I'll be the First to ask?

[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.

[Peter Berry]

Has a filly ever run in all three legs of the Triple Crown?

[HaloWishingwell]

I know WINNING COLORS did in 1988.

[horseofcourse]

Genuine Risk...1st, 2nd, 2nd.

[Thunder Gulch]

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