Dunkirk Mismanaged?

[MickJ26]

Why didn't the connections of Dunkirk (Magnier/Smith/Tabor, etc.) ship Dunkirk to England to run in the "win and you're in" race? They're based in England and employ Europe's number 1 trainer, Aidan O'Brien. Since Dunkirk is a late developing three year old, he wins the race and therefore doesn't have to worry about graded stakes earnings, then they ship him back to the Pletcher barn and voila, in the starting gate first Saturday in May.

Or, since the connections are England based, really couldn't care less whether or not Dunkirk runs in the Derby. Their operation is breeding based, not necessarily racing based. Dunkirk runs next in the Peter Pan and the Belmont (wins both), following the same path as A.P. Indy, and get more for their stallion fee than if he won the Derby and then vanished into mediocrity (Giacomo).

If you're a slick, American trainer and you have a late blooming Derby prospect who doesn't run at two years old, why not ship to England? Then you just sit back and watch your competitors scramble to get enough graded stakes earnings.

Just my silly, conspiracy-theory based observations.

[FlyinLate]

Why didn't the connections of Dunkirk (Magnier/Smith/Tabor, etc.) ship Dunkirk to England to run in the "win and you're in" race? They're based in England and employ Europe's number 1 trainer, Aidan O'Brien. Since Dunkirk is a late developing three year old, he wins the race and therefore doesn't have to worry about graded stakes earnings, then they ship him back to the Pletcher barn and voila, in the starting gate first Saturday in May.

Or, since the connections are England based, really couldn't care less whether or not Dunkirk runs in the Derby. Their operation is breeding based, not necessarily racing based. Dunkirk runs next in the Peter Pan and the Belmont (wins both), following the same path as A.P. Indy, and get more for their stallion fee than if he won the Derby and then vanished into mediocrity (Giacomo).

If you're a slick, American trainer and you have a late blooming Derby prospect who doesn't run at two years old, why not ship to England? Then you just sit back and watch your competitors scramble to get enough graded stakes earnings.

Just my silly, conspiracy-theory based observations.



Why in God's name would a trainer ship his horse overseas twice in such a small period of time just to have to do the same thing over there. If he lost the win & your in, he isn't in and is in the same boat as losing the FL Derby except now his horse was shipped halfway around the globe, twice.

[strapper]

Well, hindsight is always easy. Question is what will they do now to make him eligible? I would just wait for the Preakness.

[rjorio]

Shipping aside,most American horses run on medication not allowed in Europe.

[MickJ26]

Why in God's name would a trainer ship his horse overseas twice in such a small period of time just to have to do the same thing over there. If he lost the win & your in, he isn't in and is in the same boat as losing the FL Derby except now his horse was shipped halfway around the globe, twice.



If your horse finishes up the track in the English race, then you probably have no business running in the Derby anyway. Distance wise, from New York/Florida to England probably isn't that much different than California to and from New York/Florida, other than quarantine. By the time he goes into the starting gate, I Want Revenge will have criss-crossed the United States 2 1/2 times. Dunkirk's owners are based in England and he'll probably enter stud duty there as well. Dunkirk would go into Aidan O'Brien's barn and would be in good hands. Just a hypothetical situation.

[Grits]

(Magnier/Smith/Tabor, etc.)


Or, since the connections are England based, really couldn't care less whether or not Dunkirk runs in the Derby. Their operation is breeding based, not necessarily racing based. Dunkirk runs next in the Peter Pan and the Belmont (wins both), following the same path as A.P. Indy, and get more for their stallion fee than if he won the Derby and then vanished into mediocrity (Giacomo).

If you're a slick, American trainer and you have a late blooming Derby prospect who doesn't run at two years old, why not ship to England? Then you just sit back and watch your competitors scramble to get enough graded stakes earnings.



I believe you may be underestimating Michael Tabor, John Magnier, and Derrick Smith's desire to win ANY and ALL races they can, here, in our country, sportsmen's reputations and all like that--which they surely portray. (George Washington comes to mind in the unfortunate sense) By the same token, on many occasions they've been far, far more successful, Rags' Belmont being one of many.

Further reading indicates some to feel the Kempton race truly is a joke and a crummy decision on CDI's part. But then, I guess one could pretty well conclude the braintrust that runs CDI ranks up there with AIG as far as greed goes.

