GT, I’m in the same general area as you, and I have a very unique perspective as I am married to a track vet.
For those who wish to praise the OZ industry you should be aware that they have a flourishing horse slaughter industry. It is a very practical approach for them if you are looking for a way of ridding the yards of low end racers but it wouldn’t work in the states. Auctions are just the middle step between the track and meat market for unwanted horses. I think horse slaughter is pretty much the bottom line in australasia. I don’t look at this to their detriment but point it out as a fact of life in many other racing countries like OZ.
Lord knows the unwanted horse problem is getting out of hand in the states but IMHO claiming races are not the issue. That is how a great many trainers make a living. Without claiming, track vets would be opening small animal practices.
[QUOTE=Shammy Davis;8271437]
For those who wish to praise the OZ industry you should be aware that they have a flourishing horse slaughter industry. It is a very practical approach for them if you are looking for a way of ridding the yards of low end racers but it wouldn’t work in the states. Auctions are just the middle step between the track and meat market for unwanted horses. I think horse slaughter is pretty much the bottom line in australasia. I don’t look at this to their detriment but point it out as a fact of life in many other racing countries like OZ.
Lord knows the unwanted horse problem is getting out of hand in the states but IMHO claiming races are not the issue. That is how a great many trainers make a living. Without claiming, track vets would be opening small animal practices.[/QUOTE]
I don’t know if anyone was praising it per se. But with it being the closest industry in size to the US, it is the most similar to look to for comparisons and alternatives.
My personal opinion: while I appreciate that we have so many opportunities for horses of all level to run and compete, I think many people and horses alike would be much better off if they weren’t earning their bread and butter off of low-dollar claiming races.
To be quite frank, I’m always torn on the subject of “cheap horses” even though they are what paid my bills for so many years. Cheap horses and cheap claiming circuits make racing more accessible to the average person (owner or horseman) in so many ways. But the decreased caliber of competition unfortunately allows some lesser quality conditioners to persist in the sport despite of their poor horsemanship. In short, getting rid of the cheap horses would get rid of a lot of the a*holes that come with them! But is it worth losing racing’s “little man” operations? I find that too hard to say…
Texarkana: Your point is very well taken. We forget that the horseracing fan base in OZ is enormous. We hardly have a race that would stop traffic much less shut down a nation.
On the basis of production maybe there are comparisons but beyond that IMHO it is hard to find a common thread, Also punters play a significant role in the Aussie industry. We, here in states, don’t seem to get along with the involvement of professional gamblers.
Also many US trainers are owners who fill their stables by claiming or partnerships. Maybe if our industry cleaned up its appearance that would help. From my perspective, things are better. I remember Shenandoah Downs. LOL. Not much came from there. Well, take that back. JAY TRUMP!
Here are a couple of articles that might be of interest on the subject.
http://www.thisishorseracing.com/news/index.php/easyblog/entry/time-for-racing-to-claim-a-change
In the steeplechase world, they’ve started offering “Ratings Handicap” races in the states this year:
http://www.nationalsteeplechase.com/uncategorized/parx-ratings-handicap-attracts-large-field/
[QUOTE=gumtree;8269405]
The BIGGEST problem with claiming is not in the upper levels, $30,000+ it is the lower levels. Especially for owners and trainers of maidens.
The way the system is rigged, rather run now horses of lesser ability that are not competitive in open Maiden Special Weight have no choice but to run in low claiming. So the owners of these horse who have at least $35-40,000 into training expenses alone run the risk of loosing the horse right from the get go in a $5 to $15,000 maiden claiming. If a horse show any kind of form in their first couple of starts the will be taken. “Honor code” or not
.[/QUOTE]
This is an interesting conversation, even if it is hypothetical. I realize that I am not the average owner, but I brought my own homebred home when he wasn’t cutting it at MSW level. No way would I risk him for a tag. I hope my next one can compete at MSW and allowance level, or I will keep accumulating very expensive lawn ornaments.
[QUOTE=JJ’sLuckyTrain;8274740]
This is an interesting conversation, even if it is hypothetical. I realize that I am not the average owner, but I brought my own homebred home when he wasn’t cutting it at MSW level. No way would I risk him for a tag. I hope my next one can compete at MSW and allowance level, or I will keep accumulating very expensive lawn ornaments.[/QUOTE]
That’s what I do. But I also have the benefit of break/starting my horses personally. I have a pretty good idea of what I have between my legs. Only the ones that show me enough at the farm will go to the racetrack. I will pay to see another “card” or two. If their works don’t impress me and my trainer that they have a more than good chance of starting and being competitive in MSW they come home. I try and scratch out a living doing this so it’s all about money management.
We’ve got 5 looking for new homes. Re-schooled, jumping nicely and priced at $3-5,000. Wish I could just keep them as pasture ornaments. Because dealing with extremely unrealistic pony clubbers looking for a top sport horse prospect for no money is driving me nuts.
[QUOTE=Flash44;8270488]
GT, I’m in the same general area as you, and I have a very unique perspective as I am married to a track vet.[/QUOTE]
Thanks. I was curious because since hanging around the forum on the various threads I have found it interesting how different people look at, do things in different parts of the country.
[QUOTE=Shammy Davis;8272512]
Here are a couple of articles that might be of interest on the subject.
Shammy those are great articles. But within the economic and statistical reality portrayed in the first article, will Joe Clancy’s suggestions really fix the problem?
Maggi Moss, who won an Eclipse Award as best owne several years ago, deals mainly in claimers. She spends hours in front of her computer every day, looking at past races, reading the PP’s and between the lines. She calls trainers she knows and confers with her trainers daily. Claiming is not a sidleline or a hobby to her. It is a full time, serious job. A job at which she excels.
She is dedicated but above all, she is a real horseman. She grew up on a farm, was a top rider and winner (Washington, NY, etc.) She married a rider/show manager named Brian Flynn and, after their divorce, she and Rodney Jenkins were a couple for a long time.
She knows her horses inside and out. She is one of the few people to make a lot of $$ claiming horses because it takes dedication and hard work and knowledge.
Most people are not as serious about claiming horses, and, for them, it is a crap shoot.
[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;8275191]
Most people are not as serious about claiming horses, and, for them, it is a crap shoot.[/QUOTE]
I completely agree. A person can be a great horseman, but be really bad at getting a horse to the winners circle. A huge component to being successful at the claiming game is finding a spot where the horse can win. The more successful trainers can look at the various races coming up for a horse, figure out who the competition will be in the different spots, and pick the best race for the horse. It’s a whole lot of work beyond the normal training routine.
[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;8275191]
Maggi Moss, who won an Eclipse Award as best owne several years ago, deals mainly in claimers. She spends hours in front of her computer every day, looking at past races, reading the PP’s and between the lines. She calls trainers she knows and confers with her trainers daily. Claiming is not a sidleline or a hobby to her. It is a full time, serious job. A job at which she excels.
She is dedicated but above all, she is a real horseman. She grew up on a farm, was a top rider and winner (Washington, NY, etc.) She married a rider/show manager named Brian Flynn and, after their divorce, she and Rodney Jenkins were a couple for a long time.
She knows her horses inside and out. She is one of the few people to make a lot of $$ claiming horses because it takes dedication and hard work and knowledge.
Most people are not as serious about claiming horses, and, for them, it is a crap shoot.[/QUOTE]
Maggie Moss had been on the ballot for an Owner Eclipse award but has not won it.
I believe since Michael Gill won it based on overall earnings the criteria for the winner has changed. Instead of giving it to a person based solely on total purse money won. It is now based on purse money and the overall quality, “body of work” the person’s horses have accomplished. Which is why Midwest Thoroughbreds did not get it a couple of years ago when they were leading owners by prize money. They have/had over 150 horses in training. The vast majority being mid to low level claimers.
IMO and many others a much better way of “earning” it.
