PDA

View Full Version : Does Derby eligibility need revision?


Indulto
04-19-2010, 04:40 AM
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/04/15/2118902/there-needs-to-be-better-road.html
There needs to be better road to Kentucky Derby
By GARY WEST Apr. 15, 2010When Mine That Bird won last year, with his 50-1 odds and his modest credentials, he guaranteed that for the foreseeable future the entry box for the Kentucky Derby (http://topics.star-telegram.com/Horse_Races.html#navlink=inline_to_topics) will be full. Of course, even before Mine That Bird, Derby (http://topics.star-telegram.com/Shoot_Out_Tournament.html#navlink=inline_to_topics ) fever addled more minds than Sudoku, but this year the fever seems pandemic.

… Churchill Downs limits Derby entries to 20 based on earnings in graded stakes. But that system, if its purpose is to produce the most worthy group and the most competitive race, doesn't seem to be working very well. The system doesn't distinguish between races run on dirt and those run on other surfaces, including turf (http://topics.star-telegram.com/Turves.html#navlink=inline_to_topics); it doesn't distinguish between sprints and routes, or races run last year and this year. And it doesn't acknowledge that some stakes, such as the Wood Memorial and the Arkansas Derby, have become over the years a proving ground for Derby talent.

… about 40 horses are aimed at the Kentucky Derby (http://topics.star-telegram.com/Kentucky_Derby.html#navlink=inline_to_topics), which will be run in 15 days. At least half of those horses haven't given anybody, except perhaps their feverish owners, reason to believe they could be competitive at Churchill at 1 1/4 miles against the best 3-year-olds in the country.

… Trainer Wesley Ward recently explained that you only had to get into the starting gate for the Kentucky Derby to have a 1-in-20 chance of winning the race. That, of course, is unmitigated flapdoodle, inspired by Mine That Bird and Derby fever. Not every horse in the gate has the same chance of winning; all Derby horses aren't equal. The Kentucky Derby isn't a lottery.

And to inoculate owners against that feverish attitude, Churchill should revise its criterion for restricting the field. Just as all the horses in the starting gate for the Derby aren't equal, all graded stakes aren't equal, either.The fact that MTB qualified on the basis of his 2YO earnings is what keeps hope alive for thoroughbred owners and his placing in the Preakness proved he was no fluke. Still it might be worth considering a different merit-based approach that would probably ensure larger, more competitive fields in most Derby preps.

There are 26 graded Derby prep races at a mile or over, and 20 of them are 1 1/16 miles or longer including the UAE Derby. Suppose the latter group were designated as “win-and-you’re-in” with defections replaced in eligibility order by 1) mile grade prep winners with highest 3YO graded earnings, 2) G1 prep 2nd place finishers with highest 3YO graded earnings, 3) G2 prep 2nd place finishers etc., …, 7) G3 3rd place finishers with highest 3YO graded earnings, 8) highest 3YO graded earnings.

The likelihood that all Derby Starters would be 3YO graded prep winners or placers in the most recent and influential preps would be very high. It would emphasize performance over earnings and promote greater national interest in every such prep.

02/06 SA Robert B. Lewis S........[Sat] G2 .150000 3YO. ... .8.5f .

02/20 FG Risen Star S.............[Sat] G2 .300000 3YO. ... .8.5f .
02/20-GGF-El Camino Real Derby......... G2 .150000 3YO. ... .9.0f .
02/20-GP -Fountain Of Youth............ G2 .250000 3YO. ... .9.0f .

02/27 SA Sham S...................[Sat] G3 .200000 3YO. ... .9.0f .

03/06 AQU Gotham..................[Sat] G3 .250000 3YO. ... .8.5f .

03/13 OP Rebel....................[Sat] G2 .300000 3YO. ... .8.5f .
03/13-SA -San Felipe S................. G2 .150000 3YO. ... .8.5f .
03/13-TAM-Tampa Bay Derby.............. G3 .300000 3YO. ... .8.5f .

03/20 GP Florida Derby............[Sat] G1 .750000 3YO. ... .9.0f .
03/20-TP -Lane's End S................. G2 .500000 3YO. ... .9.0f .

03/27 FG Louisiana Derby..........[Sat] G2 .750000 3YO. ... .9.0f .
03/27-MEY-UAE Derby.................... G2 2000000 3YO. ... 9.5f .

03/28 SUN Sunland Derby...........[Sun] G3 .800000 3YO. ... .9.0f .

