And if you answer that it will deter claims, I go back to a previous post where I would like to see allowances with the word AND in it. Ex: Horses that ran for $7500 or less in 2012 AND never won 2 races. That too would eliminate claims and claiming races for people that don’t want to lose their horse(s).

I think some of the love for starters comes from people who don’t want to sell their horses but don’t have anywhere else to put them than in claiming races… and as you know, a lot of horses are getting snapped up that a year ago would never have gotten claimed.

Overall, at Laurel since September, there have been 21 horses classified as breakdowns. Three came from starter allowance races, so if one seventh of all breakdowns occur in starter allowance races, I don’t see how more starter races is necessarily a solution. Eight of the 21 (38.1%) breakdowns occurred in the two cheapest level of racing in Maryland, maidens running for an $8000 claiming price or $5000 claimers who have not won two races lifetime.

My two solutions to curb breakdowns, would be to LOWER the purses at the bottom levels where a substantial percentage to the breakdowns occur and a vet database available to all licensed entities. Since the slot fueled purses will be bumped another 10% for the Pimlico meet, why not bump most of the races 12.5% and drop the two lowest levels 15%? Yes, you’ll lose a portion of your horse population at the bottom level, but by reaching out to better stock with increased purses at the mid to upper levels, perhaps we can get better horses on the grounds to run where we have one of the most supportive racing office operations in the country.

A Vet Database should be easy. If med use and “procedures” are suspected issues surrounding breakdowns, requiring all vets servicing horses on the grounds to provide the information to a controlled database should be obvious. There is no reason for owners and trainers to hide behind “vet – horse” confidentiality. I receive an itemized monthly bill for everything done with any of my horses and I can’t see a problem making this information available for all horses running on the grounds going back six months. Any horse shipping in would have to provide six months’ worth of the same information at time of entry. After six months, the records would be purged monthly so that there is at most six months of records. If any horse is found to have anything not in the database, there could be serious sanctions for the trainer. If racing has the ability to be more transparent, who are we protecting by not doing so?

The theory of buying and selling anything is that the buyer is a willing buyer and that the seller is a willing seller. Those conditions are very often not present in claiming races. Claiming races are examples of adversarial selling where either the seller or the buyer (or both) is unhappy with the sale. Only rarely will a horse be claimed where everyone leaves the table pleased with the outcome.

Why can’t there be Allowance/Optional Claimers for lower ranks. Why do the horses that “can’t run fast” have ONLY claiming races to enter???? And why are the “better” horses always protected. They should be available just like every other horse whether or not they want to lose them. In other words, level the playing field for ALL horses then maybe secretaries will think outside the box when writing conditions. Right now, I only see copy/paste for conditions with maybe a date or purse change.

Thanks for checking in, Pony. Perhaps you’re right, but I think momentum is going in the direction you seemingly favor this time.