Should Have

[philcski]

Also, before my time but Key to the Mint was probably the winner in '72 had he gone in the Derby.

I'm also glad no one has said Bernardini yet, because he wasn't winning the Derby at that point in his career last year.

[King Glorious]

Thanks for reminding me. Add Bernardini to my list. I don't see why he couldn't have won it. He was good enough to win the Preakness two weeks later. I know, I know. I thought he was good enough to win the Preakness anyway though so I don't think two weeks earlier, he wouldn't have been able to beat Barbaro.

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

Thanks for reminding me. Add Bernardini to my list. I don't see why he couldn't have won it. He was good enough to win the Preakness two weeks later. I know, I know. I thought he was good enough to win the Preakness anyway though so I don't think two weeks earlier, he wouldn't have been able to beat Barbaro.

Yeah, his win in the Withers was much better than Barbaro's Derby.

Put down the pipe.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Yeah, his win in the Withers was much better than Barbaro's Derby.

Put down the pipe.

I don't see the point. Barbaro was prepped to be at his peak in the Derby. Bernardini wasn't. Had he been, from what I saw of Bernardini last year, I have no reason to believe he couldn't have been just as good or better than Barbaro in the Derby had they decided to go that route earlier and had the time. His win in the Withers was a 104 figure. I guess that sucks for a third career start number. It doesn't make sense to me that a horse can run a 113 figure in mid-May but couldn't run a 111 two weeks before? If he wouldn't have been capable of running a 111 two weeks before but could do a 113 two weeks later, maybe Bernardini needs to be on the Mitchell Report.