Were I Pletcher I'd be mad as fire as well.

From Gary West who also finds the whole affair pretty stupid:

http://startelegramsports.typepad.com/west_points/2009/03/whose-derby-is-it-anyway.html

[DrugS]

Why didn't the connections of Dunkirk (Magnier/Smith/Tabor, etc.) ship Dunkirk to England to run in the "win and you're in" race?


:lol:

[cj's dad]

Further reading indicates some to feel the Kempton race truly is a joke and a crummy decision on CDI's part. But then, I guess one could pretty well conclude the braintrust that runs CDI ranks up there with AIG as far as greed goes.


Keeping in mind that CDI is the same outfit that bypassed qualified American born announcers to hire Britians Mark Johnson.

Maybe he had it as a stipulationin his contract to include the Kempton race as a qualifier for the KD.

[Bruddah]

Keeping in mind that CDI is the same outfit that bypassed qualified American born announcers to hire Britians Mark Johnson.

Maybe he had it as a stipulationin his contract to include the Kempton race as a qualifier for the KD.

If you guys/gals don't see the ploy to "Internationalize" American horse racing to fit the Euro's, then some of you weren't born with eye sight. The "Blue Bloods" want to eventually rename the Triple Crown to something like the Kings Crown and the Ky Derby to the International Derby. The folks at Keeneland and CDI are laying the foundation. Beware!! Anyone ready for a one currency world? :( :faint:

[WinterTriangle]

[B]

If you guys/gals don't see the ploy to "Internationalize" American horse racing to fit the Euro's, then some of you weren't born with eye sight.

Maybe we should end the Olympics too, since every cooperative effort which includes doing things with other people in the world is predicated on some kind of conspiracy theory. ;)

I would have been happy if the place horse, Spring of Fame, had won and come over. Nice dirt pedigree, 2 turns, powerful closer. Would have been an actual contender, IMHO.

[Relwob Owner]

Maybe we should end the Olympics too, since every cooperative effort which includes doing things with other people in the world is predicated on some kind of conspiracy theory. ;)

I would have been happy if the place horse, Spring of Fame, had won and come over. Nice dirt pedigree, 2 turns, powerful closer. Would have been an actual contender, IMHO.


In my opinion, I dont think the Internationalization idea is a conspiracy theory....I think it is a reality that is starting now. Foreign outfits have recently scooped up big breeding outfits based here, scooped up Derbyy contenders and taken them abroad and now, are involved in a "win and you are in" deal for the Derby.....I hope it is a cooperative effort but there is no denying that the sport is spreading out and the motivations of people here have a right to be questioned

[WinterTriangle]

In my opinion, I dont think the Internationalization idea is a conspiracy theory....I think it is a reality that is starting now. Foreign outfits have recently scooped up big breeding outfits based here, scooped up Derbyy contenders and taken them abroad and now, are involved in a "win and you are in" deal for the Derby.....I hope it is a cooperative effort but there is no denying that the sport is spreading out and the motivations of people here have a right to be questioned

Well, I see your point but if not a cooperative thing, then I guess the practical side of me just thinks "ah, we live in a world where everything is for sale". That said, I tend not to think that $$$$-motivated endeavors are conspiratorial so much as the way things are, if that makes any sense.

[Relwob Owner]

Well, I see your point but if not a cooperative thing, then I guess the practical side of me just thinks "ah, we live in a world where everything is for sale". That said, I tend not to think that $$$$-motivated endeavors are conspiratorial so much as the way things are, if that makes any sense.

It does make sense...I guess a fair way to look at things, esp in Horse Racing is that most things are a big conspiracy by most involved to make money!:)

[Bruddah]

Maybe we should end the Olympics too, since every cooperative effort which includes doing things with other people in the world is predicated on some kind of conspiracy theory. ;)

I would have been happy if the place horse, Spring of Fame, had won and come over. Nice dirt pedigree, 2 turns, powerful closer. Would have been an actual contender, IMHO.

The Olympics have been around for centuries and the recent Olympic format for approx. a century. Your retort is a far stretch and has nothing to do with horse racing. While trying to make my post to be a rant by a right wing conspiratist, you have exposed your own weakness. In fact, you are not Blind but certainly have your Mind and Eyes closed.

