Derby Trail Forums

Derby Trail Forums (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/index.php)
-   Stakes Archive (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   4/4 (AQU): Wood (G1); Carter (G1); Bay Shore (G3); Excelsior (G3) (http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28745)

NTamm1215 04-03-2009 08:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pick4
It would be a shame if West Side Bernie keeps Dunkirk out of the Kentucky Derby. If I owned a top quality race horse I would skip the Breeders Cup and point to the Delta Jackpot.

West Side Bernie didn't really run that bad in the BC and really the only inexplicably bad race he's ever run was at Turfway last time out. I understand your argument but I don't think WSB should be the object of your ire.

Also, it is due time that everyone come to grips with the fact that the rules have been the same all the way. It's not like Pletcher chose to run his horse in 1 graded stakes race and then told that he had to win to be guaranteed a spot. He knew what was at stake last week. He lost and then he b.itched about it.

If Dunkirk finishes 21st on the list it will be a shame that he's kept out by Mafaaz because the brain trust at CD thinks they need to turn the Derby into a global event. Europeans may know what you're talking about when you say "First Saturday in May" it just doesn't have anything to do with the Ky Derby.

NT

Travis Stone 04-03-2009 08:46 AM

Dunkirk ran second to the likely favorite in the Kentucky Derby, he deserves a shot, but rules are rules, and he might get left out, which would be a shame.

West Side Bernie has run some decent races. And the Delta Jackpot, for which people love to bash, has become a legitimate race. Big Drama, who won this past weekend, took it down last year. It's not like it's some hapless bum. Delta Downs did something very few racetracks are doing well: growing a race. People bash it because it's $750k and counts a lot towards the Derby, but then you should hate the system, not the race.

slotdirt 04-03-2009 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32
um, Dunkirk really deserves to be in the Derby.

Not really, but hey, we all have our opinions.

Linny 04-03-2009 09:09 AM

Based on his ability, he deserves to be there, but he hasn't done what he needs to do to make it. It would be as if Jerkens had again forgotten to nominate Quality Road. He belongs but his people haven't done what it takes to get there.

No reason Dunkirk didn't go to one of the graded preps instead of the allowance.

slotdirt 04-03-2009 09:13 AM

It's like saying Penn State deserved to be in the NCAA tournament this year. Sure, they might be a better team than UT-Chattanooga or Morehead State, but their out of conference schedule sucked and they didn't win the games they need to win to get in the race.

Dunkirk (or Rock Hard Ten circa 2004 if you prefer) hasn't done what is necessary to make the starting gate in the Derby, end of story.

lemoncrush 04-03-2009 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt
Not really, but hey, we all have our opinions.

This fall, Dunkirk may develop into one of the top 3 year olds in the country. I just don't understand the hard-on everyone has for this horse with such little seasoning and experience. Rushing to the Derby is probably not the best thing for him anyway. The current system to get into the Derby rewards horses who have experience and success (ie..graded earnings).

If dunkirk doesn't get in, it's not because he's not one of the top 20 3-year olds. It's just because he's light on experience. It's not the end of the world, unless you unloaded on him in the 2nd future pool. :)

Mike 04-03-2009 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind
Giant Moon has next to no chance.

I get brought up for picking Giant Moon but not Yano?:zz:

Thanks, Andy Serling. I'll pass the Excelsior. As much as I'd like to say otherwise, I've yet to have a horse win after you gave him one of your "no chance" comments(of course, this time you said "next to no chance).

Antitrust32 04-03-2009 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt
Not really, but hey, we all have our opinions.


would you please explain... besides the graded earning thing... why he doesnt deserve a shot in it? He'd have as good of a shot to win as anyone.. And is easily a top 5 best 3 year old.

slotdirt 04-03-2009 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32
would you please explain... besides the graded earning thing... why he doesnt deserve a shot in it? He'd have as good of a shot to win as anyone.. And is easily a top 5 best 3 year old.

What else is there besides the graded earning thing? That and the Kempton race are the only things that matter when it comes to the Derby starting gate. Pletcher and co. knew the rules and unless something happens, he'll be left out of the race, and deservedly so.

