Eight Belles & Proud Spell

[HaloWishingwell]

Not good news in the Bloodhorse for those bubble horses with insufficient earnings....


Cindy Jones, assistant to her husband, Larry, said that fillies Proud Spell and Eight Belles both galloped 11/2 miles Wednesday morning. Brereton Jones’ Proud Spell and Fox Hill Farms’ Eight Belles both are probable to be cross-entered in the Derby and the Kentucky Oaks (gr. I). They are scheduled to ship to Churchill Downs Friday and, weather permitting, will breeze Sunday

[Thunder Gulch]

I'd bet one goes to the Oaks and the other to the Derby.

[HaloWishingwell]

Regardless what the final decision is, they will still take up two spots at the draw.

[blackthroatedwind]

This is actually a very good thing overall as it will force Churchill to finally change the Derby entry rules. They will either have to start allowing also-eligibles and/or alter the way earnings are calculated and used for eligibility.

Hopefully they will do both.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is actually a very good thing overall as it will force Churchill to finally change the Derby entry rules. They will either have to start allowing also-eligibles and/or alter the way earnings are calculated and used for eligibility.

Hopefully they will do both.

I've never understood why they didn't allow a/e's..or at least have a "waiting list" , both still graded earnings based. Was there a reason?

[HaloWishingwell]

If they allowed also eligibles and the scratches occur after the draw, would the also eligible then take the outer post or just replace the scratched horse post?

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by HaloWishingwell

If they allowed also eligibles and the scratches occur after the draw, would the also eligible then take the outer post or just replace the scratched horse post?

Maybe if you are double entered, you don't get the opportunity to take part in the respective post draw, but have to take what is left?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by GBBob

I've never understood why they didn't allow a/e's..or at least have a "waiting list" , both still graded earnings based. Was there a reason?

I assume one major problem is it screws with their " Derby Draw " though there is a simple solution to that.....the AEs are automatically assigned posts 21-24. I imagine that connections would rather accept the lousy post than be excluded.

I'm sure they also have concerns about refunds, which in all fairness is a novice-fan protection, but the solution to that is to make scratch time for the Derby Friday morning before Derby wagering begins. I would imagine the connections of fillies that have cross entered in the Oaks would know by then which race they are running in.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is actually a very good thing overall as it will force Churchill to finally change the Derby entry rules. They will either have to start allowing also-eligibles and/or alter the way earnings are calculated and used for eligibility.

Hopefully they will do both.

Which will happen first: New Derby entry process, or the ability to bet on more than 23 individual horses in the future wager?

[blackthroatedwind]

Originally Posted by justindew

Which will happen first: New Derby entry process, or the ability to bet on more than 23 individual horses in the future wager?

I think they could both well happen next year. The pools for the Derby futures were very weak......if that doesn't get their attention then nothing will.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

This is actually a very good thing overall as it will force Churchill to finally change the Derby entry rules. They will either have to start allowing also-eligibles and/or alter the way earnings are calculated and used for eligibility.

Hopefully they will do both.

Agree on both points.

I have no problem with either of them trying the Derby, especially in this comical year, but I'd love to have seen a "test run" against the boys a la Winning Colors to have earned the graded money to run.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by philcski

Agree on both points.

I have no problem with either of them trying the Derby, especially in this comical year, but I'd love to have seen a "test run" against the boys a la Winning Colors to have earned the graded money to run.

You should be repremanded for mentioning WC in the same thought as these 2, even in a year like this.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You should be repremanded for mentioning WC in the same thought as these 2, even in a year like this.

HA!
Not a comparison of talent but rather she EARNED her way into the Derby by destroying the SA Derby, not by racking up $$ in the Fantasy, etc.


Why Moonlight out today?

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by philcski

Agree on both points.

I have no problem with either of them trying the Derby, especially in this comical year, but I'd love to have seen a "test run" against the boys a la Winning Colors to have earned the graded money to run.