[point given]

It does make sense...I guess a fair way to look at things, esp in Horse Racing is that most things are a big conspiracy by most involved to make money!:)

Aye ! I remember when I was a wee lad, I used to go to the old Madison Square garden in NYC to see the New York rangers play in the National Hockey League. There were 6 teams in the league then, before expansion with mostly all canadian players with a couple of US players. Now there are 30 teams. Players come from all over the globe to play . Soooooo.... its logical that horseracing is looking to expand their market since they cannot market their own very well at home . Slots and market expansion , the new recipe for US racing .

[Robert Fischer]

The Kempton race was not a good fit for Dunkirk. You can't just take a good horse to that race, they also have to like that surface.

The UAE Derby would have been interesting. It would have been a difficult travel plan and an unorthodox heavily criticized strategy. The track came up as difficult for closers as did the Gulfstream track, but there was no Quality Road there.

Dunkirk could have also done something unorthodox like debuting in a stakes, or going straight from his maiden (skipping the allowance) to a race like the Southwest.

[Irish Boy]

[B]

If you guys/gals don't see the ploy to "Internationalize" American horse racing to fit the Euro's, then some of you weren't born with eye sight. The "Blue Bloods" want to eventually rename the Triple Crown to something like the Kings Crown and the Ky Derby to the International Derby. The folks at Keeneland and CDI are laying the foundation. Beware!! Anyone ready for a one currency world? :( :faint:

Do you find it difficult to sleep with all that tin foil on your head?

[miesque]

In my opinion, I dont think the Internationalization idea is a conspiracy theory....I think it is a reality that is starting now. Foreign outfits have recently scooped up big breeding outfits based here, scooped up Derbyy contenders and taken them abroad and now, are involved in a "win and you are in" deal for the Derby.....I hope it is a cooperative effort but there is no denying that the sport is spreading out and the motivations of people here have a right to be questioned

I actually more or less agree with you and Bruddah. Globalization has been occuring for some time and not just in horse racing. I view the gradual globalization that is occuring to be inevitable, the question is where it is leading and how much things will change. However, make no mistake about it, things will be different. That does not make it bad or good, I personally don't mind the globalization changes because that is not what is wrong with racing and in fact in some ways, it will in the end help racing. As you pointed out for many years the best horses each year at the sales have been acquired by foreign owners and sent overseas. The combined economic value of these purchases is pretty staggering accounting for billions of dollars. Now from where I see it, US racing has basically stood alone in somewhat of a bubble with the exception of the events such as the Breeders Cup. US racing is primarily on the dirt and over the past twenty years, its been concentrated more and more on dirt sprints with the overemphasis on speed at the expense of stamina. At the same time, US racing has also taken an extremely lax attitude towards medication, with in many ways the introduction of Lasix being a calalyst since it makes detection much more difficult of many medications. Meanwhile the vast majority of the racing world has been racing on Turf and somehow managing to also racing without Lasix and other medications. The net impact is that American horses are able to show their superiority on dirt, but can only be described as woefully inadequate on the Turf. If you want to look at it from an outsiders perspective, in some ways, American dirt racing is a niche sport, its a specialty since its a subset of the global Thoroughbred racing community. I personally am of the viewpoint that a surface that the most number of horses can compete on will show which horses are indeed The Best and the truth of the matter is from a Global perspective that surface is not the dirt. Again, you may not like what I am getting at, but its an explanation from where I see it of what is happening.

[Grits]

A surface that the greatest number of horses can compete on?

It is not turf, it is dirt.

A fact is being excluded in these thoughts on globalization.

America is the leading breeder of Thoroughbreds in the world. Not Europe, not Dubai, not Africa, not Argentina.

If I/you/they/anyone--wants to race, soley, on turf that is fine, continue to do so. You have this choice. To globalize racing to turf only, where are all of the horses, the other 98% who clear the entry box each and everyday going to be running?

