4/4 (AQU): Wood (G1); Carter (G1); Bay Shore (G3); Excelsior (G3)

slotdirt · #1 04-03-2009, 09:02 AM

Honestly, Pletcher knew the game, he gambled on Hallandale, and lost. If you don't have enough graded earnings to make the Derby, chances are, you probably don't deserve to be in the Derby, and Dunkirk is no exception.

Travis Stone · #2 04-03-2009, 09:31 AM

It's a good sequence, not sure if it's a good betting opportunity, but good racing.

Antitrust32 · #3 04-03-2009, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Honestly, Pletcher knew the game, he gambled on Hallandale, and lost. If you don't have enough graded earnings to make the Derby, chances are, you probably don't deserve to be in the Derby, and Dunkirk is no exception.

um, Dunkirk really deserves to be in the Derby.

slotdirt · #4 04-03-2009, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

um, Dunkirk really deserves to be in the Derby.

Not really, but hey, we all have our opinions.

Linny · #5 04-03-2009, 10:09 AM

Based on his ability, he deserves to be there, but he hasn't done what he needs to do to make it. It would be as if Jerkens had again forgotten to nominate Quality Road. He belongs but his people haven't done what it takes to get there.

No reason Dunkirk didn't go to one of the graded preps instead of the allowance.

slotdirt · #6 04-03-2009, 10:13 AM

It's like saying Penn State deserved to be in the NCAA tournament this year. Sure, they might be a better team than UT-Chattanooga or Morehead State, but their out of conference schedule sucked and they didn't win the games they need to win to get in the race.

Dunkirk (or Rock Hard Ten circa 2004 if you prefer) hasn't done what is necessary to make the starting gate in the Derby, end of story.

Antitrust32 · #7 04-03-2009, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

It's like saying Penn State deserved to be in the NCAA tournament this year. Sure, they might be a better team than UT-Chattanooga or Morehead State, but their out of conference schedule sucked and they didn't win the games they need to win to get in the race.

Dunkirk (or Rock Hard Ten circa 2004 if you prefer) hasn't done what is necessary to make the starting gate in the Derby, end of story.

Not the best example IMO, Penn State didnt have a shot to make it the the Final Four if they got in the tourney.. but Dunkirk has a great shot to win the Kentucky Derby... in my opinion running a terrific second in the Florida Derby.. a historically top prep race.. to the most likely Derby favorite.. is doing what is necessary to be in the gate May 2nd.

Its really a shame that GS lowered the purse of that race from 1 mil to 750K or else we wouldnt even have to worry about it.

slotdirt · #8 04-03-2009, 11:01 AM

I disagree, historically, Dunkirk would have virtually no chance at winning the Derby, and if he makes the Derby somehow or other, I won't be spending a penny on the horse. Sorry, I'm not a believer.

lemoncrush · #9 04-03-2009, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Not really, but hey, we all have our opinions.

This fall, Dunkirk may develop into one of the top 3 year olds in the country. I just don't understand the hard-on everyone has for this horse with such little seasoning and experience. Rushing to the Derby is probably not the best thing for him anyway. The current system to get into the Derby rewards horses who have experience and success (ie..graded earnings).

If dunkirk doesn't get in, it's not because he's not one of the top 20 3-year olds. It's just because he's light on experience. It's not the end of the world, unless you unloaded on him in the 2nd future pool.

Antitrust32 · #10 04-03-2009, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Not really, but hey, we all have our opinions.

would you please explain... besides the graded earning thing... why he doesnt deserve a shot in it? He'd have as good of a shot to win as anyone.. And is easily a top 5 best 3 year old.

slotdirt · #11 04-03-2009, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

would you please explain... besides the graded earning thing... why he doesnt deserve a shot in it? He'd have as good of a shot to win as anyone.. And is easily a top 5 best 3 year old.

What else is there besides the graded earning thing? That and the Kempton race are the only things that matter when it comes to the Derby starting gate. Pletcher and co. knew the rules and unless something happens, he'll be left out of the race, and deservedly so.

Antitrust32 · #12 04-03-2009, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

What else is there besides the graded earning thing? That and the Kempton race are the only things that matter when it comes to the Derby starting gate. Pletcher and co. knew the rules and unless something happens, he'll be left out of the race, and deservedly so.

that Kempton race makes me sick to my stomach. Churchill should be so embarrassed if that rat keeps Dunkirk outta the derby.

I hope Dunkirk wins the Preakness and Belmont so Churchill can shove it!

ateamstupid · #13 04-03-2009, 12:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

that Kempton race makes me sick to my stomach. Churchill should be so embarrassed if that rat keeps Dunkirk outta the derby.

I hope Dunkirk wins the Preakness and Belmont so Churchill can shove it!

Yeah that'll happen.

I'm pretty sick of the whining about the graded earnings requirement. Yeah it's flawed, but its objective (or at least its effect) is getting horses to run more often. In a sport with endless kvetching about how top horses never run, I would think it's a good thing that you don't get into the Derby unless you run your way in.

And I've yet to see a better alternative. Guaranteeing spots to the first two finishers of the final preps? Isn't that basically already what happens? It's rare that a horse has no previous graded earnings when they run second in one of those races.

Like someone said earlier, Pletcher didn't have to run in that allowance. Instead he could've found an easy graded spot if he thought his horse was so great. He made that decision and I don't want to hear now how poor Dunkirk has been robbed by the system.

Travis Stone · #14 04-03-2009, 11:05 AM

I would think running second to the favorite in the race would make your deserving enough, but you're talking about a different deserving, which makes this a semantics argument.

Sure everyone knew and knows the rules, no one is arguing that. But to say he doesn't deserve to be in the race because he didn't reach the plateau of necessary graded earnings in a system that treats a five furlong race in July 2008 the same as the nine furlong Florida Derby 2009 is weak.

slotdirt · #15 04-03-2009, 11:07 AM

I guess I differ from you guys in that I think Dunkirk isn't much different than Rock Hard Ten, and even if he did end up in the Derby, wouldn't be much of a factor. Just one person's opinion on the horse.

robfla · #16 04-03-2009, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Honestly, Pletcher knew the game, he gambled on Hallandale, and lost. If you don't have enough graded earnings to make the Derby, chances are, you probably don't deserve to be in the Derby, and Dunkirk is no exception.

you gotta be kidding!!

some horses accumulate graded earnings from 2 y.o. races and some of those races are just plain bad.

Antitrust32 · #17 04-03-2009, 11:35 AM

If dumb Churchill can let a slow winner from a race in England into the race..

then they should make a provision to have the top two finishers in the Bluegrass, Ark Derby, Wood, and FL derby in the race.

It is a shame that a horse can win a good purse in a 2yo stake and not race again til the Derby, but still get in over a horse who just ran second in a major prep race.

slotdirt · #18 04-03-2009, 11:44 AM

I think that would be fine, if they changed it to a "win and you're in concept." As it is though, I don't get the griping when everybody is playing under the same rules.

And Dunkirk might end up being one of the best of his generation, but I think the hype might be a bit premature.