I'd start the clock at the Breeders Cup and toss anything less than 8 furlongs and Turf but I don't see tossing synthetic.

Considering Mine That Bird would have failed to make the field if either juvenile or synthetic earning didn't count, I would say there is a 0% chance any of that happens.

I would pay large sums of money to not have to remember that Mine that Bird won the 2009 Derby, so if he was somehow not entered in that field, I'd have no problem with it.

i'm pretty sure there would have still been a derby winner. and i don't think he would aid anyone's argument.
they need to limit the field size to 14 as well. why they ever allowed more than that i don't know.

Wasn't this talked about a lot after Eight Belles broke down? It doesn't seem to be discussed much lately. When I see 20 horses break from the gate, I feel like it's a disaster waiting to happen. Not to mention that with a 20 horse field the trip a horse gets may be significantly more important than his actual ability.

The minute that any logic for the Kentucky Derby is revised because it would have elminated Mine That Bird...I'm done.

:wf

3 yr old graded earnings only. A what have you done for me lately field is what it should be.

Why? Because horses aren't allowed to get good for one 5 week period in their career? Mine That Bird won the Derby fair and square. And he damn near won the Preakness and the Belmont. He unquestionably accomplished the most throughout the entire Triple Crown that year. And it seems the majority of the posters here would have been fine with a system that excluded him, seemingly so that horses like Twinspired can earn a berth. You people are out of your minds.

Or maybe they could just restrict the field to the horses that brought the highest price at auction. And save 5 spots for the homebreds whose sires have the highest stud fees.

The fact that Mine That Bird had an incredible Triple Crown run, which he did, doesn't change the fact that he had HORRIBLE credentials for the Derby. Only in a fluky year where the earnings basement was so low was he even able to get into the field.

Basing Mine That Bird being deserving of entry into the Derby on his 2YO form in Canada is idiotic. Are you seriously comparing him to a horse like Twinspired who has hit the board in two prep races (albeit on synthetics)? To steal a line from someone who lurks here, Twinspired is Alydar at this point compared to Mine That Bird.

I'm not even sure why MTB came up in this discussion. His Derby candidacy and the race that he ran to win it should forever be considered the exception. Am I glad he got into the Derby that year? Sure, but that three race stretch he put together was nothing short of shocking.

If we are talking about things to change in the Derby camp, how about limiting the field to 14.

from strictly a gambler's point of view - heck no... the more, the better.... plus that would still allow for synth winners to get in

The thing that justindew takes for granted is that Mine That Bird would have run the same schedule at 2 had a rule been in place excluding synthetic earnings for entry into the Kentucky Derby. All his races at 2 were on synthetics. If any of his connections were "thinking Derby", would they have run him on dirt at some point? Possibly. Definitely if we're talking about horses in a similar boat like Lookin At Lucky and Pioneerof The Nile. What an added bonus that would be, competitive 2yo stakes. No more 5-horse Remsens, no more Champagnes or Hopefuls where the loftiest credential of any of the starters is a maiden special weight victory.

Furthermore, why is January 1st some sort of arbitrary cutoff prior to which earnings shouldn't count? The basic reason why quality horses are raced at 2 is to prepare for the classics the following spring. Encouraging trainers to start later and thereby shorten the time period they have to train/race their horses to be able to negotiate 10f in May would only serve to increase the physical pressure already heaped on young racehorses.

Why note make the following races "Win and you're in"?
3 races at the end of the 2-year old season
10 races during the 3-year old season

BC Juvenile, KY Jockey Cup, Hollywood Futurity

Risen Star, LA Derby, Fountain of Youth, FL Derby, Gotham, Wood, San Felipe, SA Derby, Rebel, Arkansas Derby,


The remaining spots in the field could be chosen by a Churchill committee (like the NCAA basketball tourney) or some other Criteria. Horses can still choose to run in the Bluegrass, Spiral, Sunland Derby, etc.. but it wouldn't automatically give them an entry into the Derby.

Blatantly false. Only 20 horses entered the Derby that year. He would have gotten in with $0 in earnings. In fact, the 20th ranked horse by earnings, Nowhere to Hide, was a late addition to the field. They almost drew with 19 horses.

And yes, I realize this point defeats my earlier point that if people around here had their way, Mine That Bird would have been excluded.

...although you COULD argue that had Mine That Bird's earnings not counted, he never would have been on the CD grounds in the first place, and would therefore never have been pointing to the Derby.

What is your point? That only 19 sets of connections were interested?

How does that change the fact that in 2009 the graded stakes earnings of the 20th horse were lower than they had ever been before? Under the current rules a horse with the earnings Mine That Bird had would be excluded each year, of course, with the exception of 2009.

My only point is that it I am against eliminating 2yr-old and synthetic earnings from consideration.

I am not, however, against replacing all synthetic tracks with dirt. It sounded like a good idea at the time. But it wasn't.

They almost drew it with 19? I may be wrong, but there was enough time for them to not only realize Win Willy was scratching, but then enough time to talk to Zito and get quotes and write stories about it. I believe the x-rays on Win Willy were done on Tuesday...

Why change anything? What "right" horses have been kept out by "wrong" horses?

If you eliminate synthetic, do you also not count grass races? That means a horse like Frankel (who is NOT pointing for the Derby) wouldn't be able to compete, yet I think that most people would like to see such a horse were his connections interested. In fact it would keep out Master of Hounds this year and by all accounts he's a pretty nice horse. By ditching synth you take out races like the CashCall Futurity, the Breeders' Futurity the Del Mar Futurity and in the last couple of years all the big SA preps.