Why should an entire industry, as we have known it for all of its 100+ years, have to conform to turf racing and training, determining there's no longer any place for dirt or 30k claimers? Consider the miniscule number of horses who reach the level being spoken of here. Consider the breeders whose horses go through the sales ring throughout the year for not even 1/10th of the pricetag of these elite few. Sure, the handfull (hell, not even a handfull) from other parts of the world show up and invest their money. Still, they continue to take them home preferring to "do it their way", and consequently, how many have won the Kentucky Derby, or the Breeders' Cup races sans the turf events? Until this year, the record of success remains abysmal. The ONLY reason the Breeders' Cup results stand elevated in the eyes of those from other continents this year is due to having synthetic shoved down our collective throats. And its obvious, still, that ain't working out so well for us on the other 364 days a year.

There is nothing wrong with inclusion, but to suggest globalization to benefit only 3% or less of an entire population of horseflesh? An entire industry and the people who work in it each and everyday who don't (and more than likely never will breed or be in this elite group) changing OUR way of racing on dirt to THEIR way of racing on turf, exclusively--all in view of the fact that WE are, still, the world leader in breeding and racing thoroughbreds?

This seems wrong to me on multiple levels.

And its surely wrong when CDI opts to allow "Nonamedonenothing at Wherever" because he runandwon.

He's assured a place, therefore, disallowing Dunkirk or any other horse who has run in the U.S?

Yeah boys, we're taking it global, we're on an international level now, there's no stopping our forward moving and thinking.

Hello, China, have we got a farm for you! You think shrimp and catfish farming is lucrative?

[Bobzilla]

I actually more or less agree with you and Bruddah. Globalization has been occuring for some time and not just in horse racing. I view the gradual globalization that is occuring to be inevitable, the question is where it is leading and how much things will change. However, make no mistake about it, things will be different. That does not make it bad or good, I personally don't mind the globalization changes because that is not what is wrong with racing and in fact in some ways, it will in the end help racing. As you pointed out for many years the best horses each year at the sales have been acquired by foreign owners and sent overseas. The combined economic value of these purchases is pretty staggering accounting for billions of dollars. Now from where I see it, US racing has basically stood alone in somewhat of a bubble with the exception of the events such as the Breeders Cup. US racing is primarily on the dirt and over the past twenty years, its been concentrated more and more on dirt sprints with the overemphasis on speed at the expense of stamina. At the same time, US racing has also taken an extremely lax attitude towards medication, with in many ways the introduction of Lasix being a calalyst since it makes detection much more difficult of many medications. Meanwhile the vast majority of the racing world has been racing on Turf and somehow managing to also racing without Lasix and other medications. The net impact is that American horses are able to show their superiority on dirt, but can only be described as woefully inadequate on the Turf. If you want to look at it from an outsiders perspective, in some ways, American dirt racing is a niche sport, its a specialty since its a subset of the global Thoroughbred racing community. I personally am of the viewpoint that a surface that the most number of horses can compete on will show which horses are indeed The Best and the truth of the matter is from a Global perspective that surface is not the dirt. Again, you may not like what I am getting at, but its an explanation from where I see it of what is happening.


Great post and I would agree with most of your explanation of what is happening. I would only differ insofar as I'm not as excited or accepting as you are of the current trend towards an universal racing surface. Though the movement is probably inevitable due to the long term econimies expected to be gained, I for one celebrate the North American tradition of a clear distinction between main track dirt racing and turf racing. My Viva La Difference approach of enjoying our two-sports-in-one brand of North American racing is born from a respect for tradition as well as my respect for the difference itself and the handicapping challenges it presents. I may come across as xenophobic, or at the very least provincial with my thoughts, but for myself a racecard with nothing but turf racing would be quite boring to me. I do understand that's how the majority of the world enjoys the sport. It was never more clear than in the wake of the most recent BC when Europeans offered praise magnanimously for our use of a so-called "level playing field" and seemingly welcomed us into the brave new world of international horse racing after we languished for too long in racing's dark ages (dirt). My own view was that the playing field was anything but level as we bent over backwards and kissed our own butts to appease our European friends. Anyway, I wish the on-again off-again debate over synthetics had included more discussion over the true impetus behind the movement and what it truly means in regard to how we can expect to enjoy the sport we love here in America in the future. Instead we had a public relations duping campaign to arrouse the passions of many well-intentioned people while the more appropriate premise from which to engage in argument was intentionally hidden.

I apoligize for the thread drift but I thought Miesque's post was too good not to respond to.

[Bobzilla]

A surface that the greatest number of horses can compete on?

It is not turf, it is dirt.

A fact is being excluded in these thoughts on globalization.

