2012.

"It was a bit of a cockeyed rule, but they can do anything they want," Cole said.

It would have been nice if Cole had known about the rule when he claimed a 5-year-old maiden with 12 starts two weeks before the calendar turned to 2012.

"That was unfair, but this gets worse," Cole said.

He's right.

Charles Town has a 60-day jail rule. You can't run a claimed horse out of town for 60 days after the claim.

"I said to the stewards 'Well, you can let me run out of town,' and they refused to let me run out of town," Cole said.

Thus, the Heller/Catch-22 connection – you can't run here in a maiden race, and you can't run anywhere else, either.

"So, they don't let me run at Charles Town, nor do they let me run out of state," Cole said.

Cole's $7,500 claim has been incurring training bills for the owner, but has no chance to earn any of it back until the middle of February, when he can run out of town in races that probably don't suit him. Anytime the horse has run beyond 4 1/2 furlongs on the dirt, he has not been close at the finish. All of his good races have been at 4 or 4 1/2, the classic Charles Town distance.

This probably is not the best way to encourage owners, the very lifeblood of a sport that does not need any more stupidity than it already has. Can we please get a national commissioner to explain to those that are in charge of their little fiefdoms that it really isn't about them – it is about the game.

When Cole asked the stewards why they instituted the rule, he was told they didn't want horses that "aren't going to be competitive."
Cole figured Aaron's Legend would have been 2-5 in the race where he entered him. So, it would appear as if the 6-year-old would have been competitive.

Cole then went to the Maryland stewards who he said "blew me off" when he asked if they would ignore the 60-day jail rule.

Cole then was told about another maiden race at Charles Town. Two maidens who were more than 6 years old with more than 10 starts ran in it. He made a call to the stewards and was told it was a bad rule and they decided to change it, apparently because it would have superseded a state rule. If Cole had known, he would have entered the race.

He entered Aaron's Legend again at Charles Town. His entry was not accepted. He was told the rule had been changed back again. Only now, it apparently had been written into the conditions of maiden races.

Charles Town's chief steward, Danny Wright, confirmed the details of Cole's story.

"I'm not unsympathetic to his circumstances," Wright said. "I understand his feelings."

Wright said the issue of barring certain horses from racing at the track will be addressed at a Feb. 7 rules committee meeting of the West Virginia Racing Commission.

Wright said he would prefer the criteria to be based on "poor performance."

"Obviously, this is an absurd story," Cole said. "It wouldn't matter if it was me or an owner with one horse. Owners don't need this kind of abuse. Here, they have a horse ready to run and they won't take the entry. They won't let him run out of town and then they change the rule a couple of times. Now, that's the story."

I say free Aaron's Legend.

Why is common sense such a foreign concept in this sport?

Whenever I am out with some of my horse racing writing brethren at a major event and we are considering something really stupid in the sport, we say in unison: "It's horse racing." We say it a lot. We have been saying for years. We will probably be saying it forever.

[TGJB]

Forget it, man. It\'s Chinatown...

I can understand the eligibility rule, but not waiving the 60 day rule is just silly.

[plasticman]

The thing that confuses me is that CT is a \'minor league\' track, this is where bad horses run, at minor league tracks.

Someone probably whispered in their ear that desperately bad horses, 75-1 shots or higher, cost them betting handle because the race is \'less competitive\' and thus, mirrors a \'shorter\' field. A 9 horse field with one desperate horse is equivalent to an 8 horse field in their mind.

I know personally that if i look up and CT is the only track running and i feel really compulsive and i do a \'quick\' 10 minute handicap, i\'m more likely to bet a race where i can automatically toss out one horse (or 2) than a race where every horse looks like they have a shot on paper. So, as far as my betting is concerned, and i have bet on CT races, they will have a better shot to get my handle if i can toss out 1 or 2 horses right off the hop without even having to look at them twice.

So, i\'m not sure why this rule was put in place, i can\'t see how it helps betting handle to exclude the worst runners known to man.

Why not just \'exclude\' horses who are uncompetitive on paper, and not come up with some arbitrary rule that is based on age and win status?

