Derby Trail Next Start-Likely/Possible

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by NTamm1215

I couldn't agree with you more.

Fortunately, the Lexington's purse has been cut and winning it will no longer guarantee a spot in the Derby. That being said, it could ensure Silver Medallion has enough to get in. It's way, way past time for 2YO earnings to be done away with altogether.

Does Uncle Mo get in w/out 2yo earnings? 3rd in the Wood should do it, but I don't think eliminating 2yo earnings is the answer... discounting them, sure... maybe 50%? Who knows.

[NTamm1215]

Originally Posted by Travis Stone

Does Uncle Mo get in w/out 2yo earnings? 3rd in the Wood should do it, but I don't think eliminating 2yo earnings is the answer... discounting them, sure... maybe 50%? Who knows.

If you did away with them altogether then Team Todd would have had to do something crazy like having the poor horse ready to run three times before the Derby! Would that fit his 'program'?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

A major flaw painful illustrated this year is the fact that all graded earnings are counted towards a start in the Kentucky Derby. Clearly, synthetic and turf races need to be stricken from the accounting.Although Jeff Bonde has an outside chance to hit the board with longshot Twice The Appeal (draw a line through his turf and synthetic races, and his record is 5-3-2-0), he'd have a better shot theoretically with Sway Away, who made a striking move on the turn in the Arkansas Derby. To be perfectly honest, races in New Mexico and Vinton, LA probably shouldn't count, either. Hopefully, Sway Away can at least get into the Preakness.

Meanwhile, we'll see if Brilliant Speed can improve on either his two dirt starts last year (a 10-length drubbing at the hands of Boys of Tascanova and a 20-length hiding behind Mucho Macho Man and Joe Vann).

i disagree. a 3 yo graded winner should get consideration-especially over a 2 yo graded winner. last year shouldn't count towards this year. changing using 2 yo earnings would keep horses from coasting in come spring. horses that are handled as fragile hothouse flowers with two whole starts in the spring would no longer get in on races from seven and eight months prior.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i disagree. a 3 yo graded winner should get consideration-especially over a 2 yo graded winner. last year shouldn't count towards this year. changing using 2 yo earnings would keep horses from coasting in come spring. horses that are handled as fragile hothouse flowers with two whole starts in the spring would no longer get in on races from seven and eight months prior.

While I don't necessarily agree with basing it on earnings (because any track can artificially inflate a purse), certainly I think recognizing 2yo races in some fashion is acceptable.

History says that its the horses with 2yo form, preferably graded form, that go on to compete successfully in the Triple Crown. There are few (eg Curlin, maybe Rock Hard Ten) exceptions to this.

At any rate, counting juvenile races on dirt is better than counting 3yo races on a different surface from the Kentucky Derby. Animal Kingdom, Master of Hounds, and Brilliant Speed have combined to do absolutely zero on a dirt surface, yet have secured spots in the starting gate over horses that have.

[Travis Stone]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

At any rate, counting juvenile races on dirt is better than counting 3yo races on a different surface from the Kentucky Derby.

Good point...

[jms62]

They should use a point system for graded stakes

GI 30 pts total 1st 18 2nd 6 3rd-4th 3
GII 20 pts total 1st 12 2nd 4 3rd-4th 2
GIII 10 pts total 1st 6 2nd 2 3rd-4th 1

Make the graded preps meaningful and maybe with such a defined path the networks may get interested. Maybe switch the schedule so every 2 weeks we have 3 races on a sat, spread out over an hour so the networks have a defined block of content. They can focus on the back stories and show the races. The ultimate reality show. Now being horseplayers I expect a hundred responses why this won't work.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

While I don't necessarily agree with basing it on earnings (because any track can artificially inflate a purse), certainly I think recognizing 2yo races in some fashion is acceptable.

History says that its the horses with 2yo form, preferably graded form, that go on to compete successfully in the Triple Crown. There are few (eg Curlin, maybe Rock Hard Ten) exceptions to this.

At any rate, counting juvenile races on dirt is better than counting 3yo races on a different surface from the Kentucky Derby. Animal Kingdom, Master of Hounds, and Brilliant Speed have combined to do absolutely zero on a dirt surface, yet have secured spots in the starting gate over horses that have.

it's not the issue of two year old form, it's the issue of encouraging more starts at three, and having good three year olds in the derby-as opposed to a good two year old who may have been surpassed by his peers a few months later-but he earned enough last season to play this season.

[rpncaine]

How about one that thinks it would!

