Eight Belles & Proud Spell

[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.

[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.

[Linny]

The post draw for the Derby is a joke. People play games, taking the spot at the outside of the main gate in the inside of the extra gate to get more room etc. Then a scratch occurs and they are shift anyhow. A random draw works for every other race, why not the Derby? From there, add AE's in graded earnings order. If scratches occur, the AE's are automatically outside. Remember, those outside posts have yielded plenty of on the board finishes and a few wins in the last decade.

The idea makes some sense esp as in this era, it's possible for a huge barn 9owner or trainer) to "stuff the entry box" then scratch all the "deadwood" leaving their best horse to run against 14 rivals rather than 19. Think Zayat. They could enter every one of their qualifiers then scratch all but say Z Fortune. This approach could be an effective way to get a shot field for a very strong frontrunner for example.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by philcski

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?

Injured

[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 Cannon Shell

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.

I didn't say she got nothing out of the race. I said that I don't think we learned anything about her from the race. I said that I don't think that the sex of the competition in the SA Derby was of any significance. I said that she was challenged more in the filly races against Goodbye Halo than she was in the SA Derby. If her SA Derby showed her to be tons better than the CA males, then perhaps Goodbye Halo was a Derby quality filly too because judging by her relation to WC, she was the second-best 3yo in CA that year. I think perhaps Eight Belles hasn't been dominating her division on appearance is because she's been facing some pretty decent fillies. I think Pure Clan is better than anything she would have faced in the Arkansas Derby.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I didn't say she got nothing out of the race. I said that I don't think we learned anything about her from the race. I said that I don't think that the sex of the competition in the SA Derby was of any significance. I said that she was challenged more in the filly races against Goodbye Halo than she was in the SA Derby. If her SA Derby showed her to be tons better than the CA males, then perhaps Goodbye Halo was a Derby quality filly too because judging by her relation to WC, she was the second-best 3yo in CA that year. I think perhaps Eight Belles hasn't been dominating her division on appearance is because she's been facing some pretty decent fillies. I think Pure Clan is better than anything she would have faced in the Arkansas Derby.

I learned that she was a superior horse. Beating Goodbye Halo didnt prove that. Crushing males in a major Derby prep does. You cant compare WC with these fillies because they have very little in common other than being female.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I learned that she was a superior horse. Beating Goodbye Halo didnt prove that. Crushing males in a major Derby prep does. You cant compare WC with these fillies because they have very little in common other than being female.

They're all sisters.

[King Glorious]

Well, my only point was that going out of your division doesn't mean that you will automatically be tested harder. Sometimes, the toughest tests can come within your own division. IMO, that was the case with Winning Colors in 1988 and that's the case with Eight Belles in 2008.

[Thunder Gulch]

Winning Colors ran against Forty Niner and Risen Star. Too early to know, but I suspect we don't have those two in the race this year.

I understand what you guys are saying about earnings in races restricted to fillies. Consider, however, that the purses for those are less, so they have to run better more consistently to match total graded earnings. A couple of thirds in smaller fields for the colts does the same as winning the Ashland? Which is better?

[slotdirt]

If the Derby field is 18 instead of 20 and it's because of two cross-entered fillies, surely Churchill will either change the earnings system or allow A/e. Or hopefully both.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by Linny

The post draw for the Derby is a joke. People play games, taking the spot at the outside of the main gate in the inside of the extra gate to get more room etc. Then a scratch occurs and they are shift anyhow. A random draw works for every other race, why not the Derby? From there, add AE's in graded earnings order. If scratches occur, the AE's are automatically outside. Remember, those outside posts have yielded plenty of on the board finishes and a few wins in the last decade.

The idea makes some sense esp as in this era, it's possible for a huge barn 9owner or trainer) to "stuff the entry box" then scratch all the "deadwood" leaving their best horse to run against 14 rivals rather than 19. Think Zayat. They could enter every one of their qualifiers then scratch all but say Z Fortune. This approach could be an effective way to get a shot field for a very strong frontrunner for example.

One of the things that has always perplexed me about the Derby is the possibility of multiple entries by the same owner in the Derby to the exclusion of an owner with a single entry. If you look at the conditions of most of the other Derby Week stakes at Churchill Downs, they have language that prohibits an owner, in an oversubscribed field, from entering multiple horses to the exclusion of a single entrant from another owner, essentially forcing each owner to take his or her best shot if the race is oversubscribed. I don't understand why they don't do this in the Derby, unless they are specificially trying to have the rules benefit the large outfits.

