Derby Trail Next Start-Likely/Possible

[Linny]

Why change anything? What "right" horses have been kept out by "wrong" horses?

If you eliminate synthetic, do you also not count grass races? That means a horse like Frankel (who is NOT pointing for the Derby) wouldn't be able to compete, yet I think that most people would like to see such a horse were his connections interested. In fact it would keep out Master of Hounds this year and by all accounts he's a pretty nice horse. By ditching synth you take out races like the CashCall Futurity, the Breeders' Futurity the Del Mar Futurity and in the last couple of years all the big SA preps.

As handicappers we like to see rational outcomes (at least rational to those who 'capped the winner) but the general public likes the excitement of the Mine That Bird or the Giacomo. The fact is that for the most part, graded earnings signify the "best" horses anyhow. If a horse isn't one of the top 20 in graded earnings overall in his generation he probably doesn't belong in the field.

As for field size being cut to eliminate some of the no-hopers, no way. Every other major racing nation runs it's classics with far bigger fields. Eight Belles didn't break down because she had to face 19 runners. Yes, it's a tough, scrappy race but it would be with 14 or even 8 runners, because it is the most famous race in America and every rider is riding like their life depends on it.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by Linny

Why change anything? What "right" horses have been kept out by "wrong" horses?

If you eliminate synthetic, do you also not count grass races? That means a horse like Frankel (who is NOT pointing for the Derby) wouldn't be able to compete, yet I think that most people would like to see such a horse were his connections interested. In fact it would keep out Master of Hounds this year and by all accounts he's a pretty nice horse. By ditching synth you take out races like the CashCall Futurity, the Breeders' Futurity the Del Mar Futurity and in the last couple of years all the big SA preps.

As handicappers we like to see rational outcomes (at least rational to those who 'capped the winner) but the general public likes the excitement of the Mine That Bird or the Giacomo. The fact is that for the most part, graded earnings signify the "best" horses anyhow. If a horse isn't one of the top 20 in graded earnings overall in his generation he probably doesn't belong in the field.

As for field size being cut to eliminate some of the no-hopers, no way. Every other major racing nation runs it's classics with far bigger fields. Eight Belles didn't break down because she had to face 19 runners. Yes, it's a tough, scrappy race but it would be with 14 or even 8 runners, because it is the most famous race in America and every rider is riding like their life depends on it.

I don't agree with not counting stuff... but I do agree with discounting. I don't think it's a big deal to discount 50% a race run in August of the 2-year-old year versus the race run four weeks before the Derby.

The synthetic/dirt argument is tricky... lots of politics, good feelings and happy hand-shakes involved there.

[Danzig]

the main reason ihave for limiting the field is to encourage more racing beforehand. right now many can get in with one decent showing.
this is also why i think 2 yo earnings shouldn't count. uncle mo would never have run in a bs race like the timely writer-he'd have had to earn his way in, rather than having two preps all spring. hell, they didn't have to run him at all if they so chose. how has he proven he's a top 3 yo, deserving of running in the biggest race for supposed top 3 yo's? by winning the bc juvie? he's proven he's precocious, but not a top 3 yo.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Linny

Why change anything? What "right" horses have been kept out by "wrong" horses?

If you eliminate synthetic, do you also not count grass races? That means a horse like Frankel (who is NOT pointing for the Derby) wouldn't be able to compete, yet I think that most people would like to see such a horse were his connections interested. In fact it would keep out Master of Hounds this year and by all accounts he's a pretty nice horse. By ditching synth you take out races like the CashCall Futurity, the Breeders' Futurity the Del Mar Futurity and in the last couple of years all the big SA preps.

As handicappers we like to see rational outcomes (at least rational to those who 'capped the winner) but the general public likes the excitement of the Mine That Bird or the Giacomo. The fact is that for the most part, graded earnings signify the "best" horses anyhow. If a horse isn't one of the top 20 in graded earnings overall in his generation he probably doesn't belong in the field.

As for field size being cut to eliminate some of the no-hopers, no way. Every other major racing nation runs it's classics with far bigger fields. Eight Belles didn't break down because she had to face 19 runners. Yes, it's a tough, scrappy race but it would be with 14 or even 8 runners, because it is the most famous race in America and every rider is riding like their life depends on it.

I agree with you except for the field size. It's true that many races abroad have larger fields, but typically the tracks have more gradual turns with longer runups. I agree that Eight Belles' breakdown didn't have anything to do with the size of the field, but a spill during the course of the race has the potential to be catastrophic for a number of horses and riders, and the sport doesn't need that on any day, much less its highest profile day of the year.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by OldDog

I agree with you except for the field size. It's true that many races abroad have larger fields, but typically the tracks have more gradual turns with longer runups. I agree that Eight Belles' breakdown didn't have anything to do with the size of the field, but a spill during the course of the race has the potential to be catastrophic for a number of horses and riders, and the sport doesn't need that on any day, much less its highest profile day of the year.