It's perfect. The "earnings" don't matter, it's the points for a Graded race. Keeps the inflated slot purses from being over emphasized! If only Churchill would consider this kind of change.

[3kings]

Originally Posted by jms62

They should use a point system for graded stakes

GI 30 pts total 1st 18 2nd 6 3rd-4th 3
GII 20 pts total 1st 12 2nd 4 3rd-4th 2
GII 10 pts total 1st 6 2nd 2 3rd-4th 1

Make the graded preps meaningful and maybe with such a defined path the networks may get interested. Maybe switch the schedule so every 2 weeks we have 3 races on a sat, spread out over an hour so the networks have a defined block of content. They can focus on the back stories and show the races. The ultimate reality show. Now being horseplayers I expect a hundred responses why this won't work.

I think a system similar to this could work. Let 2 year old Graded races be worth half as many points.

[slotdirt]

I don't agree with basing Derby entry solely on 2YO form, though I completely agree that earnings from any surface that isn't dirt shouldn't count. We know that would never happen though because Keeneland isn't getting rid of poly anytime soon.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by Danzig

it's not the issue of two year old form, it's the issue of encouraging more starts at three, and having good three year olds in the derby-as opposed to a good two year old who may have been surpassed by his peers a few months later-but he earned enough last season to play this season.

This might make sense theoretically, but where is the evidence that the Derby is regularly inundated with over-the-hill 2yos?

I can think of two offhand that perhaps should not have been in the Derby, those being Capote and Action This Day (who actually didn't run that bad).

Meanwhile horses that were successful in the Triple Crown like Mine That Bird, Giacomo, Funny Cide, Real Quiet, Timber Country, Go For Gin, Sea Hero, Best Pal, Alysheba, Ferdinand, Tejano Run, Lemon Drop Kid, Birdstone, Proud Citizen, A.P. Valentine, Louis Quatorze, and Gate Dancer all possibly could have been held out of the Kentucky Derby because they didn't happen to win a significant prep race.

While I, too, would like to see these horses race a couple of more times before the TC, "encouraging" them to win prep races is not the answer. In fact, the competition to win these lesser races (with overstuffed purse money) is probably one of the reasons why trainers nowadays only bring them out a couple of times before Churchill. How many winning efforts can a typical 3yo horse uncork in a 5-month span?

[jms62]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

This might make sense theoretically, but where is the evidence that the Derby is regularly inundated with over-the-hill 2yos?

I can think of two offhand that perhaps should not have been in the Derby, those being Capote and Action This Day (who actually didn't run that bad).

Meanwhile horses that were successful in the Triple Crown like Mine That Bird, Giacomo, Funny Cide, Real Quiet, Timber Country, Go For Gin, Sea Hero, Best Pal, Alysheba, Ferdinand, Tejano Run, Lemon Drop Kid, Birdstone, Proud Citizen, A.P. Valentine, Louis Quatorze, and Gate Dancer all possibly could have been held out of the Kentucky Derby because they didn't happen to win a significant prep race.

While I, too, would like to see these horses race a couple of more times before the TC, "encouraging" them to win prep races is not the answer. In fact, the competition to win these lesser races (with overstuffed purse money) is probably one of the reasons why trainers nowadays only bring them out a couple of times before Churchill. How many winning efforts can a typical 3yo horse uncork in a 5-month span?

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein, (attributed)

Rollo... Status Quo isn't working and hasn't for quite some time. You say
"While I, too, would like to see these horses race a couple of more times before the TC, "encouraging" them to win prep races is not the answer. " yet you offer no potential answers.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by jms62

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
Albert Einstein, (attributed)

Rollo... Status Quo isn't working and hasn't for quite some time. You say
"While I, too, would like to see these horses race a couple of more times before the TC, "encouraging" them to win prep races is not the answer. " yet you offer no potential answers.

Actually, I was the one who started this line of discussion. I suggested that earnings from graded stakes on the turf and synthetic surfaces should not count. The effects would be eliminating the unaccomplished-on-dirt horses from consideration while allowing talented but earnings-challenged runners to make it to the starting gate.

Your points system has been suggested before, but the problem is it still includes irrelevant races like the Blue Grass and Spiral.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

The effects would be eliminating the unaccomplished-on-dirt horses from consideration while allowing talented but earnings-challenged runners to make it to the starting gate.

