[For The Lead]

Bill,

You read the condition, as it appears, correctly. However, I don't believe the condition, itself, is printed correctly. Here's why.

The purpose of a condition is to limit eligibility for entry into the race.
So let's look at the condition as it appears.

Condition ONE - "THREE YEAR OLDS AND UPWARD WHICH HAVE NEVER WON THREE RACES"
This is straight forward. Any three year old, or older, that has never won three races is eligible.

Condition TWO - "THREE YEAR OLDS"
IF "any" three year old can enter the race, then why is there a need to previously limit the race to "three year olds and upward which have never won three races"?

Condition THREE - "WHICH HAVE NOT WON A RACE SINCE MAY 28, 2012"
What does this mean?
Which horses are limited to not having won a race since May 28,2012??
Three year olds only???
Older horses only????

I believe there is one too many "OR's" in the condition.
I believe the condition was meant to read as follows:
"FOR THREE YEAR OLDS AND UPWARD WHICH HAVE NEVER WON THREE RACES OR THREE YEAR OLDS WHICH HAVE NOT WON A RACE SINCE MAY 28,2012"

THIS makes sense!!
Now the race is limited to three year olds and upward which have never won three races OR three year olds which have not won a race since May 28,2012.

Under the limits of the condition written in this way;
- any horse age 3 or older are limited to 2 prior wins.
OR
- 3 year olds ONLY can have more than 2 wins, but are limited to "zero" wins since since May 28, 2012.