So which is it, that, or this?

I understand if you don't like the system, but letting your imagination run wild with hypotheticals for horses that could be excluded is silly.

I've been thinking...

Horse A wins for fun at Saratoga, but loses a really tight head-bob in the Champagne and then is scratched in the paddock for the BC Juvenile because the groom put on the wrong smock.

So said horse is shipped to NY and runs a valiant, but troubled fourth, in the Remsen. The trainer decides to freshen him up and he comes back in the Holy Bull, but draws the outside post and is hung wide all the way around and fades late. So they decide to try the Florida Derby, but an out-of-season hurricane forces the Florida Derby to be moved to Tampa (It spun up the East Coast) where this horse just hates that particular surface and again fades.

Fearing point cut-off, they fly to Lexington for the Lexington only this time it rains so hard earlier in the week they have to move the race to the turf because the Polytrack drainage system backed-up.

Well, as you can imagine, this horse is not a turf horse and he only uses his raw class and talent to run a decent fourth and is simply on the outside looking in for points.

Ridiculous story? You bet. But it's also ridiculous to play fortune teller with this stuff and forecast all sorts of crazy, weird and fringe circumstances. The rules have changed. Time to adjust.

Yes, the BC Juvenile should be worth more points and the Illinois Derby should be on there somewhere too. "Graded stakes earnings" wasn't necessarily broken, but with the influx of purses from Delta Downs and beyond, it was becoming silly.

I also don't get applying this new system to the past. That's like saying x team would have won the Super Bowl if the two point conversion had existed, or visa-versa. It doesn't apply anymore.

It's not a perfect system, but luckily they didn't write it into Kentucky State law and can adjust as necessary.

I just don't think every great dirt horse in this country has won that race as you stated. I can think of quite a few actually who never even started at Saratoga.

Well, in my defense, I did say "just about" when referring to the Hopeful.

http://www.drf.com/news/crist-kentuc...ds-adjustments


crist's take on the point system.

Which is precisely why we must complain and bitch and moan about the errors and inequities that they have created. CDI is run by people who are more or less robots with only one goal in mind, making more money for CDI which in itself isnt a bad thing but unfortunately the side effects of many of their decisions often arent exactly positive news for the sport of horseracing.

I too believe that it made no sense that the Delta race was far more important than the vast majority of other Derby preps and that filly races counted as much as open races or that those hated sprint stakes were worth the same as 2 turn races. However I also believe that the Del Mar Futurity and Hopeful are important enough events at our biggest meets that they should be included and the fact that they are sprints is immaterial since at that point on the calandar there is no need to go any further. I believe that many of the fall stakes will simply become even more marginalized, often resembling nothing more than NW1x allowance races evn more than they have been recently, further dominated by the larger outfits who have no choice but to start some of their 2 yo's early simply because of the numbers. I believe that the points system is far too skewed in favor of the big 7 races in that the top 2 finishers of those races all all but guaranteed to get in the field regardless of prior credentials. It is possible (unlikely but possible) that we have different winners of all of 15 of the "Championship season" races which means that those horses all get in, leaving only 5 spots left with the 7 2nd place finishers of the "2nd leg of the series" fighting it out for the other spots. With this setup the races held before March are almost worthless except for those last 5 spots. Is that what we want to do? Have the races from September to January only matter to a handful of horses who lost their last race? Is this likely to happen? No but when being 3rd in the Spiral stakes or Sunland Park Derby is as valauable as winning the BC Juvy or Champagne or even the Holy Bull or Champagne or Norfolk you are going to run into issues. Grade 1 2 yo races run over a distance of ground should get way more respect than some race run at Sunland Park or in Dubai.

The TC has gotten to be so big that it overshadows everything else in racing. Believing that the list of 10 point races wont be affected in a negative fashion with this current system is myopic. We saw what the BC did to the racing calandar especially in the Fall. To think that this wont have a similar impact on so many historically important races is crazy.

http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-raci...-road-to-derby

I guess I missed this when they first announced the points system because we were obsessing more about what races were how many points. It says that if there's a tie in points to make the Derby or Oaks, the tiebreaker is unrestricted stakes earnings, graded or not. I doubt at that point it'd matter because it'd mostly involve graded earnings, but it's odd that they made a point of not specifying graded earnings. Despite CD's best efforts, the Illinois Derby could still matter to bump someone past a tie for 20. I guess ungraded 2yo stakes earnings could make the difference which is just strange.

So Violence gets 10 Whole points for his Grade 2 and Grade 1 wins to close out the year. Shanghai Boobby gets 10 for winning the Juvenile. Both could have gotten as much for a 3rd in the Sunland Derby. Do those that come up with these ideas ever simulate these scenarios?

They were trying to eliminate the free spots for races like the Delta Jackpot and other races where the horses earned all their graded earnings sprinting or as 2 year olds. In the last 10 years there were a bunch of horses in the derby gate that didn't run a lick as three year olds. Is this the perfect system, of course not. I agree it needs tweeked but I'm curious to see how it plays out.

Poor Todd Pletcher will actually have to run his newly turned 3YOs in two graded stakes races instead of one now.

I'm also of the opinion that the system is not perfect but am interested to see how it changes where horses land in the spring.

I understand what they are trying to do and agree but I think it is a no brainer to give equal points to ALL graded Route races both 2 and 3 year old year.

I'm for more emphasis being put on the three year old year, maybe a 3:2 ratio for points earned. I like to see these horses run against each other a few times and think they might have to how. I'm hoping the "2 race" campaign before the derby is going to be lessened.