America is the leading breeder of Thoroughbreds in the world. Not Europe, not Dubai, not Africa, not Argentina.

If I/you/they/anyone--wants to race, soley, on turf that is fine, continue to do so. You have this choice. To globalize racing to turf only, where are all of the horses, the other 98% who clear the entry box each and everyday going to be running?

Why should an entire industry, as we have known it for all of its 100+ years, have to conform to turf racing and training, determining there's no longer any place for dirt or 30k claimers? Consider the miniscule number of horses who reach the level being spoken of here. Consider the breeders whose horses go through the sales ring throughout the year for not even 1/10th of the pricetag of these elite few. Sure, the handfull (hell, not even a handfull) from other parts of the world show up and invest their money. Still, they continue to take them home preferring to "do it their way", and consequently, how many have won the Kentucky Derby, or the Breeders' Cup races sans the turf events? Until this year, the record of success remains abysmal. The ONLY reason the Breeders' Cup results stand elevated in the eyes of those from other continents this year is due to having synthetic shoved down our collective throats. And its obvious, still, that ain't working out so well for us on the other 364 days a year.

There is nothing wrong with inclusion, but to suggest globalization to benefit only 3% or less of an entire population of horseflesh? An entire industry and the people who work in it each and everyday who don't (and more than likely never will breed or be in this elite group) changing OUR way of racing on dirt to THEIR way of racing on turf, exclusively--all in view of the fact that WE are, still, the world leader in breeding and racing thoroughbreds?

This seems wrong to me on multiple levels.

And its surely wrong when CDI opts to allow "Nonamedonenothing at Wherever" because he runandwon.

He's assured a place, therefore, disallowing Dunkirk or any other horse who has run in the U.S?

Yeah boys, we're taking it global, we're on an international level now, there's no stopping our forward moving and thinking.

Hello, China, have we got a farm for you! You think shrimp and catfish farming is lucrative?


While I was responding to Miesque's post you had written one yourself which reflects what many of us feel about the "propitiation movement" towards the broader world of racing. You stated my argument better than I ever could have. Good post!!

[miesque]

I find its sometimes useful to "follow the big money" because it usually helps explain at least the "why" part of the equation. For a more specific example, both Coolmore and Godolphin have been solid supporters of synthetics for a while. Is it really that surprising that Keeneland installed a synthetic racing surface considering the revenue they have accrued from those two prominent outfits over the years?

[Grits]

Miesque, you actually believe Keeneland went to synthetic because Coolmore and Godolphin race in Europe on turf, and therefore, would have, or could exercise influence on Keeneland? The Keeneland Association has been in the business of sales and horseracing longer than Shiek Mo, Tabor, Magnier and Smith have been on the planet--big money or no money. These men are the reason, or one of, the primary reasons for, not only installing a new surface, but totally reconfiguring Keeneland's racecourse?

If this is the case, and following the big money leads you to an understanding of the why of such matters, how does this figure in for Arlington, Santa Anita, Turfway (partner of Keeneland), DelMar, Hollywood, Woodbine and others?

After you've arrived back home from your upcoming first time visit there, let me know who else you believe may have a hand at influencing Nick Nicholson and Keeneland's BofD on how to provide a better and a safer racing experience.

[miesque]

Actually it was just a thought that occured to me as I was writing about this topic. Its by no means enough to be the only reason, but it is a complimentary factor. In order words its a natural fit.

[samyn on the green]

If Dunkirk is excluded from the Derby it is good for the game. (http://gregcalabrese.blogspot.com/2009/04/dont-make-it-easier-for-horses-like.html)

[toussaud]

mismanaged yes, but no way in hell he should have went there

I have no problem with him starting late.

it's after his first start that gets me. ovbiously they thought they had s special horse, pletcher said so. so why are you wasting precious time in a prep allowence instead of a graded stakes race?

even give you that, after htat, why in the hell are you running in the florida derby? Why not the tampa bay derby and / the illinois derby or the arknasas derby with a 1 million dollar purse?

I'd be smoking hot if I were coolmore

[Moyers Pond]

Pletcher really should have considered the fact that the FL Derby was only worth $750,000. With only a few dirt options as preps he probably should have run in Arkansas with the larger purse. He must have wanted 5 weeks before the derby instead of 3.