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

[Antitrust32]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Win/In stuff on the Derby trail is a moot discussion as a winner of a prep never gets excluded. The flaw, in my opinion, is that races in July 2008, at 5 furlongs or whatever, are treated the same as the Florida Derby... that just doesn't make sense.

There are some viable alternatives:

* Discount 2YO graded earnings
* Points system based upon grades, eliminating the $ factor
* DerbyTrail.com vote

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Win/In stuff on the Derby trail is a moot discussion as a winner of a prep never gets excluded. The flaw, in my opinion, is that races in July 2008, at 5 furlongs or whatever, are treated the same as the Florida Derby... that just doesn't make sense.
There are some viable alternatives:

* Discount 2YO graded earnings
* Points system based upon grades, eliminating the $ factor
* DerbyTrail.com vote

I say count half of 2yo earnings.

OR

Count 100% of Grade 1 earnings... 75% of grade 2 earnings and 50% of grade 3 earnings.

May be too much math for the people at Churchill to understand though.

[lemoncrush]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

I say count half of 2yo earnings.

OR

Count 100% of Grade 1 earnings... 75% of grade 2 earnings and 50% of grade 3 earnings.

May be too much math for the people at Churchill to understand though.

Even though the graded stakes system is flawed to begin with, I think this idea has some legs.
If there was a point system, it could be something like this, with the 3-yo stakes essentially being worth double the 2-yo stakes races.

2-year old graded stakes races
Grade 1
1st 8 points
2nd 4 points
3rd 2 points

Grade 2
1st 6 points
2nd 3 points
3rd 1 point

Grade 3
1st 3 points
2nd 1 points
3rd 0 points

3-year old graded stakes races

1st 16 points
2nd 8 points
3rd 4 points

Grade 2
1st 12 points
2nd 6 points
3rd 2 point

Grade 3
1st 6 points
2nd 2 points
3rd 1 point

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

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.

Good for you about being sick of the whining. i'm happy for you.


its more like the fans will be robbed of seeing one of the best horses compete in the best race. I could care less about Pletcher or any trainers unless Chuck or Gary gets a real good 3yo one day.

I dont think it would bother me so much if it wasnt for the stupid Kempton Park race rule. Hopefully the horse finished last in the Blue Grass and the owners opt not to run in the Derby. Or maybe he wins and belongs in the race but I SERIOUSLY doubt that.

And I think there are flaws in allowing summer 2yo stakes money to be equivalent to major prep money. Maybe they should count half of the 2yo money? That would be more fair IMO.

Also, IMO Dunkirk has a serious shot at winning the Preakness or Belmont..

[Travis Stone]

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]

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.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

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.

but Rock Hard Ten was one of the best horses in his foal crop...