Eight Belles & Proud Spell

[philcski]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is actually a very good thing overall as it will force Churchill to finally change the Derby entry rules. They will either have to start allowing also-eligibles and/or alter the way earnings are calculated and used for eligibility.

Hopefully they will do both.

Agree on both points.

I have no problem with either of them trying the Derby, especially in this comical year, but I'd love to have seen a "test run" against the boys a la Winning Colors to have earned the graded money to run.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by philcski

Agree on both points.

I have no problem with either of them trying the Derby, especially in this comical year, but I'd love to have seen a "test run" against the boys a la Winning Colors to have earned the graded money to run.

You should be repremanded for mentioning WC in the same thought as these 2, even in a year like this.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You should be repremanded for mentioning WC in the same thought as these 2, even in a year like this.

HA!
Not a comparison of talent but rather she EARNED her way into the Derby by destroying the SA Derby, not by racking up $$ in the Fantasy, etc.


Why Moonlight out today?

[cakes44]

I like Eight Belles chances. Kushy trips going 1 1/16(at most) vs females and being a being a daughter of Unbridled's Song are things I definitely look for in a Derby winner.

[Linny]

The post draw for the Derby is a joke. People play games, taking the spot at the outside of the main gate in the inside of the extra gate to get more room etc. Then a scratch occurs and they are shift anyhow. A random draw works for every other race, why not the Derby? From there, add AE's in graded earnings order. If scratches occur, the AE's are automatically outside. Remember, those outside posts have yielded plenty of on the board finishes and a few wins in the last decade.

The idea makes some sense esp as in this era, it's possible for a huge barn 9owner or trainer) to "stuff the entry box" then scratch all the "deadwood" leaving their best horse to run against 14 rivals rather than 19. Think Zayat. They could enter every one of their qualifiers then scratch all but say Z Fortune. This approach could be an effective way to get a shot field for a very strong frontrunner for example.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Linny

The post draw for the Derby is a joke. People play games, taking the spot at the outside of the main gate in the inside of the extra gate to get more room etc. Then a scratch occurs and they are shift anyhow. A random draw works for every other race, why not the Derby? From there, add AE's in graded earnings order. If scratches occur, the AE's are automatically outside. Remember, those outside posts have yielded plenty of on the board finishes and a few wins in the last decade.

The idea makes some sense esp as in this era, it's possible for a huge barn 9owner or trainer) to "stuff the entry box" then scratch all the "deadwood" leaving their best horse to run against 14 rivals rather than 19. Think Zayat. They could enter every one of their qualifiers then scratch all but say Z Fortune. This approach could be an effective way to get a shot field for a very strong frontrunner for example.

One of the things that has always perplexed me about the Derby is the possibility of multiple entries by the same owner in the Derby to the exclusion of an owner with a single entry. If you look at the conditions of most of the other Derby Week stakes at Churchill Downs, they have language that prohibits an owner, in an oversubscribed field, from entering multiple horses to the exclusion of a single entrant from another owner, essentially forcing each owner to take his or her best shot if the race is oversubscribed. I don't understand why they don't do this in the Derby, unless they are specificially trying to have the rules benefit the large outfits.

If I recall correctly, a few years ago, Unshaded and perhaps one other were excluded when Dogwood and Godolphin (one of which was subsequently scratched, only making the situation worse) both had multiple entries. Seems like this is going to happen this year again with both Zayat and WinStar having multiple entrants while some owners will be excluded.

[pb72vett]

sorry but eight no in the money here my friend. better chance with there own.

[Danzig]

is the sudden hard on about fillies in the derby due to the fact that these two are owned by porter, that he might enter only to scratch, thus keeping some horse in 22nd place in earnings out, or that neither filly has faced boys as yet?
if eight belles should happen to win, which is unlikely, would the foul crying get worse or stop altogether?

