Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Y
No matter the reasons BEHIND IT: they are the same, i.e.limited liability for a claim within trying to keep a race competitive. Nothing MORE, nothing LESS.
To view them as different is to be splitting hairs WELL BEYOND rationality
|
Tim, once again I offer you facts , yet all you can do is contradict with your opinion,
I guess you know more than the Daily Racing form NYRA, California and the Maryland Racing Commission
From The DRF,
Waiver Claiming Races
Exactly what FTL wrote, and fits horse 10 above to a T.
" An owner may opt to declare a horse ineligible from claimed provided the horse has not stated for a minimum of 180 days and the horse is entered
for a claiming price egual to or greater than the price at which it last started.
The owner must declare his horse ineligible to be claimed at the time of entry, and the horse will be ineligible o be claimed only for the first start
following the layoff."
"The purpose of the rule is to reward those people who have taken care of their horses" said Dan Eidson, the secretary for the New York Racing Association. " It gives them a little incentive. It works well in California"
Optional Claiming Races.
From the Maryland Racing Commission
1. The winner of an Optional Claiming Race, If entered not to be claimed,
shall be considered a winner of an allowance race,
2. A winner of an Optional Claiming Race if entered to be claimed, Shall be
considered a winner of a claiming race
There you go They are 2 separate racing conditions.
Bill