- DRF Bets
- Handicapping & PPsHorsemen's ProductsReports
Access past performances
- The Wizard
- DRF Gameplan
- Quick Sheets
- DRF Picks
- Today's Racing Digest
- Key Race Report
- Positive ROI Report
- Moss Pace Figure Reports
- Debut Reports
Racing and Wagering InformationTools
- DRF EasyForm PPs
- DRF Classic PDF PPs
- DRF Formulator PPs
- DRF HarnessEye PPs
- DRF Daily Harness Program PPs
- Daily Racing Program PPs
- NewsCategoriesTrack Reports
- StorePast Performances
- Compare all DRF PPs
- DRF Formulator PPs
- DRF Classic PPs
- DRF EasyForm PPs
- Daily Racing Program PPs
- See all Pricing/Plans
Del Mar: Claiming rule to be put to the test following Friday breakdown
By Jay Privman
DEL MAR, Calif. – A controversial new state rule regarding claiming of injured horses will be on the front-burner this month at Del Mar, owing to a protest over the claim of a horse on Friday, and a California Horse Racing Board meeting later this month during which the rule is scheduled to be discussed.
At issue is whether, and when, a claim goes through when a horse suffers a catastrophic injury that necessitates the horse being euthanized.
In Friday’s final race, the 3-year-old filly Elivette broke down inside the furlong pole and was finally brought to a halt by jockey Rafael Bejarano just past the finish line. She was so severely injured that, after leaving the track, she was euthanized.
But Elivette, who was trained by Jerry Hollendorfer, was claimed out of the race for $12,500 by Demitrius Xanthos, who races as Fortuna Ranch Racing. According to the new racing board rule, had Elivette been euthanized immediately on the track, the claim would have been voided. But since she was taken from the track and euthanized minutes later, the claim went through.
Steve Rothblum, a former trainer who manages Xanthos’s stable, on Saturday morning at Del Mar said he was going to file a protest on Xanthos’s behalf over the claim going through, believing that the new rule puts the ontrack veterinarians in a terrible position and leads, in this case, to unnecessary suffering.
“You’re putting pressure on the state vet to play God,” Rothblum said. “The claim should be voided. That’s the spirit of the law. But what was really terrible is that the filly was made to suffer for 15 more minutes while getting her off the track and back to the barn. We put her down as soon as she got back to the barn. The rule should be abolished. It’s a stupid thing.”
Doug O’Neill, who would have been Elivette’s new trainer, on Saturday said his “main focus was the filly.”
“It’s a horrible, sad situation,” he said.
Mike Marten, a spokesman for the racing board, said that an original proposal for the new rule would have resulted in the Elivette claim being voided, but that after many meetings and industry input, the current rule was adopted. He said that the rule is scheduled for discussion on Aug. 24, when the board’s medication and track safety committee meets at Del Mar
Big money for Cal-breds
The new Golden State Series for California-bred and –sired runners has been a bonanza for those eligible for the races, including Unusual Heatwave, who won the Real Good Deal Stakes for 3-year-olds on Friday.
The Real Good Deal had been a $100,000 race in its 14 most recent runnings, but the purse was doubled this year because of the new series.
“How can you pass up $200,000?” said Alexis Barba, who trains Unusual Heatwave. “That’s the bottom line.”
Unusual Heatwave earned $120,000 for the win and has now earned more than $400,000 despite never having placed in a graded stakes race, such is the lucrative nature of Cal-bred racing these days. He has won three times in 12 starts, his biggest previous victory coming in April in the Snow Chief Stakes for Cal-breds at Betfair Hollywood Park.
Unusual Heatwave, by Unusual Heat, was bred and is owned by Ellen and Peter Johnson and Teresa McWilliams.
The tomato goes through a lot of peoples hands is true. The guy that eats it pays everyone of those peoples bills. You're not real sharp are you mousy.
That's one of the spirits of the claiming races: 1) The old barn trained and fed the horse, paid any applicable entry and other fees to run in that race, therefore they get to reap the monetary rewards of the race. 2) A claiming race is the lowest level. The old barn picks a claiming level to run the horse because the horse is not good enough to win a higher level race. By running in a claiming race, the old barn accepts the risk that someone might actually claim the horse. 3) The new barn gets to evaluate all the horses, and pick the ones that they think they can be successful with. The data and past performances of these horses are readily available. They don't have to risk the uncertainties of buying an unraced horse, yearling or two year olds in training. There is no free lunch in this world. There is small risk associated with claiming horses out of a claiming race. There is a possibility that the horse you claimed breaking down during the race. This risk is well publicized, by submitting a claim the new barn acknowledge this risk - they should have done their homework regarding the soundness of the horse that they plan to claim. Of course, it could just be the luck of the draw that a horse breaks down but by submitting the claim, the old barn accepted this risk. Those are the spirits and reasoning behind claiming races. They are not that complicated. Nobody should be crying foul unless someone try to change the rules resulting in them becoming more vague and debatable. In my opinion, the California Board of Racing shouldn't have messed with these basic ethos. They could change the various rules regarding when the new owner is allowed to run the new claim back and other similar issues. Don't change the original spirits of the claiming race.
