Derby AE List
 

I've heard a lot of talk recently about the Kentucky Derby adding an also-eligible list to the entries. This discussion picks up steam whenever a filly (or multiple fillies) are under consideration for the Derby AND the Oaks.

Here's my question that I am sure someone here can answer: With such careful consideration given to which spot in the starting gate each horse "chooses", how could horses who draw in off the AE list be placed in the gate fairly?

For instance, Dutrow clearly wanted spot 20 in the gate last year. If there had been an AE list and, say, Eight Belles had chosen to go in the Oaks instead of the Derby, would the newly drawn-in horse get spot 20, screwing up Dutrow's plan?

Easy. End the ridiculousness of connections choosing their own post. Draw the damn race like any other race is drawn. The 'made for TV' draw is farcical.

They drew 18th, so he only had 3 choices. post position 1, 19, or 20. They're all terrible, so he took the least terrible of the group. There was no "master plan" involved.

:tro: :tro:

An AE list is fine by me.

Agreed. But that's not going to happen.

So then what?

I don't have a problem with letting the connections choose their post. But why not do it in order of graded stakes earnings instead of a random draw? Would reward the best horses and give more incentive for horses to prep more to move up in the earnings list. Just getting in as #20 would no longer be as desirable.

Wouldn't there be a challenge with tote board in the event of late scratch?
The AE's are assigned a number prior to the race. (If the 2 scratches the 13 draws in. I don't see how they can use more than 20 numbers.

But they still chose post 20 over post 19.

I think the Derby should be 14 horses...

Churchill has motivation in an AE list... for every non-starter below 20 equates to $x in handle (this number I've heard, but really can't remember it well enough to post, but it's significant). But there are some logistical obstacles, including the post draw and placement of a drawn-in AE horse.

I think it should be 24.

Having an AE list is overkill in a field that is going to be 20 most of the time. It's like having the NCAA tournament teams argue about the "last 4 out". How many times is a legit contender not going to make the field anyway? The graded earnings system isn't perfect, but I haven't heard many alternatives that provide better fields. When a late bloomer misses on earnings, too bad. Get them started earlier and win a graded race. It doesn't take many to be #20 on the list.

As well as the fact that many Oaks and Derby goers will be totally confused by an AE list.

How many people bet Big Truck last year thinking they were betting on Big Brown? Go back and look. Big Truck's odds were much lower than they should have been.

Ever since Giacomo - it seems like almost all of the longshots go off at much shorter prices than they should be in triple crown races.

That's why I want a 24 horse field in the Derby!

Reducing the number of horses will not necessarily mean that the race will be more cleanly run. In the 1994 Derby won by Go For Gin, there were only 14 horses, and it was a pretty roughly run race.

If they automatically let the winner of the Kempton Park race in the field, then anything can happen.

But Rock Hard Ten didn't get in the gate in 2004! WAAAAH!

or..have them run like Nascar time trials where each is out their on their own. Then you can have 50 horses. The top 20 times make it in and pick posts by their times. Run it 2-3 weeks in advance.

No, I'm not serious, but that would be interesting.

what he said.

hell, just run a couple divisions of the sucker. think how many starters they'd have.