[hockey2315]

Porter doesn't own Proud Spell

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by philcski

HA!
Not a comparison of talent but rather she EARNED her way into the Derby by destroying the SA Derby, not by racking up $$ in the Fantasy, etc.


Why Moonlight out today?

Injured

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by philcski

Agree on both points.

I have no problem with either of them trying the Derby, especially in this comical year, but I'd love to have seen a "test run" against the boys a la Winning Colors to have earned the graded money to run.

I talked about this on another forum but when you look back at WC's SA Derby, was that really a test against the boys? I mean, she was so far out in front and dominated so thoroughly that it's doubtful that the sex of what was running behind her was of any matter. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say that her toughest tests of the winter and spring came in the races in her own division against Goodbye Halo. Those races told us more about her than the SA Derby did. A lot of people have expressed the same thing that you have here and I'm not saying it's wrong but really, how important is it? Althea faced the boys and won the Arkansas Derby (along with a few others as a 2yo) but that didn't mean anything in the Ky Derby. Likewise for Serena's Song winning the Jim Beam. She even came back later to win the Haskell but that didn't mean anything in the Ky Derby. Genuine Risk lost the Wood but won the Derby. I've always felt that a prep is just that. It's not necessarily an indicator of what's going to happen later. I've also always felt that running outside of your division is overrated. I go back to 1989 a lot with this. That year, Sunday Silence and Easy Goer were the two best horses in the country. Well, King Glorious was the best but for the purposes of this argument, we'll go with SS and EG. Back to the point though, they were the two best. So what difference did it make that EG went out and beat older in the Whitney, JCGC, and Woodward if he couldn't beat SS in the 3yo races? In that case beating older horses didn't mean much of anything. Last year, being the best 3yo meant being the best horse in the country again. Females that ran in the female restricted races didn't get a break in 1986 when they had to face Lady's Secret, in 1988 when they had to face Personal Ensign, in 2002 when they had to face Azeri. It was probably the males that got the breaks in those years. Sometimes, your toughest competition can come from your own back yard is my point. Eight Belles probably got more out of facing what she faced in the Fantasy than had she been facing the boys out in Arkansas.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I talked about this on another forum but when you look back at WC's SA Derby, was that really a test against the boys? I mean, she was so far out in front and dominated so thoroughly that it's doubtful that the sex of what was running behind her was of any matter. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say that her toughest tests of the winter and spring came in the races in her own division against Goodbye Halo. Those races told us more about her than the SA Derby did. A lot of people have expressed the same thing that you have here and I'm not saying it's wrong but really, how important is it? Althea faced the boys and won the Arkansas Derby (along with a few others as a 2yo) but that didn't mean anything in the Ky Derby. Likewise for Serena's Song winning the Jim Beam. She even came back later to win the Haskell but that didn't mean anything in the Ky Derby. Genuine Risk lost the Wood but won the Derby. I've always felt that a prep is just that. It's not necessarily an indicator of what's going to happen later. I've also always felt that running outside of your division is overrated. I go back to 1989 a lot with this. That year, Sunday Silence and Easy Goer were the two best horses in the country. Well, King Glorious was the best but for the purposes of this argument, we'll go with SS and EG. Back to the point though, they were the two best. So what difference did it make that EG went out and beat older in the Whitney, JCGC, and Woodward if he couldn't beat SS in the 3yo races? In that case beating older horses didn't mean much of anything. Last year, being the best 3yo meant being the best horse in the country again. Females that ran in the female restricted races didn't get a break in 1986 when they had to face Lady's Secret, in 1988 when they had to face Personal Ensign, in 2002 when they had to face Azeri. It was probably the males that got the breaks in those years. Sometimes, your toughest competition can come from your own back yard is my point. Eight Belles probably got more out of facing what she faced in the Fantasy than had she been facing the boys out in Arkansas.