Maggie Moss is a successful trial lawyer so I don’t think it is fair to say “It is a full time, serious job”. Taking nothing away from her “prowess” in the claiming game. She is the first to give her trainers a lot of credit.
The claiming “game” is not much different than playing high stakes poker. If you play long enough the “house” will always win. I beleive Ms. Moss has scaled back her involvement in the claiming aspect of the sport. From what I understand she has come to realized that “quality” over quantity is a better way to go about it. For owners and horses. Midwest Thoroughbreds has done the same. They won the Arlington Million on Saturday and last year’s Breeders’ Cup sprint.
The best in the “claiming game” for many, many years is Maryland based trainer King Leatherbury. IMO
He was inducted into the Racing Hall of Fame this year. Very deserving.
[QUOTE=gumtree;8275747]
Maggie Moss had been on the ballot for an Owner Eclipse award but has not won it.
I believe since Michael Gill won it based on overall earnings the criteria for the winner has changed. Instead of giving it to a person based solely on total purse money won. It is now based on purse money and the overall quality, “body of work” the person’s horses have accomplished. Which is why Midwest Thoroughbreds did not get it a couple of years ago when they were leading owners by prize money. They have/had over 150 horses in training. The vast majority being mid to low level claimers.
IMO and many others a much better way of “earning” it.
Maggie Moss is a successful trial lawyer so I don’t think it is fair to say “It is a full time, serious job”. Taking nothing away from her “prowess” in the claiming game. She is the first to give her trainers a lot of credit.
The claiming “game” is not much different than playing high stakes poker. If you play long enough the “house” will always win. I beleive Ms. Moss has scaled back her involvement in the claiming aspect of the sport. From what I understand she has come to realized that “quality” over quantity is a better way to go about it. For owners and horses. Midwest Thoroughbreds has done the same. They won the Arlington Million on Saturday and last year’s Breeders’ Cup sprint.[/QUOTE]
Basically, preserve the status quo. No doubt the way to keep the sport of KINGS thriving into the next century. Make damn sure that no way no how can someone with a love of the sport and the ability to win over and over and over, be acknowledged as great unless, of course, they have that blue blood pedigree. But that’s just us. We’re all about lending a hand to the little guy, and the smaller he/she is, the happier we are to see 'em win.
[QUOTE=gumtree;8274847]
We’ve got 5 looking for new homes. Re-schooled, jumping nicely and priced at $3-5,000. Wish I could just keep them as pasture ornaments. Because dealing with extremely unrealistic pony clubbers looking for a top sport horse prospect for no money is driving me nuts.[/QUOTE]
I hear you on this one. I had a conversation with a friend of mine recently who has some nice horses for sale about how unrealistic many buyers are. They said people will contact them saying they need a horse jumping at level X or dressage at level Y and it can’t have a spook and must be under $Z. (where Z is probably 30%+ less than what that horse should cost).
Those pony clubbers should be grateful for those OTTB’s under $5k that:
- Came with forward pre-installed at the factory
- Has a work ethic
- Intelligent
- Can do a variety of activities from jumping to dressage
- Doesn’t need to be taught how to gallop. Already understands what that is
- Has got used to a lot of stuff at the track like crowds, screaming people, horse traffic, etc.
[QUOTE=Flash44;8274881]
Shammy those are great articles. But within the economic and statistical reality portrayed in the first article, will Joe Clancy’s suggestions really fix the problem?[/QUOTE]
I think not. Clancy’s focus is Steeplechasing. The reality is that chaser and flat racing IMHO are two different worlds from a business perspective. Some years back I read a harness racing article on this subject. It recommended different classifications by both condition and age. I can’t find a link for it for it. I like the idea from the perspective that it might encourage keeping older horses in training. Good chasers normally mature late but from the business side of the industry make little impact. The impact on the flat might be subtantial. I always thought a great majority of racehorses run more consistently the older they are.
Don’t think Clancy put much imagination into his thinking either.