Antitrust32 04-03-2009 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt
It's like saying Penn State deserved to be in the NCAA tournament this year. Sure, they might be a better team than UT-Chattanooga or Morehead State, but their out of conference schedule sucked and they didn't win the games they need to win to get in the race.

Dunkirk (or Rock Hard Ten circa 2004 if you prefer) hasn't done what is necessary to make the starting gate in the Derby, end of story.


Not the best example IMO, Penn State didnt have a shot to make it the the Final Four if they got in the tourney.. but Dunkirk has a great shot to win the Kentucky Derby... in my opinion running a terrific second in the Florida Derby.. a historically top prep race.. to the most likely Derby favorite.. is doing what is necessary to be in the gate May 2nd.

Its really a shame that GS lowered the purse of that race from 1 mil to 750K or else we wouldnt even have to worry about it.

Antitrust32 04-03-2009 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt
What else is there besides the graded earning thing? That and the Kempton race are the only things that matter when it comes to the Derby starting gate. Pletcher and co. knew the rules and unless something happens, he'll be left out of the race, and deservedly so.


that Kempton race makes me sick to my stomach. Churchill should be so embarrassed if that rat keeps Dunkirk outta the derby.

I hope Dunkirk wins the Preakness and Belmont so Churchill can shove it!

slotdirt 04-03-2009 10:01 AM

I disagree, historically, Dunkirk would have virtually no chance at winning the Derby, and if he makes the Derby somehow or other, I won't be spending a penny on the horse. Sorry, I'm not a believer.

Travis Stone 04-03-2009 10:05 AM

I would think running second to the favorite in the race would make your deserving enough, but you're talking about a different deserving, which makes this a semantics argument.

Sure everyone knew and knows the rules, no one is arguing that. But to say he doesn't deserve to be in the race because he didn't reach the plateau of necessary graded earnings in a system that treats a five furlong race in July 2008 the same as the nine furlong Florida Derby 2009 is weak.

Travis Stone 04-03-2009 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt
I disagree, historically, Dunkirk would have virtually no chance at winning the Derby, and if he makes the Derby somehow or other, I won't be spending a penny on the horse. Sorry, I'm not a believer.

So is this about not liking Dunkirk as a handicapper, or about his deserving a place in the race? Historically, Big Brown would have no chance either. But times they are a changin'. (Disclaimer: I am not picking Dunkirk to win with this statement).

slotdirt 04-03-2009 10:07 AM

I guess I differ from you guys in that I think Dunkirk isn't much different than Rock Hard Ten, and even if he did end up in the Derby, wouldn't be much of a factor. Just one person's opinion on the horse.

Antitrust32 04-03-2009 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt
I disagree, historically, Dunkirk would have virtually no chance at winning the Derby, and if he makes the Derby somehow or other, I won't be spending a penny on the horse. Sorry, I'm not a believer.


its all good. In my opinion, the move he made in the Florida Derby was an Kentucky Derby winning move. Reminded me of Monarchos (except of course Dunkirk didnt win... but Quality Road is a bit better than Invisible Ink IMO :D )

Antitrust32 04-03-2009 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt
I guess I differ from you guys in that I think Dunkirk isn't much different than Rock Hard Ten, and even if he did end up in the Derby, wouldn't be much of a factor. Just one person's opinion on the horse.


but Rock Hard Ten was one of the best horses in his foal crop...

robfla 04-03-2009 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt
Honestly, Pletcher knew the game, he gambled on Hallandale, and lost. If you don't have enough graded earnings to make the Derby, chances are, you probably don't deserve to be in the Derby, and Dunkirk is no exception.

you gotta be kidding!!

some horses accumulate graded earnings from 2 y.o. races and some of those races are just plain bad.

Antitrust32 04-03-2009 10:35 AM

If dumb Churchill can let a slow winner from a race in England into the race..

then they should make a provision to have the top two finishers in the Bluegrass, Ark Derby, Wood, and FL derby in the race.

It is a shame that a horse can win a good purse in a 2yo stake and not race again til the Derby, but still get in over a horse who just ran second in a major prep race.

slotdirt 04-03-2009 10:44 AM

I think that would be fine, if they changed it to a "win and you're in concept." As it is though, I don't get the griping when everybody is playing under the same rules.

And Dunkirk might end up being one of the best of his generation, but I think the hype might be a bit premature.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.