Racing Question

[ggpagels]

On November 30 at Aqueduct in the 8th race, the Remsen Stakes, the 8 horse, Title Contender, ran "For Purse Money Only" and was not part of the pari mutual betting.
I had never seen that in all my years going to the track. I asked some of my friends who have also played the horses for 40+ years and they have never heard of a horse running "For Purse Money Only" in a pari mutual betting race. Any "old pros" out there that can help us out with an explanation of why this practice is allowed?
:confused:

[Ken Massa]

Jerry,

We have been seeing three or four of the "purse money only" horses per year. The tracks can legally designate any horse or any race "non-wagering" at their discretion. The reason?

About 8 out of 10 of these are protection against a minus show pool. If the horse is a 1/9 favorite in a small stakes field, the bridge-jumpers will unload on it. Tracks and simulcast outlets don't want to bear the burden of paying the minus show pool, so they remove the horse from the wagering. It also creates a more interesting race for the betters because the huge favorite is out.

Less often is the case where incorrect information is provided to the public and the stewards will designate the horse "eligible for purse money" but not for wagering because there has been a major screw up in the past-performances or program information. This should be the case when no workouts are showing - but isn't in states like Kentucky (see my post replying to TomCat about the non-workout $54 winner at TP).

[chuck]

I've also seen this in New York, where one part of a entry is scratched at the gate. So they refund the whole entry and let the other half run for purse money only.