I cant answer that right now. I dont know what the top 20 are and who is actually going in the Derby. I will glady answer this question when I have more information.

I am not against him running. I was using him as an example of a horse who will get in because he got lucky in one race. My stance is that horses who have complete resumes should be given more consideration over a horse who gets lucky in one Grade I race regardless of who the horse is.

He may turn out to be very good and I hope he does. I am just saying that 1 race should not get you a guaranteed spot in the Derby. Imagine if that maiden who ran in the Arkansas Derby won, then he would be in. How is that logical.

What exactly is Xchanger's complete resume? 5th in an ungraded stakes and 7th in a G3 as a 3yo? Much more impressive than winning a G1. :rolleyes:

He has raced in 5 Graded events. He has won 1, two 3rds 6th and 7th. So he has been in the battles. Not saying he is better than Tiago, saying that looking at the entire body of work his is better in my opinion.

He won the GI Santa Anita Derby. I also thought Castledale was better than some he was running against, no doubt.

There are tons of examples where a horse got lucky and won a Grade I event. Again, one race doesnt make a horse.

So you want to let any 2yo that ran well into the Derby even if he is running terrible as a 3yo rather than a horse that wins a major race as a 3yo? That is idiocy. Should we let Funny Cide in the BC Classic because his lifetime body of work is better than most horses out there?

No one is saying it made the horse. They are just saying that it earned him one of the 20 spots in the Derby and he is much more deserving than Xchanger or Chelokee.

Well it's not like they went absolutely nuts up front in the SA Derby either. I know you're all by yourself on this one, so I'm being diplomatic, but Tiago belongs there as much as any horse outside of the big names, and certainly rates a better chance than many that will go.

Look at it this way. . .

You say Sam P. is more deserving than Tiago so I'll compare those two because they make for a good comparison. . .

Sam P. has run in four graded stakes and hasn't won. . .

Tiago has run in two graded stakes and won a G1. . .

Sam P. has had four chances to prove himself as a stakes winner and has essentially failed. . .

Tiago hasn't necessarily proven himself off of one big effort, but he has atleast earned the chance to try and show that the SA Derby wasn't a fluke.

That's more than you can say for Sam P. (not that I don't think he belongs in the derby, just that Tiago deserves it more). . .

One thing is for sure, there is no plan that would be put in place to qualify horses for the Derby that would NOT include eligibility for the winner of any of the big final prep races. That's a certainty.

Think of it this way......you could have a horse race just once in one of the big three preps and that horse is in with just one race. My point is that this philosophy is bad for racing. I know that it is highly unlikely, but it is a possibility. Why on earth would we support a system that possibly encourages horses to race less often. This isnt about Tiago or any other horse. It is about the system we have in place to decide who runs in arguably the most important race in the world. I fear that the trend would be once you have the graded money to sit out until the 1st Saturday in May. Quay is sitting out 8 weeks, Scat Daddy is 6 (I believe), SS and Great Hunter only had 2 Preps. This is not a trend that I like.

Scat Daddy will have 5 weeks in between. . .

This is a problem with the status of the breed in my opinion. . .

Horses have become more unsound as we all know. . .

I highly doubt Pletcher views the 8 week lay-off for CQ as ideal. . . Horses aren't running because they're hurt/tired, not because of graded earnings. ..

I would say yes, if a horse actually won a G2, 9f race in his debut, he would probably deserve a shot to run in the Kentucky Derby. That is not exactly an easy thing to do.
To me, the problem with your argument is that these 9f graded stakes races run between 3 and 5 weeks before the Kentucky Derby are the races that provide the best indications of who really belongs in the Derby. Are there occasionally "fluke" winners of these races that don't actually have a good chance of winning the Kentucky Derby? Sure, but any system that would deny the winners of any of those races a shot, is terribly flawed.

What if one of those races was full of maidens. Does the winner still deserve to go. Why is the Wood, Bluegrass, Arkansas and Santa Anita the beginning and end on who goes to the Derby? The winner of each of those races still could go to the Derby. However, they must have other Graded races as well.

I do agree with your post about the breed. However, that can be changed if racing demands it by setting forth qualifications that make sense in order to race for the biggest prizes.

The biggest problem, as I see it, with the author of this threads "argument " is that he has not offered a reasonable alternative. Instead he came up with a very questionable list ( Sightseeing? ) of who he thought was more deserving. Luckily at least the current system does not include subjective decision making.

It isn't a perfect system, but it is fair in that it allows horses a chance to prove their way in by earnings, and as has been pointed out VERY few deserving horses have been excluded and those that have possibly been excluded were because they failed to win at least one necessary race.