How would YOU fix it?

[Linny]

I just ranted for 4 paragraphs on the thread about the fillies entering and scratching from the Derby.

What rules would you write? How would you assure that the best possible field is assembled for the Dery each year?

[Gander]

I like allowing also eligibles, like I think Cannon Shell wrote in another thread.
Why is this such a hard concept? Because it screws up a stupid Derby Draw show? That was resolved too, by saying whoever is on the also eligible list automatically draws the farthest outside posts accordingly if they draw in.
They can still have there fun little show and focus on the main 20 horses that are entered and worry about who gets in based on who scratches.

[SniperSB23]

My thoughts are here:

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6688

[MisterB]

If you are lucky enough to be able to cross enter, then bravo to the trainer or trainers that can. They went out and won the cash, and are playing by the rules. Is it fair to some other trainer on the bubble? I am more concerned about the horse who comes in and has little or no chance to win this race. What good does that do? 20 horses in a race is not a good race, fun to watch, but totally a stampede.

Reading the many comments, I guess the AE's is the best way to counter a bad rule.

[Danzig]

limit field to 14 starters.
graded stakes earnings as a three year old only would be the deciding factor-no consideration for earnings at two.
also eligibles.
no refund if you scratch due to post position-which would probably not happen anyway if field was limited to 14.

[lemoncrush]

I would rank the horses by earnings in graded stakes races one mile or longer.
The also eligible list is obvious, but I think any filly who enters must not only be in the top 20 in overall graded earnings, but have at least a small percentage (10-15% or more?) accumulated in non-restricted races.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by lemoncrush

I would rank the horses by earnings in graded stakes races one mile or longer.
The also eligible list is obvious, but I think any filly who enters must not only be in the top 20 in overall graded earnings, but have at least a small percentage (10-15% or more?) accumulated in non-restricted races.

the colts are presently allowed to use all graded earnings, which include restricted racing as two year olds-if that's allowed, i don't see how the fillies should get penalized on the same type of thing... altho i personally would have tried a filly vs colts prior to the derby.

[philcski]

Why is everyone clamoring for a smaller field???

Across the pond(s), they regularly have fields of 18-20 in ALL levels of competition. Yet for America's greatest race, nobody wants more than 14. WHY! I'd love to see 20 horse fields EVERY DAY!

[lemoncrush]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the colts are presently allowed to use all graded earnings, which include restricted racing as two year olds-if that's allowed, i don't see how the fillies should get penalized on the same type of thing... altho i personally would have tried a filly vs colts prior to the derby.

Yes, by restricted I meant female restricted races. Obviously all of the 2 year old races are restricted to the same age group.