[QUOTE=SnicklefritzG;8277727]
I hear you on this one. I had a conversation with a friend of mine recently who has some nice horses for sale about how unrealistic many buyers are. They said people will contact them saying they need a horse jumping at level X or dressage at level Y and it can’t have a spook and must be under $Z. (where Z is probably 30%+ less than what that horse should cost).
Those pony clubbers should be grateful for those OTTB’s under $5k that:
- Came with forward pre-installed at the factory
- Has a work ethic
- Intelligent
- Can do a variety of activities from jumping to dressage
- Doesn’t need to be taught how to gallop. Already understands what that is
- Has got used to a lot of stuff at the track like crowds, screaming people, horse traffic, etc.[/QUOTE]
Quite honestly this is why an ottb or otstb is on my list of horses to consider when I’m ready to buy. I want a horse that can do a variety of activities and isn’t likely to be freaking out over every little thing. I also prefer horses that have some ‘go’ over those you have to kick along. (Although obviously that always depends on the horse.) I don’t want the next Olympic champion whatever, because realistically that is not the horse I need.
Took this off View From the RaceTrack Grandstand blog. Couldn’t find the other link with comparable comments, but thought this might be interesting to some.
"Time to Get Rid of Claiming Races? Introducing Aged Classified Racing.
Posted by Joe Fat 02/11/2014
One thing we learned from the (previous post) Sydney Seelster claim, which happily is being resolved to the benefit of all involved, is the unspoken rule regarding claiming races. From the comments on social media, we learned the following things.
First of all, especially at the smaller tracks harness racing is a tight-knit family. As such, here are some rules regarding horses racing in claimers.
1.Thou shalt not claim a horse which is basically a pet.
2.You don’t claim a horse from someone who is in financial difficulty.
3.You never claim the last horse a trainer has.
4.While not as hard set in the rules, you give the person you are claiming from the courtesy of letting them know you are thinking of claiming their horse if it remains in for the same price. This gives the original owner the opportunity to move the horse up if they want to keep it.
It is admirable that harness racing is tight-knot and while some of the comments regarding the two Sydneys were over the top, it was nice to see social media light up over this. Let’s face it, it is a rare day where horse racing people get so passionate about something. That being said, one has to wonder if these are the ‘unspoken’ rules of claiming races, why do we even bother with claiming races?
For example, these rules provide an unfair advantage to those who qualify for special treatment. A trainer is supposed to place a horse at a proper level where the horse may be competitive. Well, if you know no one is going to claim your horse off of you, a horse can dominate a class for a while without worrying about being claimed whereas someone who falls outside of these unspoken rules need to adjust the claiming price of the horse to keep it which means they may not be cashing a check for a few weeks. The result is the horse player may be dealing with more odds-on favorites than they should have to.
So what is the answer to these type of situations which would be fair to all involved. Get rid of claiming races and replace them with classified races. I know many horsemen don’t care for classified racing; preferring conditioned racing. Well, they can have it both ways. You could have conditioned races for your younger horses but for horses six and up who would typically be forced into claiming races, classified races could be introduced.
The advantage of classified racing, would be those horses which would have raced in claiming races would be classified according to their current form. With the racing secretary deciding the class each horse will race in, no trainer would have an unfair advantage over another.
So how would these classified conditions work?. First of all horses, which still can compete against younger horses, would continue to race in the existing classified or condition structure. Those who don’t fit the bill would be in races restricted to 6 year olds and up. As with classifying horses, you would use a similar grading system but classify those horses relative to other horses 6 year olds and over (meaning a regular C-2 class race is not the same as an Aged C-2). You would differentiate them in the program by specifying the race is for aged horses versus younger (i.e., Aged C-2).
Yes, having Aged Classes puts the power of placing horses in their proper class on the race secretary. If done right, the races become more competitive and make them worth wagering on. Those who argue grouping older horses in classified racing would cheapen the product, we are seeing it is competitive full fields gamblers want, not races with odds-on favorites. Perhaps more importantly,you won’t see someones family favorite going to a new home."