Based on recent comments from Churchill officials (especially after Eight Belles), it is highly unlikely that Churchill is going to reduce the field size, as they love the image of a "stampede" of horses coming through the stretch the first quarter mile. Even if they were inclined to consider such a change, I just don't know that reducing field size is necessarily going to "clean up" the running of the race. If my memory serves me, the 1994 Derby had a pretty rough run into the clubhouse turn, and it had "only" 14 horses. On an every day basis, we see rough race-riding in five and six horse fields.

If you take six slots from the starting gate, it would only make the "qualification" system mean more. As it currently stands, in most years, the horses that have been excluded on earnings are real longshots; by reducing the field size, you are only increasing the likelihood of controversy attendant to who gets in. That being said, as a strong believer in the law of unintended consequences, reducing the field size might have the unintended result of forcing trainers to actually campaign their horses up to the Derby. Whether that is a good or bad thing given the current state of the American thoroughbred is uncertain.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Based on recent comments from Churchill officials (especially after Eight Belles), it is highly unlikely that Churchill is going to reduce the field size, as they love the image of a "stampede" of horses coming through the stretch the first quarter mile. Even if they were inclined to consider such a change, I just don't know that reducing field size is necessarily going to "clean up" the running of the race. If my memory serves me, the 1994 Derby had a pretty rough run into the clubhouse turn, and it had "only" 14 horses. On an every day basis, we see rough race-riding in five and six horse fields.

If you take six slots from the starting gate, it would only make the "qualification" system mean more. As it currently stands, in most years, the horses that have been excluded on earnings are real longshots; by reducing the field size, you are only increasing the likelihood of controversy attendant to who gets in. That being said, as a strong believer in the law of unintended consequences, reducing the field size might have the unintended result of forcing trainers to actually campaign their horses up to the Derby. Whether that is a good or bad thing given the current state of the American thoroughbred is uncertain.

If we want to make changes, perhaps the best route would be to set specific conditions...must have 5 starts with at least two during three year old season, must have at least one of 9 furlongs (or greater), must have more than maiden win (for example). But that will never fly! The Derby is every owner's "dream race" and it's hard to deny anyone who invests in the sport his/her dream, even if their horse has no real chance.

[RolloTomasi]

The argument that Frankel and his ilk coming over to race in the Kentucky Derby would be left out because of bias against non-dirt earnings holds little water. Aside from Johannesburg and Arazi--both of whom won the f'n BC Juvenile--no top 2yo from Europe has ever run in the Kentucky Derby. Nobody in their right mind would send a horse like that over here without testing the waters first.

Why? Because despite popular mob opinion, the Kentucky Derby is simply not the most important race in the world.

On the other hand, if expendable Coolmore castoffs and ill-prepared Goldolphin goats somehow add to the appeal of the Kentucky Derby, then I guess maybe future Kent BC Stakes competitor Brilliant Speed isn't so bad after all.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

The argument that Frankel and his ilk coming over to race in the Kentucky Derby would be left out because of bias against non-dirt earnings holds little water. Aside from Johannesburg and Arazi--both of whom won the f'n BC Juvenile--no top 2yo from Europe has ever run in the Kentucky Derby. Nobody in their right mind would send a horse like that over here without testing the waters first.

Why? Because despite popular mob opinion, the Kentucky Derby is simply not the most important race in the world.

On the other hand, if expendable Coolmore castoffs and ill-prepared Goldolphin goats somehow add to the appeal of the Kentucky Derby, then I guess maybe future Kent BC Stakes competitor Brilliant Speed isn't so bad after all.

Which single race is more important?

[slotdirt]

I'm sure most Euros consider the Arc, the 3YO classics, and probably a couple others more historically significant than the Kentucky Derby.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Which single race is more important?

I'm sure most British trainers of high class 3yos would say that the Derby Stakes (you know, the race the Kentucky Derby is named after) is more important to them.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

If we want to make changes, perhaps the best route would be to set specific conditions...must have 5 starts with at least two during three year old season, must have at least one of 9 furlongs (or greater), must have more than maiden win (for example). But that will never fly! The Derby is every owner's "dream race" and it's hard to deny anyone who invests in the sport his/her dream, even if their horse has no real chance.

And it shouldn't. Because you just eliminated the entire $3,445 Derby Trifecta from the race in 2008.

[slotdirt]

Is the Kentucky Derby the most important dirt race in the world? Yes. Is it more important globally than a few other races, including the Arc? Probably not. There is racing, after all, outside of the good old USA.

[dalakhani]

http://www.sportingintelligence.com/...record-080201/

Kentucky derby ranks top ten in ALL events including the superbowl.

And which race is more "important"????????????