4/12 (KEE): Blue Grass (Gr. I)

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I meant an owner of a horse not running in the Blue Grass tomorrow, and has no control over who runs in or wins the race. If I'm sitting in 20th place right now and Cowboy Cal, who was atrocious in his only dirt start, wins and displaces my horse from the Derby, I'd be furious.

But my point, is shouldn't you have ensured your horse was in a spot prior to the Blue Grass where the results wouldn't affect whether your horse made the gate or not?

The horses who have won, or have consistently run competitively in several graded stakes are already sure to get in.

If I recall correctly, 'Cal was horrific on dirt in his debut, no? Wouldn't be the first time a decent horse didn't run well first time out, surely won't be the last. After having nearly a year to get the requisite earnings with loads of stakes races with qualifying purses out there, I have a really hard time feeling sorry for someone whose horse comes up $10K short because the winner of a $750K Grade I race kept them out of the Derby.

It's not like these rules came out of nowhere three weeks ago...put your horse in a spot where you rely on his races to get in, instead of relying on someone else to run poorly to get in.

Synthetic and turf races shouldn't count for the Derby. Problem solved.

[alysheba4]

Originally Posted by Coach Pants

Synthetic and turf races shouldn't count for the Derby. Problem solved.

......really, keenland is a complete joke.

[slotdirt]

When was the last time a horse who barely snuck in on earnings really was a factor in the Derby anyway?

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

When was the last time a horse who barely snuck in on earnings really was a factor in the Derby anyway?

If a super kicker counts as being "a factor," and in a 20 horse field, I would say that qualifies, then last year.

[slotdirt]

Nah, I'd say a horse who actually had a shot of winning. Lumbering up for fourth shouldn't really count.

[brianwspencer]

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Nah, I'd say a horse who actually had a shot of winning. Lumbering up for fourth shouldn't really count.

Well that's an irrelevant question in regards to this topic anyway then, isn't it?

Are any of the horses on the bubble, who may be edged out by a less qualified dirt horse (read: Cowboy Cal in Cardus's example), really going to be a factor anyway by your definition?

Nope, so either way, horses with no chance to win are getting in the gate, so what's the point in arguing which of the also-rans belong and which don't?

Granted, I'm biased this year because I have a future on Cowboy Cal and would at least like to have action in three weeks, but every year this same argument comes up. Every year the rules are the same. Every year, everyone knew them in advance. Every year everyone knows their options, so why do we re-hash it every year? Play by the rules and get your horse who deserves to be in the gate, enough earnings to get in the gate.