I'll be the First to ask?

[brianwspencer]

It would certainly be exciting, but with the exception of purse money, I don't really see the benefit of it. She can go against a shorter field while being the overwhelming favorite and likely win for fun, or she can enter a field of 19 others to increase the chances of something going wrong trip-wise.

Doesn't seem like it'd really do a whole lot value-wise for her to win the Derby as opposed to the Oaks.

Take the easy money, prove dominance in the group, and then make decisions from there -- it's not like the Oaks is bush league or anything.

[mbahadur]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

It would certainly be exciting, but with the exception of purse money, I don't really see the benefit of it. She can go against a shorter field while being the overwhelming favorite and likely win for fun, or she can enter a field of 19 others to increase the chances of something going wrong trip-wise.

Doesn't seem like it'd really do a whole lot value-wise for her to win the Derby as opposed to the Oaks.

Take the easy money, prove dominance in the group, and then make decisions from there -- it's not like the Oaks is bush league or anything.

100% agree

[Sightseek]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

It would certainly be exciting, but with the exception of purse money, I don't really see the benefit of it. She can go against a shorter field while being the overwhelming favorite and likely win for fun, or she can enter a field of 19 others to increase the chances of something going wrong trip-wise.

Doesn't seem like it'd really do a whole lot value-wise for her to win the Derby as opposed to the Oaks.

Take the easy money, prove dominance in the group, and then make decisions from there -- it's not like the Oaks is bush league or anything.

If it were my decision, this is what I would probably do.

I wonder how many more phone calls they will be getting for her tonight?

[lemoncrush]

Too much talent in the Kentucky Derby this year, but she should have run in the Arkansas Derby instead of the Fantasy.

Now I think she just goes to the Oaks and continues against fillies the rest of the year.

[eajinabi]

Just hate to see her eyeball a cheap speed horse in the KY derby only to tire at the stretch.

[mclem0822]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

It would certainly be exciting, but with the exception of purse money, I don't really see the benefit of it. She can go against a shorter field while being the overwhelming favorite and likely win for fun, or she can enter a field of 19 others to increase the chances of something going wrong trip-wise.

Doesn't seem like it'd really do a whole lot value-wise for her to win the Derby as opposed to the Oaks.

Take the easy money, prove dominance in the group, and then make decisions from there -- it's not like the Oaks is bush league or anything.

For all the reasons you've layed out Brian, no benefit at all. Totally agree.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

It would certainly be exciting, but with the exception of purse money, I don't really see the benefit of it. She can go against a shorter field while being the overwhelming favorite and likely win for fun, or she can enter a field of 19 others to increase the chances of something going wrong trip-wise.

Doesn't seem like it'd really do a whole lot value-wise for her to win the Derby as opposed to the Oaks.

Take the easy money, prove dominance in the group, and then make decisions from there -- it's not like the Oaks is bush league or anything.

I dont know that purse money or increasing her value would be the reason to go to the derby.

If I were the owner, I'd run in the Derby because, well, the Derby is the Derby and the Oaks is the Oaks...

The Derby is the one race everyone wants to win, and its more special IMO, to do it with a filly. There is much more history in that than a filly winning the Oaks.

Why not try if you have a horse you think can really compete?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I dont know that purse money or increasing her value would be the reason to go to the derby.

If I were the owner, I'd run in the Derby because, well, the Derby is the Derby and the Oaks is the Oaks...

The Derby is the one race everyone wants to win, and its more special IMO, to do it with a filly. There is much more history in that than a filly winning the Oaks.

Why not try if you have a horse you think can really compete?

I guess I just don't see the benefit of potentially getting herself in a ton of trouble, especially with the way the front end will likely set up in this year's Derby, just for a chance to win a race people want to win.

If she didn't look like such an overwhelming winner of the Oaks, I may feel differently. If I thought she stood a realistic chance of getting beaten in the Oaks, then why the hell not? Take your chance at getting beat in the Derby. Instead, she looks nearly impossible to beat, she hasn't taken a deep breath in a race in ages, and is a virtual lock to add the KY Oaks to her resume.

I'll take being a huge favorite in a race as prestigious as the Oaks over being one of the top 5 choices in the Derby just to say I did any day. I'd rather romp in the Oaks than take my chances getting beat in the Derby and then having nothing at all to show for it.

The Oaks is not some overnight stake at Arlington in the summer.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by brianwspencer

I guess I just don't see the benefit of potentially getting herself in a ton of trouble, especially with the way the front end will likely set up in this year's Derby, just for a chance to win a race people want to win.

If she didn't look like such an overwhelming winner of the Oaks, I may feel differently. If I thought she stood a realistic chance of getting beaten in the Oaks, then why the hell not? Take your chance at getting beat in the Derby. Instead, she looks nearly impossible to beat, she hasn't taken a deep breath in a race in ages, and is a virtual lock to add the KY Oaks to her resume.

I'll take being a huge favorite in a race as prestigious as the Oaks over being one of the top 5 choices in the Derby just to say I did any day. I'd rather romp in the Oaks than take my chances getting beat in the Derby and then having nothing at all to show for it.

The Oaks is not some overnight stake at Arlington in the summer.

I never said the Oaks was a bad race... but it sure isnt the Derby.

If I had a horse I thought could really win the Derby I'd race her there.

[letswastemoney]

You don't have many chances in your lifetime to win the Kentucky Derby. Some people only have 1 chance. Might as well take a shot.

[chucklestheclown]

I agree. Losing the Derby would not devalue her at all, winning would not only increase her value but make her a hero after last year. Winning the Triple Crown would be priceless.

Last year would have been neat.
This year its way tough.

Wait for the Belmont, after the carnage.

[Thunder Gulch]

In many recent years she may have rated a good shot, but this group of colts is looking pretty darned strong.