For photos from the Meadowlands contact Lisaphoto@playmeadowlands.com

Saturday, March 2, 2013

The Role of a Qualifier Needs to Change

In today's HRU, Dean Towers talks about how more horses tend to be live coming off layoffs and how the schooling races they are competing in at race speeds don't show in the program.  We may not be able to do something about that; primarily because how do you have clockers at every training facility?  But we can do something about qualifiers being somewhat meaningless.

At one time, in the program it used to have a description indicating (paraphrasing), "Qualifying races are meant to show the horse is able to meet the track standards without breaking.  Qualifying races are not necessarily competitive".  My question is why are qualifying races not competitive with respect to going in race times?

For example, the qualifying standards at the Meadowlands are listed as:
 

QUALIFIYING STANDARDS (P) 1:58 (T) 2:01 - 2 YR. PACERS 2:02 - 2 YR. TROTTERS 2:05 - 3 YEAR OLDS ALLOWED 1 SECOND. 5/8TH MILE TRACK ALLOWED 1 SECOND. 1/2 MILE TRACK ALLOWED 2 SECONDS. THE N.J.R.C. RULE CHANGE FOR QUALIFIERS IS NOW CHANGED FROM 30 DAYS TO 45 DAYS IN N.J.
 
While I have a problem with changing the qualifying rule from thirty days to forty-five days, that is a topic for another time.  Let's look at the qualifying standards for aged horses.  For a pacer qualifying at the Meadowlands, they need to pace the mile in 1:58 (a trotter must trot in 2:01).  Tell me what horse is going to earn a check in 1:58 (or 2:01)?  Perhaps if the track is rated slow, but over a fast track, that horse is going to go back to his stall without earning a nickel.  In fact, looking at last Thursday's races, for those contested at a mile, the fifth pace finisher's average time was 1:54.3, the trotter at 1:58.2.  It would be more appropriate if qualifying standards were based on actual pari-mutuel race times.  Perhaps standards of 1:56 for a pacer and 1:59 for a trotter would be more appropriate at the Meadowlands?

The point is while qualifiers are not meant to be competitive within themselves, they should be more than a casual jaunt around the oval, they should be serious efforts to show a horse can be competitive at race speeds..



To no one's surprises, Cal Expo has agreed to accept entries from Lou Pena who recently had his license restored by a judge in New York for violation of due process (the fact six months had passed since his appeal of his license revocation where decisions are normally rendered within thirty days). It's just a question of his obtaining horses for his stable and it's off to the races. Let's not kid ourselves, just like owners on the East coast, they will be flocking to Pena so he may build his stable back up.

I'm sure many of you are wondering how Pena got licensed in California. First of all, his license is New York has been restored so technically he is in good standing in all states he is licensed in. Secondly, even if you bring up the fact he appears to have violated the withdrawal times for permitted medications in New York, it is important to note other states recommend withdrawal times, don't mandate them so his alleged infractions in New York wouldn't be an infraction in California.

The fact that something can be a violation of the rules in one state and not another is a symptom of the fractured system of regulation we have with each state having their own set of rules. There should be one set of rules throughout the country. States should agree to a compact where all harness racing in the United States operates under the same rules. This way, everyone know what the rules are and it would prevent individuals with suspended licenses crossing the border to another state with more 'relaxed' rules.

As for those with inquiring minds, I look forward to the March 15 hearing in a Schenectady courtroom to see if the NYGC has an explanation as to why they never issued a decision regarding the Pena appeal heard back in August. For the NYGC to leave any licensee swinging in the wind for five months past the due date of a decision is inexcusable.

 
 

No comments: