Derby Trail Next Start-Likely/Possible

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Santiva, Sway Away, Anthony's Cross, Shackleford, and Watch Me Go all are on the outside looking in because 3 or 4 turf horses have secured spots. Yet all those have been 1st or 2nd in important prep races on dirt.

As far as previous years, I'd have to take a closer look. It was only recently that they restricted the field to 20 horses, too, so historically there probably haven't been too many "left out" horses.

Would any of those horses be less than 20-1, even in this watered down field?

I believe that the field size restriction has been in place since the 1970s; it's only in the past decade or so, when decisions about entering the Derby seem to be more about "do I qualify" than "do I fit," that a twenty-horse field has become the norm.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Would any of those horses be less than 20-1, even in this watered down field?

I believe that the field size restriction has been in place since the 1970s; it's only in the past decade or so, when decisions about entering the Derby seem to be more about "do I qualify" than "do I fit," that a twenty-horse field has become the norm.

Yeah, I was confused about the field size issue. I guess they were looking to restrict it even further in the wake of Eight Belles. Had it in my head that there were more than 20 horses a couple of times in the '80s.

Anyways, the main point is that horses like Brilliant Speed and Animal Kingdom don't deserve to be in the race over several other horses just because they won irrelevant races that used to be important preps. If they were viable contenders all along, then they would have been in races like the Fountain of Youth or the Holy Bull. Clearly they were entered in the Kentucky races because of the popular notion that turf form translates to polytrack. Now they get a free ride to Churchill likely to end with a "no factor" running line.

While the horses I mentioned aren't top contenders, at least a couple of them potentially could hit the board. I'm sure bettors, particularly exotics players, would be more interested in those with at least some dirt form than horses that are practically automatic tosses.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Yeah, I was confused about the field size issue. I guess they were looking to restrict it even further in the wake of Eight Belles. Had it in my head that there were more than 20 horses a couple of times in the '80s.

Anyways, the main point is that horses like Brilliant Speed and Animal Kingdom don't deserve to be in the race over several other horses just because they won irrelevant races that used to be important preps. If they were viable contenders all along, then they would have been in races like the Fountain of Youth or the Holy Bull. Clearly they were entered in the Kentucky races because of the popular notion that turf form translates to polytrack. Now they get a free ride to Churchill likely to end with a "no factor" running line.

While the horses I mentioned aren't top contenders, at least a couple of them potentially could hit the board. I'm sure bettors, particularly exotics players, would be more interested in those with at least some dirt form than horses that are practically automatic tosses.

I understand your point but I just don't know how you can come up with hard and fast rules, like only earnings in dirt races will count. What if a European star like Frankel wanted to take a shot at the Derby? Would the race be better off saying that he couldn't run because he had never run on dirt?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I understand your point but I just don't know how you can come up with hard and fast rules, like only earnings in dirt races will count.

To me, it's very logical that only dirt races should count, or at least carry more weight than turf/synthetic races.

What if a European star like Frankel wanted to take a shot at the Derby? Would the race be better off saying that he couldn't run because he had never run on dirt?

Some remote possibility such as a heavy favorite for the English classics bypassing those races to run in the Kentucky Derby instead is hardly a reason to keep things as they are.

[Indian Charlie]

Instead of perhaps getting rid of 2yo earnings, I'd toss sprint earnings.

By sprint, I mean anything under a mile. The number of turns would be irrelevant.

Not that any of this really matters.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Indian Charlie

Instead of perhaps getting rid of 2yo earnings, I'd toss sprint earnings.

By sprint, I mean anything under a mile. The number of turns would be irrelevant.

Not that any of this really matters.

I'd start the clock at the Breeders Cup and toss anything less than 8 furlongs and Turf but I don't see tossing synthetic.

[justindew]

Considering Mine That Bird would have failed to make the field if either juvenile or synthetic earning didn't count, I would say there is a 0% chance any of that happens.