''Mike Marten, a spokesman for the racing board, said that an original proposal for the new rule would have resulted in the Elivette claim being voided, but that after many meetings and industry input, the current rule was adopted.'' He gives no explanation as to what salient arguments were proffered via ''industry input'' that merited the exclusion of that proposal. Anyone following the CHRB the last several years knows the body needs stronger leadership.
I don't think this claim could stand up in court.
Tom Cook is right. I have always been shocked at the lack of true vet checks. It seems like the mere presence of a vet, standing within 10 ft. of a horse, can somehow be called a vet check. Even when they go thru the motions of walking a circle around a horse is an act of lunacy, probably meant to somehow ressure the masses. Take their "vet checks" & apply it to how doctors check humans & you'd soon realize doctor checks & vet checks are polar opposites. Imagine going to your doctor or to the emergency room & the doctor walked in a circle around you or stood beside you holding a clip board in one hand & a coffee in the other. How confident would you feel if by the doctor's mere presence in your room, he or she diagnosed & evaluated your condition & sent you off telling you you were fine? I have been a critical care & emergency room nurse for over 30 yrs. & I have owned multiple horses since 1985; as many as 80 at one time. Doctors & nurses do develop a "trained eye" that picks up on something not being quite right before a non medical person will. But, even that "trained eye" has to do more than merely stand in a horse's presence. That 'trained eye'" may notice a being, human or animal, doesn't quite step correctly, even if it is only every fifth or so step or their breathing is a little too rapid or their muscles feel a little taut or their eyes seem a liitle dull. Unless the medical professional spends time watching a horse walk, trot, turn and watches their breathing as well as how he or she is carrying its head as well as how bright eyed they appear and then checks the horse's vital signs after such light activity, they cannot begin to know if a horse has pain, etc. Horses can't talk just like babies can't talk. So, we have to spend time observing & looking for clues that something is wrong. That observation will lead to possible questions that lead to ordering tests to investigate further. The medical professional, in this case, the vet, should also perform their own set of vital signs & draw a routine set of lab tests. The lab tests will indicate if a horse has been rendered too dehydrated after its dose of Lasix & other routine tests will indicate a multitude of illnesses. The routine lab tests I am talking about are the 2 labs ordered by virtually every doctor in every ER for just about all patients that come to an ER. These 2 labs, a Complete Blood Count (CBC) and a Complete Metabolic Panal (CMP), require only 2 tubes of blood & take only about 30 minutes to get the results from a lab & are relatively cheap.. Just about all illnesses will show clues that something is wrong or brewing in those 2 lab results. I understand that the trainers are ultimately responsible, just as parents are ultimately responsible for their children. But, parents are not held responsible for something only the doctor can & should diagnose. Yet, when something goes wrong with a horse, the trainer is always the one vilified. They, like children's parents, expect the medical professional to have the knowledge & expertise to know more than they do when it comes to the health of the horse. If not, why bother having vet checks? What completely disillusioned me about so called vet checks was the complete lack of noticing something was wrong with 'Life At Ten' in the post parade before the 2010 BC Ladies Classic. Knowing that most horses have pre race Lasix, I could readily tell, watching the post parade on TV, that Life At Ten was tying up. Her walk was stiff, her steps were short & her head was down, all indications of an animal or human having a medical problem and / or pain. The Lasix had led to dehydration which leads to chemical reactions within the muscles, that amongst other medical issues, causes the muscles thru-out the body to cramp up. I could see all of that clearly on a TV because of my medically "trained eye" & at the time, I was yelling at the vets, who should have the same "trained eye" as I, to notice while I was standing in my kitchen watching a TV screen. If a human doctor missed such an obvious display of medical distress, at the very least, he or she would be brought in front of a medical review board & possibly lose ttheir license. We have to put the onus for diagnosing a horse having a problem, medical or orthopedic, where it should be... on the track vets. As I said before, trainers of horses should be responsible for their horses well being as a parent is for a child. But, the medical professional is responsible for diagnosing & interpreting problems, not the parent. Why, then, on the track, is the medical professional not held responsible at all & all the onus placed on the trainer?
I hope the animal rights people get a hold of this..
The horse that's claimed must walk into the new owner's barn before he own's him.These sudden drop down's are a joke and another way for owner's to cheat.The fan's need to be protected not the trainer's.
Tis a F*&ed up game..........that will never get any better. Its a horrible part of the game. If you ask me, they should remove the low claiming ranks altogether.
the rule is foolish because when the claimed horse races and wins the "old barn" gets the purse money. But if the horse breaks down during the race the "new" barn gets the horse. There is no risk for the "old" barn at all because they get the claim and purse money regardless of what happens. Same incident happened during the Inner Track meet at Aqueduct and I believe it involved trainers David Jacobson and Dominick Gallusio.
"All Tracks , when a Horse is Mortally In need of Euthanasia :are put down on the Track Behind the Curtain."[ Why is California always looking for Exception] .Not Walked Back to the Barn in Agony -WTF. iS GOING ON ,w/ THE STATE VETS HERE.. Racing in Cal. is for the most part very biased and run by Idiots..They are not an Island. A,claim rule is not the precedent here. its .B.S
- 1.Posted 05/08/2013 04:00PM
- 2.Posted 05/18/2013 06:32PM
- 3.Posted 05/18/2013 12:16PM
- 4.Posted 05/18/2013 09:48PM
- 5.Posted 05/18/2013 07:47PM