I talked about this on another forum but when you look back at WC's SA Derby, was that really a test against the boys? I mean, she was so far out in front and dominated so thoroughly that it's doubtful that the sex of what was running behind her was of any matter. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say that her toughest tests of the winter and spring came in the races in her own division against Goodbye Halo. Those races told us more about her than the SA Derby did. A lot of people have expressed the same thing that you have here and I'm not saying it's wrong but really, how important is it? Althea faced the boys and won the Arkansas Derby (along with a few others as a 2yo) but that didn't mean anything in the Ky Derby. Likewise for Serena's Song winning the Jim Beam. She even came back later to win the Haskell but that didn't mean anything in the Ky Derby. Genuine Risk lost the Wood but won the Derby. I've always felt that a prep is just that. It's not necessarily an indicator of what's going to happen later. I've also always felt that running outside of your division is overrated. I go back to 1989 a lot with this. That year, Sunday Silence and Easy Goer were the two best horses in the country. Well, King Glorious was the best but for the purposes of this argument, we'll go with SS and EG. Back to the point though, they were the two best. So what difference did it make that EG went out and beat older in the Whitney, JCGC, and Woodward if he couldn't beat SS in the 3yo races? In that case beating older horses didn't mean much of anything. Last year, being the best 3yo meant being the best horse in the country again. Females that ran in the female restricted races didn't get a break in 1986 when they had to face Lady's Secret, in 1988 when they had to face Personal Ensign, in 2002 when they had to face Azeri. It was probably the males that got the breaks in those years. Sometimes, your toughest competition can come from your own back yard is my point. Eight Belles probably got more out of facing what she faced in the Fantasy than had she been facing the boys out in Arkansas.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I talked about this on another forum but when you look back at WC's SA Derby, was that really a test against the boys? I mean, she was so far out in front and dominated so thoroughly that it's doubtful that the sex of what was running behind her was of any matter. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say that her toughest tests of the winter and spring came in the races in her own division against Goodbye Halo. Those races told us more about her than the SA Derby did. A lot of people have expressed the same thing that you have here and I'm not saying it's wrong but really, how important is it? Althea faced the boys and won the Arkansas Derby (along with a few others as a 2yo) but that didn't mean anything in the Ky Derby. Likewise for Serena's Song winning the Jim Beam. She even came back later to win the Haskell but that didn't mean anything in the Ky Derby. Genuine Risk lost the Wood but won the Derby. I've always felt that a prep is just that. It's not necessarily an indicator of what's going to happen later. I've also always felt that running outside of your division is overrated. I go back to 1989 a lot with this. That year, Sunday Silence and Easy Goer were the two best horses in the country. Well, King Glorious was the best but for the purposes of this argument, we'll go with SS and EG. Back to the point though, they were the two best. So what difference did it make that EG went out and beat older in the Whitney, JCGC, and Woodward if he couldn't beat SS in the 3yo races? In that case beating older horses didn't mean much of anything. Last year, being the best 3yo meant being the best horse in the country again. Females that ran in the female restricted races didn't get a break in 1986 when they had to face Lady's Secret, in 1988 when they had to face Personal Ensign, in 2002 when they had to face Azeri. It was probably the males that got the breaks in those years. Sometimes, your toughest competition can come from your own back yard is my point. Eight Belles probably got more out of facing what she faced in the Fantasy than had she been facing the boys out in Arkansas.

Yeah Winning Colors Santa Anita Derby got nothing out of the Santa Anita Derby. Winning by 12 in 147 told us nothing about her. These fillies aren't dominating their division. If WC had run in the oaks that year she would have been 2-5. She was clearly the best filly and her SA Derby showed her to be tons better than the CA males and at least on par with the other colts. Not so with these 2.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I think you're missing Phil's point King. Not to speak for him, but I think he meant more in terms of earnings against males. A case could be made that the fillies earnings shouldn't count, unless the earnings were against males, since the filly races are restricted to sex.

If that's his point, I agree with it. Same for European horses.

[lemoncrush]

I hope they both enter and get drilled.
I'm not sure if I would bet either of these fillies to win the oaks, much less give them a shot in the derby.

Rags to Riches was a non-brainer to enter the Belmont last year, based on destroying the field in the Oaks and her pedigree.

Proud Spell's last race wasn't exactly impressive, and Eight Belles had to run extremely hard to beat a small field in the Fantasy at Oaklawn.
Good fillies no doubt, but for both to try to derby is silly.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I think you're missing Phil's point King. Not to speak for him, but I think he meant more in terms of earnings against males. A case could be made that the fillies earnings shouldn't count, unless the earnings were against males, since the filly races are restricted to sex.

Correct, neither of them have to have run against boys yet to tell me they can compete this year, but I find it mildly unfair that they could rack up their earnings requirement in restricted races.

[sumitas]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I think you're missing Phil's point King. Not to speak for him, but I think he meant more in terms of earnings against males. A case could be made that the fillies earnings shouldn't count, unless the earnings were against males, since the filly races are restricted to sex.

I agree. Winning money in restricted races for fillies is not in the same league as graded earnings in races open to any entrant. It is outrageous that these 2 could bump some horses that battled in open stakes.