Can\'t someone who works at CT in the race office  glance at the PP\'s of every horse entered and within 3 seconds, determine if a horse is \'uncompetitive\'?

How long will it take to \'sniff out\' a horse who\'s not competitive at all?

[miff]

A little surprising that a mickey mouse track like CT would exclude any horse. NYRA should be excluding certain horses from it\'s brutal winter cards. Each day they have at least 10-20 horses that should not be permitted to race. It\'s disgraceful,the constant flow of NY Bred slow maiden claiming rats and cheap claimers/maidens that show up day after day in NY.In spite of big purses, the cards are just as bad as years prior.Race office up against it, as it can only write cards from the horse inventory it has.Less winter race days the obvious answer.

Clueless Clowns at NYRA once stated that they were mandated  by the State to run so many days, we know.They also said they needed winter racing to fund purses for the spring/summer meets,very understandable.Now there is tons of slot money so maybe the Clueless Clowns will petition the Albany powers to reduce the number of winter racing days, close from mid Dec until Mar 1st.This would be extremely beneficial in culling the garbage that is permitted to race during winter and shore up the quality of NY racing going forward.

NYRA winter cards tough, it\'s painful to come up horses to step out on or take a stand with.

Rant for the day...nuthin\'s gonna change.

Mike

[P-Dub]

plasticman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The thing that confuses me is that CT is a \'minor
> league\' track, this is where bad horses run, at
> minor league tracks.
>
> Someone probably whispered in their ear that
> desperately bad horses, 75-1 shots or higher, cost
> them betting handle because the race is \'less
> competitive\' and thus, mirrors a \'shorter\' field.
> A 9 horse field with one desperate horse is
> equivalent to an 8 horse field in their mind.
>
> I know personally that if i look up and CT is the
> only track running and i feel really compulsive
> and i do a \'quick\' 10 minute handicap, i\'m more
> likely to bet a race where i can automatically
> toss out one horse (or 2) than a race where every
> horse looks like they have a shot on paper. So, as
> far as my betting is concerned, and i have bet on
> CT races, they will have a better shot to get my
> handle if i can toss out 1 or 2 horses right off
> the hop without even having to look at them
> twice.
>
> So, i\'m not sure why this rule was put in place, i
> can\'t see how it helps betting handle to exclude
> the worst runners known to man.
>
> Why not just \'exclude\' horses who are
> uncompetitive on paper, and not come up with some
> arbitrary rule that is based on age and win
> status?
>
> Can\'t someone who works at CT in the race office
> glance at the PP\'s of every horse entered and
> within 3 seconds, determine if a horse is
> \'uncompetitive\'?
>
> How long will it take to \'sniff out\' a horse who\'s
> not competitive at all?


Sometimes these \"noncompetitive\" horses win.

What would distinguish a horse as \"non-competitive\"??  Would Wild Again have been excluded from the inaugural BC Classic because someone in a racing office thought
he was \"non-competitve\"?

Non-competitive on paper.  What type of paper.  A DRF??  Thorograph figures? Beyer numbers? Horses that look absolutely hopeless on paper win races. Keeping a horse from running because someone says they are uncompetitive just doesn\'t cut it.

Any type of rule that excludes a horse , that would otherwise be eligible per race conditions, is ridiculous.

How a racing jurisdiction can make some arbitrary rule, prohibiting a horse from running based on some time frame they pulled out of their ass, and on top of that adding an age restriction just to look even more ridiculous, is beyond me.

Are people in charge of racing and people that run for president picked from the same pool??

[TGJB]

Pdub-- people who run racing often make big contributions to those running for office (especially on Ky.), so you\'re on the right track.

[plasticman]

Dubber, i would say that what would distinguish a horse as \'non competitive\' would be the same \'guess\' that the racing office is currently making by excluding 6 year old maidens...its just a guess by them.

I think that beaten lengths is a good place to start. If a horse shows at least 5 consecutive races being beaten 15 lengths or more for the win, i\'d say  that\'s a non competitive horse.

But, that\'s up to the racetrack itself to decide what \'non competitive\' means to them.

