Sutra

[lemoncrush]

I basically made the point because I don't think the Oaks should have a future pool like the derby.
It doesn't seem to be the ultimate goal for many 3-yo fillies, like it is is for the boys, and they don't have nearly the same number of horses clearly pointing for that race. Otherwise, a horse like Sutra would never be listed.

Plus, what happens if Rags to Riches runs in the derby? She was easily the most wagered on filly in both pool 1 and pool 2. It's a terrible bet.

[POINTGIVEN1985]

Originally Posted by lemoncrush

I basically made the point because I don't think the Oaks should have a future pool like the derby.
It doesn't seem to be the ultimate goal for many 3-yo fillies, like it is is for the boys, and they don't have nearly the same number of horses clearly pointing for that race. Otherwise, a horse like Sutra would never be listed.

Plus, what happens if Rags to Riches runs in the derby? She was easily the most wagered on filly in both pool 1 and pool 2. It's a terrible bet.

definitly agree with that, ppl are giving money away if the run her in the derby, if she goes to the derby it should be like a scratch and you should be refunded in my opinion

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by POINTGIVEN1985

definitly agree with that, ppl are giving money away if the run her in the derby, if she goes to the derby it should be like a scratch and you should be refunded in my opinion

That's impossible. That would defeat the whole point of a future wager, that being taking all of the risk involved with who will make it and who will run where.

If there were provisions for things like that, there would also need to be provisions for things like bonehead rides that cost a horse a Derby victory, or refunds for horses whose trainers just decide that the Derby isn't for their horse, or horses who want to get in the field but can't because of changes in graded earnings between the time the pool opens and Derby day.