Re: RC: sweepstakes horses

[Lynne Glazer <lynne@glazer.org>]

I didn't say it very well, sorry.  What I meant was that a horse who 
comes on the market, advertised as an endurance prospect, had 
probably not been Sweepstakes nominated if not in utero--if he was 
that good, 1) they'd've kept him, or perhaps 2) he wouldn't be a 
prospect, but instead a finished horse, and priced like it too.

I think I'm still not saying it very well! <g>

Nominating against earnings is a good program, lets people who are 
confident about their horse's ability "bet on the come".  (all that 
thinking about Reno...)

Sweeps is the only nice thing they ever did for Chance; too bad 
they're still in business.  I hope they get "theirs", in this 
lifetime.

Lynne


At 4:52 PM -0500 2/5/00, Dbeverly4@aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 2/5/00 12:22:19 PM Pacific Standard Time, lynne@glazer.org
>writes:
>
><< My feeling is that horses  who are either "original entries" or
> nominated via "eligible sire" are less likely with a horse purchased
> as an endurance prospect.  Proven horse, like Harca, maybe.
>  >>
>
>If you're saying that its a gamble to nominate a horse who isn't eligible --
>you're absolutely right.  Costs more money. IAHA does let you prorate your
>nomination fee against any possible future earnings.  You have to pay 1/3 up
>front (I think that was the $) then within the next 12 months, they will keep
>any winnings until your balance is paid.  I was lucky and it worked out
>really well for me -- paid off after two rides.  I am glad though that Chance
>is already nominated -- very nice.  And I did realize that the nomination was
>done before they were born otherwise the previous "owners" would never have
>done it.  Heck, they didn't even bother to ever worm him or give him his
>shots, they sure as heck wouldn't have nominated him for anything.  He was
>disposable from day one (in their eyes).
>
>Sylvia