As handicappers we like to see rational outcomes (at least rational to those who 'capped the winner) but the general public likes the excitement of the Mine That Bird or the Giacomo. The fact is that for the most part, graded earnings signify the "best" horses anyhow. If a horse isn't one of the top 20 in graded earnings overall in his generation he probably doesn't belong in the field.

As for field size being cut to eliminate some of the no-hopers, no way. Every other major racing nation runs it's classics with far bigger fields. Eight Belles didn't break down because she had to face 19 runners. Yes, it's a tough, scrappy race but it would be with 14 or even 8 runners, because it is the most famous race in America and every rider is riding like their life depends on it.

I don't agree with not counting stuff... but I do agree with discounting. I don't think it's a big deal to discount 50% a race run in August of the 2-year-old year versus the race run four weeks before the Derby.

The synthetic/dirt argument is tricky... lots of politics, good feelings and happy hand-shakes involved there.

I agree with you except for the field size. It's true that many races abroad have larger fields, but typically the tracks have more gradual turns with longer runups. I agree that Eight Belles' breakdown didn't have anything to do with the size of the field, but a spill during the course of the race has the potential to be catastrophic for a number of horses and riders, and the sport doesn't need that on any day, much less its highest profile day of the year.

Based on recent comments from Churchill officials (especially after Eight Belles), it is highly unlikely that Churchill is going to reduce the field size, as they love the image of a "stampede" of horses coming through the stretch the first quarter mile. Even if they were inclined to consider such a change, I just don't know that reducing field size is necessarily going to "clean up" the running of the race. If my memory serves me, the 1994 Derby had a pretty rough run into the clubhouse turn, and it had "only" 14 horses. On an every day basis, we see rough race-riding in five and six horse fields.

If you take six slots from the starting gate, it would only make the "qualification" system mean more. As it currently stands, in most years, the horses that have been excluded on earnings are real longshots; by reducing the field size, you are only increasing the likelihood of controversy attendant to who gets in. That being said, as a strong believer in the law of unintended consequences, reducing the field size might have the unintended result of forcing trainers to actually campaign their horses up to the Derby. Whether that is a good or bad thing given the current state of the American thoroughbred is uncertain.

If we want to make changes, perhaps the best route would be to set specific conditions...must have 5 starts with at least two during three year old season, must have at least one of 9 furlongs (or greater), must have more than maiden win (for example). But that will never fly! The Derby is every owner's "dream race" and it's hard to deny anyone who invests in the sport his/her dream, even if their horse has no real chance.

The argument that Frankel and his ilk coming over to race in the Kentucky Derby would be left out because of bias against non-dirt earnings holds little water. Aside from Johannesburg and Arazi--both of whom won the f'n BC Juvenile--no top 2yo from Europe has ever run in the Kentucky Derby. Nobody in their right mind would send a horse like that over here without testing the waters first.

Why? Because despite popular mob opinion, the Kentucky Derby is simply not the most important race in the world.

On the other hand, if expendable Coolmore castoffs and ill-prepared Goldolphin goats somehow add to the appeal of the Kentucky Derby, then I guess maybe future Kent BC Stakes competitor Brilliant Speed isn't so bad after all.

Which single race is more important?

I'm sure most Euros consider the Arc, the 3YO classics, and probably a couple others more historically significant than the Kentucky Derby.

I'm sure most British trainers of high class 3yos would say that the Derby Stakes (you know, the race the Kentucky Derby is named after) is more important to them.

And most people who care about money would say the Dubai World Cup is most important to them.

We aren't talking strictly "historical significance" though. We aren't talking strictly "money". We are talking about "importance".

I guess it goes back to how you define "importance". I think when you factor financial interests, world wide attention and historical significance there is no single race that can compare to the Kentucky Derby.

If "important" means figuring out the best horse, then I would agree the derby certainly is overrated in that regard.

A well bred dubai world cup winner is going to command a better stud deal than an equally well bred ky derby winner?

And it shouldn't. Because you just eliminated the entire $3,445 Derby Trifecta from the race in 2008.

Is the Kentucky Derby the most important dirt race in the world? Yes. Is it more important globally than a few other races, including the Arc? Probably not. There is racing, after all, outside of the good old USA.

the main reason ihave for limiting the field is to encourage more racing beforehand. right now many can get in with one decent showing.
this is also why i think 2 yo earnings shouldn't count. uncle mo would never have run in a bs race like the timely writer-he'd have had to earn his way in, rather than having two preps all spring. hell, they didn't have to run him at all if they so chose. how has he proven he's a top 3 yo, deserving of running in the biggest race for supposed top 3 yo's? by winning the bc juvie? he's proven he's precocious, but not a top 3 yo.

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/...record-080201/

Kentucky derby ranks top ten in ALL events including the superbowl.

And which race is more "important"????????????

Jaycito officially out of Derby
 

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...-consideration

Pointing to Belmont. Take note of what Zayat wants to do re: honoring Jess Jackson.

Latest for Saturday's Derby Trial...

DERBY TRIAL

Dominus
Travelin Man
Ruler on Ice
Machen
JJ's Lucky Train
Indian Winter
Runflatout
B G Suavecito
Duca

Jaycito withdrawn from Derby consideration
 

Not exactly startling news but connections made it official. Note: see Merl beat me to it, just saw it on Bloodhorse site. Would have been a throw out anyway. Belmont makes more sense but still hasn't shown enough to be a serious contender even at 12 furlongs.

Looks like CTTT is a go, P Val named to ride

2 weeks out, I'll still predict that pletcher and baffert will only have 1 starter each when the draw on Wednesday.