Yeah Winning Colors Santa Anita Derby got nothing out of the Santa Anita Derby. Winning by 12 in 147 told us nothing about her. These fillies aren't dominating their division. If WC had run in the oaks that year she would have been 2-5. She was clearly the best filly and her SA Derby showed her to be tons better than the CA males and at least on par with the other colts. Not so with these 2.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Yeah Winning Colors Santa Anita Derby got nothing out of the Santa Anita Derby. Winning by 12 in 147 told us nothing about her. These fillies aren't dominating their division. If WC had run in the oaks that year she would have been 2-5. She was clearly the best filly and her SA Derby showed her to be tons better than the CA males and at least on par with the other colts. Not so with these 2.

I didn't say she got nothing out of the race. I said that I don't think we learned anything about her from the race. I said that I don't think that the sex of the competition in the SA Derby was of any significance. I said that she was challenged more in the filly races against Goodbye Halo than she was in the SA Derby. If her SA Derby showed her to be tons better than the CA males, then perhaps Goodbye Halo was a Derby quality filly too because judging by her relation to WC, she was the second-best 3yo in CA that year. I think perhaps Eight Belles hasn't been dominating her division on appearance is because she's been facing some pretty decent fillies. I think Pure Clan is better than anything she would have faced in the Arkansas Derby.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I didn't say she got nothing out of the race. I said that I don't think we learned anything about her from the race. I said that I don't think that the sex of the competition in the SA Derby was of any significance. I said that she was challenged more in the filly races against Goodbye Halo than she was in the SA Derby. If her SA Derby showed her to be tons better than the CA males, then perhaps Goodbye Halo was a Derby quality filly too because judging by her relation to WC, she was the second-best 3yo in CA that year. I think perhaps Eight Belles hasn't been dominating her division on appearance is because she's been facing some pretty decent fillies. I think Pure Clan is better than anything she would have faced in the Arkansas Derby.

I learned that she was a superior horse. Beating Goodbye Halo didnt prove that. Crushing males in a major Derby prep does. You cant compare WC with these fillies because they have very little in common other than being female.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I learned that she was a superior horse. Beating Goodbye Halo didnt prove that. Crushing males in a major Derby prep does. You cant compare WC with these fillies because they have very little in common other than being female.

They're all sisters.

[King Glorious]

Well, my only point was that going out of your division doesn't mean that you will automatically be tested harder. Sometimes, the toughest tests can come within your own division. IMO, that was the case with Winning Colors in 1988 and that's the case with Eight Belles in 2008.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I think you're missing Phil's point King. Not to speak for him, but I think he meant more in terms of earnings against males. A case could be made that the fillies earnings shouldn't count, unless the earnings were against males, since the filly races are restricted to sex.

If that's his point, I agree with it. Same for European horses.

[lemoncrush]

I hope they both enter and get drilled.
I'm not sure if I would bet either of these fillies to win the oaks, much less give them a shot in the derby.

Rags to Riches was a non-brainer to enter the Belmont last year, based on destroying the field in the Oaks and her pedigree.

Proud Spell's last race wasn't exactly impressive, and Eight Belles had to run extremely hard to beat a small field in the Fantasy at Oaklawn.
Good fillies no doubt, but for both to try to derby is silly.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by lemoncrush

I hope they both enter and get drilled.
I'm not sure if I would bet either of these fillies to win the oaks, much less give them a shot in the derby.

Rags to Riches was a non-brainer to enter the Belmont last year, based on destroying the field in the Oaks and her pedigree.

Proud Spell's last race wasn't exactly impressive, and Eight Belles had to run extremely hard to beat a small field in the Fantasy at Oaklawn.
Good fillies no doubt, but for both to try to derby is silly.

It's your call, but I'm not going to hold a poly track effort against her.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I think you're missing Phil's point King. Not to speak for him, but I think he meant more in terms of earnings against males. A case could be made that the fillies earnings shouldn't count, unless the earnings were against males, since the filly races are restricted to sex.

Correct, neither of them have to have run against boys yet to tell me they can compete this year, but I find it mildly unfair that they could rack up their earnings requirement in restricted races.