If I recall correctly, a few years ago, Unshaded and perhaps one other were excluded when Dogwood and Godolphin (one of which was subsequently scratched, only making the situation worse) both had multiple entries. Seems like this is going to happen this year again with both Zayat and WinStar having multiple entrants while some owners will be excluded.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

Yeah, that seems a no brainer. Once this precendent is set won't every trainer with a top contender enter a filly with earnings and then scratch just to reduce the size of the field?

if a trainer hasn't got a colt in the field, why would he care about the field size? jones doesn't have one.
he has the ability to choose, so he's using the rules to benefit. like i said before, if anyone should be in the doghouse about it, it ought to be the downs for not allowing AE's. but they aren't allowing dime supers either-so i don't get the sense that they really care.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Danzig

if a trainer hasn't got a colt in the field, why would he care about the field size? jones doesn't have one.
he has the ability to choose, so he's using the rules to benefit. like i said before, if anyone should be in the doghouse about it, it ought to be the downs for not allowing AE's. but they aren't allowing dime supers either-so i don't get the sense that they really care.

It is all about the precedent being set of pre-entering both and scratching from the Derby. Once that is set then you'll see a lot more fillies nominate to the Triple Crown and if their trainer has a top contender you'll see them do the same thing.

The absolute simplest thing is to have a rule where if you enter any race but the Derby on that weekend and you scratch from the Derby you have to scratch from the other race as well. Also eligibles would be great but they are obviously showing a reluctance to that for some reason. This is simpler and shouldn't inconvenience anyone.

[Danzig]

i don't see a sudden influx of fillies being entered. hell, it's been the rule for years, and it hasn't happened. it's allowed, he's using it to his advantage.
to be honest, the ONLY ones who will complain if they scratch after entering, will be the owners and trainers of the two left out. the 18 remaining won't mind one bit!
like i said, the easiest answer is an ae list. why you can't have it in racing, except here, i don't know.
if the complaint is restricted earnings, then 2 yo earnings need to be excluded as well.

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't see a sudden influx of fillies being entered. hell, it's been the rule for years, and it hasn't happened. it's allowed, he's using it to his advantage.
to be honest, the ONLY ones who will complain if they scratch after entering, will be the owners and trainers of the two left out. the 18 remaining won't mind one bit!
like i said, the easiest answer is an ae list. why you can't have it in racing, except here, i don't know.
if the complaint is restricted earnings, then 2 yo earnings need to be excluded as well.

It's a loophole, and a loophole that hasn't been exploited often because people have had respect for the Derby and not treated it as a race you scratch out of if you get a bad post position. Now it is being exploited and the loophole needs to be closed or it is just going to abused more and more each year as it becomes more accepted.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by SniperSB23

It's a loophole, and a loophole that hasn't been exploited often because people have had respect for the Derby and not treated it as a race you scratch out of if you get a bad post position. Now it is being exploited and the loophole needs to be closed or it is just going to abused more and more each year as it becomes more accepted.

peope have respect for the derby? regarding entering? that's why horses like some of the ones entering this year are there, because their connections have respect for the derby?

eight belles has some of the best figs all year. she has shown that she belongs, if not outshines, some of her male counterparts. if her owner gets cold feet over a draw, and pulls her out, i'll be unhappy. but he does have that alternative and in that regard he's lucky. but i'd think eight belles will go.
if she doesn't, we'll still have a derby winner, and the chart caller will have one or two less to put 'outrun' or 'stopped badly'....

[SniperSB23]

Originally Posted by Danzig

peope have respect for the derby? regarding entering? that's why horses like some of the ones entering this year are there, because their connections have respect for the derby?

eight belles has some of the best figs all year. she has shown that she belongs, if not outshines, some of her male counterparts. if her owner gets cold feet over a draw, and pulls her out, i'll be unhappy. but he does have that alternative and in that regard he's lucky. but i'd think eight belles will go.
if she doesn't, we'll still have a derby winner, and the chart caller will have one or two less to put 'outrun' or 'stopped badly'....

Yeah, the Derby is so big that people will run no chance horses they'd never run in any other race just to be a part of it and will stay in even with a no chance post position.

I 110% think Eight Belles belongs in the Derby. I don't think she should be allowed to enter both though and then choose the Oaks.