While not suggesting that the current system is perfect, aside from maybe Dance City, is there any horse that fits this description? For that matter, over the past decade or so, how many horses that were perceived as potentially legitimate contenders were excluded because of insufficient earnings? The only two that I can think of off the top of my head are Sunday Break and Rock Hard Ten.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

While not suggesting that the current system is perfect, aside from maybe Dance City, is there any horse that fits this description? For that matter, over the past decade or so, how many horses that were perceived as potentially legitimate contenders were excluded because of insufficient earnings? The only two that I can think of off the top of my head are Sunday Break and Rock Hard Ten.

Santiva, Sway Away, Anthony's Cross, Shackleford, and Watch Me Go all are on the outside looking in because 3 or 4 turf horses have secured spots. Yet all those have been 1st or 2nd in important prep races on dirt.

As far as previous years, I'd have to take a closer look. It was only recently that they restricted the field to 20 horses, too, so historically there probably haven't been too many "left out" horses.

However, I'm taking the stance that this is an emerging trend (ie turf no-hopers from the poly preps taking up spots in the starting gate), not necessarily one that has taken a firm hold. It was savvy of Tom Albertrani and Mike Maker to capitalize on the turf-friendly nature of the Keeneland main track when gobs of money are up for grabs, but it sucks that they would go ahead and show up for the Derby with very little real hope of winning.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Santiva, Sway Away, Anthony's Cross, Shackleford, and Watch Me Go all are on the outside looking in because 3 or 4 turf horses have secured spots. Yet all those have been 1st or 2nd in important prep races on dirt.

As far as previous years, I'd have to take a closer look. It was only recently that they restricted the field to 20 horses, too, so historically there probably haven't been too many "left out" horses.

Would any of those horses be less than 20-1, even in this watered down field?

I believe that the field size restriction has been in place since the 1970s; it's only in the past decade or so, when decisions about entering the Derby seem to be more about "do I qualify" than "do I fit," that a twenty-horse field has become the norm.

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Would any of those horses be less than 20-1, even in this watered down field?

I believe that the field size restriction has been in place since the 1970s; it's only in the past decade or so, when decisions about entering the Derby seem to be more about "do I qualify" than "do I fit," that a twenty-horse field has become the norm.

Yeah, I was confused about the field size issue. I guess they were looking to restrict it even further in the wake of Eight Belles. Had it in my head that there were more than 20 horses a couple of times in the '80s.

Anyways, the main point is that horses like Brilliant Speed and Animal Kingdom don't deserve to be in the race over several other horses just because they won irrelevant races that used to be important preps. If they were viable contenders all along, then they would have been in races like the Fountain of Youth or the Holy Bull. Clearly they were entered in the Kentucky races because of the popular notion that turf form translates to polytrack. Now they get a free ride to Churchill likely to end with a "no factor" running line.

While the horses I mentioned aren't top contenders, at least a couple of them potentially could hit the board. I'm sure bettors, particularly exotics players, would be more interested in those with at least some dirt form than horses that are practically automatic tosses.

[parsixfarms]

Originally Posted by RolloTomasi

Yeah, I was confused about the field size issue. I guess they were looking to restrict it even further in the wake of Eight Belles. Had it in my head that there were more than 20 horses a couple of times in the '80s.

Anyways, the main point is that horses like Brilliant Speed and Animal Kingdom don't deserve to be in the race over several other horses just because they won irrelevant races that used to be important preps. If they were viable contenders all along, then they would have been in races like the Fountain of Youth or the Holy Bull. Clearly they were entered in the Kentucky races because of the popular notion that turf form translates to polytrack. Now they get a free ride to Churchill likely to end with a "no factor" running line.

While the horses I mentioned aren't top contenders, at least a couple of them potentially could hit the board. I'm sure bettors, particularly exotics players, would be more interested in those with at least some dirt form than horses that are practically automatic tosses.

I understand your point but I just don't know how you can come up with hard and fast rules, like only earnings in dirt races will count. What if a European star like Frankel wanted to take a shot at the Derby? Would the race be better off saying that he couldn't run because he had never run on dirt?

[RolloTomasi]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

I understand your point but I just don't know how you can come up with hard and fast rules, like only earnings in dirt races will count.

To me, it's very logical that only dirt races should count, or at least carry more weight than turf/synthetic races.

What if a European star like Frankel wanted to take a shot at the Derby? Would the race be better off saying that he couldn't run because he had never run on dirt?

Some remote possibility such as a heavy favorite for the English classics bypassing those races to run in the Kentucky Derby instead is hardly a reason to keep things as they are.

[Indian Charlie]

Instead of perhaps getting rid of 2yo earnings, I'd toss sprint earnings.

By sprint, I mean anything under a mile. The number of turns would be irrelevant.

Not that any of this really matters.