[magicnight]

And, down the road at Mountaineer, this once-classy cripple is allowed to labor around the racetrack - endangering himself and his rider - so that a lying sacks of dung can try to score some easy money. What a world!

http://www.paulickreport.com/news/ray-s-paddock/saga-of-star-plus-doesn-t-this-horse-deserve-better/

[P-Dub]

plasticman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dubber, i would say that what would distinguish a
> horse as \'non competitive\' would be the same
> \'guess\' that the racing office is currently making
> by excluding 6 year old maidens...its just a guess
> by them.
>
> I think that beaten lengths is a good place to
> start. If a horse shows at least 5 consecutive
> races being beaten 15 lengths or more for the win,
> i\'d say  that\'s a non competitive horse.
>
> But, that\'s up to the racetrack itself to decide
> what \'non competitive\' means to them.


Plastic,

I agree that horses that show those running lines look non-competitive.

But..they still win from time to time.

I think we\'ve all seen a long priced winner have awful looking pps. I\'ve actually cashed on a few of them. (not that this makes me some genius or expert handicapper).

I just feel that if an owner has a horse that is eligible for a race, and is cleared by the track vet, he has every right to run his horse in that race. They still take money at the windows.  If someone wants to bet on them, then that losing money goes to the winners.

I work in a poker room. Believe me, there are some people that have no business sitting at a poker table.

None.

But the last thing we will do is refuse their business. And just like the horse with the awful looking running lines that actually wins once in awhile, so do these awful players. Both of them contribute dead money to the winning players. Why would anyone want to deny that money into the pool??

If you have a horse that fits the conditions, you have every right to race your horse.  If you are a person that fits the conditions for playing poker - possessing money and the ability to breathe - you should be able to play poker.

[magicnight]

\"If you are a person that fits the conditions for playing poker - possessing money and the ability to breathe - you should be able to play poker.\"

Pants and shirt optional, Paul?

[P-Dub]

magicnight Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"If you are a person that fits the conditions for
> playing poker - possessing money and the ability
> to breathe - you should be able to play poker.\"
>
> Pants and shirt optional, Paul?


Pants - required

Shirt - required. (please be sure they cover up your pits, basketball jerseys should have a shirt underneath)

Deodorant applied within the past 5 days - preferred (some skip this part)

Ok, we\'re getting off track here.  The stuff I could write about a poker room.......

[BB]

Love to play poker, but the few times I\'ve been in a casino and peered into the poker room, the atmosphere did seem somewhat less than convivial. Don\'t doubt for a minute that you have some great tales to tell.

That said, maybe the genius of horse racing is that you don\'t have to sit around a table with all of the people you are taking money from (or losing to).


BB (magicnight on home computer).

[plasticman]

PD, i completely agree with you, but some tracks have decided that they want to \'exclude\' runners they deem non competitive. Its sort of like how some tracks decide that a race should have no show wagering even though the minus show horse might be extremely vulnerable to the expert eye, but to them, they dont know any better and they cost themselves money by barring a horse who found a way to be off the board.

You\'re right, horses who look dreadful on paper win all the time and i\'m sure they would be barring some runners who are capable of winning on any given day, even though the paper looks bad.

I dont agree with the WAY CT is doing things, if they want to exclude a completely hopeless runner, there\'s a better way to do it than just automatically barring 6 year old maidens with 12 starts (or, whatever the criteria happens to be).

[P-Dub]

plasticman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PD, i completely agree with you, but some tracks
> have decided that they want to \'exclude\' runners
> they deem non competitive. Its sort of like how
> some tracks decide that a race should have no show
> wagering even though the minus show horse might be
> extremely vulnerable to the expert eye, but to
> them, they dont know any better and they cost
> themselves money by barring a horse who found a
> way to be off the board.
>
> You\'re right, horses who look dreadful on paper
> win all the time and i\'m sure they would be
> barring some runners who are capable of winning on
> any given day, even though the paper looks bad.
>
> I dont agree with the WAY CT is doing things, if
> they want to exclude a completely hopeless runner,
> there\'s a better way to do it than just
> automatically barring 6 year old maidens with 12
> starts (or, whatever the criteria happens to be).


Agree with you on the last part. What an embarrassment.  

The article that magic posted is just as ridiculous. How this game survives I\'ll never know.