04/03 AQU Wood Memorial...........[Sat] G1 .750000 3YO. ... .9.0f .
04/03-HAW-Illinois Derby............... G3 .500000 3YO. ... .9.0f .
04/03-SA -Santa Anita Derby............ G1 .750000 3YO. ... .9.0f .

04/10 KEE Blue Grass..............[Sat] G1 .750000 3YO. ... .9.0f .
04/10-OP -Arkansas Derby............... G1 1000000 3YO. ... .9.0f .

04/17 KEE Lexington...............[Sat] G2 .300000 3YO. ... .8.5f .

rastajenk
04-19-2010, 05:58 AM
"It would emphasize performance over earnings and promote greater national interest in every such prep."

How so?

I know Gary West's opinions are widely respected, but here I think he merely steps in line with the wah-wah-wah crowd, the kind that knows they always have a better way. It just subjective speculation that changes like these will make the field, and thus the race itself, better. Better than what? Better than last year's 50-1 shot winning with a stretch trip for the ages? Would a winner under a new system have more Derby cred, more historical dignity, than Big Brown, Street Sense, Barbaro, Smarty Jones, Funny Cide, War Emblem, Monarchos, and Fu Peg? Doubtful. How many of these winners from the past decade won only because they beat a weak field of over-the-top milers instead of the best of the best of the best, sir? None of 'em. Every year the Derby has a few that "don't belong," but so what? Somehow the Derb maintains its position in the sports world in spite of the handwringers.

Prove that changes like these do anything other than stroke your egos and I'll listen. It gets brought up every year, and no one has ever come up why it would be an improvement.

Java Gold@TFT
04-19-2010, 06:18 AM
Personally I don't have a problem with counting graded stakes run at different distances or different surfaces. What I don't agree with is honoring bloated purse money. Go back to the original BC points system or something to that effect. All G-I's get points on a 15-10-7 basis, G-II's 10-7-5 and G-III's 5-3-1. I have no problem with the winner of the Hopeful getting 15 points while the winner of the Sunland Derby gets 5 points rather than the descrepency in the purse values. As races like the Blue Grass and Lexington get downgraded due to the week fields on poly, things will even out.

OTM Al
04-19-2010, 09:19 AM
Does it need revision? No. Everyone knows what the rules are and which races pay big and which ones don't, so on that basis, it is completely fair.

The only way you wouldn't think this system is fair is if you felt there was injustice that the Delta Jackpot and Sunland Derby have more influence in getting runners to the starting gate than long established races like the Bluegrass, Wood and Santa Anita Derby.

I've often felt a simple tweak could fix this "problem", which I've mentioned before. The minimum value for a Gr1 is $250,000, $150,000 for a Gr 2 and $100,000 for a Gr 3. I would suggest that only that part of the total purse should count, so if the payout of a Gr1 is 60%/20%/10%/5%/5% (to keep it simple) then the winner should only count $150,000 toward the Derby earnings no matter what the total purse is. Likewise the winner of a Gr2 with this payout stucture would only count $90,000, etc...This is of course just as ad hoc as any other scheme though, including the current one.

Robert Goren
04-19-2010, 09:38 AM
Does it need revision? No. Everyone knows what the rules are and which races pay big and which ones don't, so on that basis, it is completely fair.

The only way you wouldn't think this system is fair is if you felt there was injustice that the Delta Jackpot and Sunland Derby have more influence in getting runners to the starting gate than long established races like the Bluegrass, Wood and Santa Anita Derby.

I've often felt a simple tweak could fix this "problem", which I've mentioned before. The minimum value for a Gr1 is $250,000, $150,000 for a Gr 2 and $100,000 for a Gr 3. I would suggest that only that part of the total purse should count, so if the payout of a Gr1 is 60%/20%/10%/5%/5% (to keep it simple) then the winner should only count $150,000 toward the Derby earnings no matter what the total purse is. Likewise the winner of a Gr2 with this payout stucture would only count $90,000, etc...This is of course just as ad hoc as any other scheme though, including the current one.Your minimum values are too low. They run overnights for 100k and Mdn for 80k. Grade 1 should be at least 500k Grade 2 350k Grade 3 200K. The more traditional races need to put their money where there mouth is or lose their status. Eventually the horses will follow the money. JMO

Tom
04-19-2010, 09:39 AM
They should revise the number of entrants, if anything.
20 is a joke. The Derby is pretty much a joke these days. If you are lucky enough to catch some of the crazy long shots, great, but give me a 14 horse field with TRUE contenders, and I will be happy ( for a few minutes, anyway!)

How about this - minimum two 1-2 finishes in a grade 1 dirt route to be eligible? Sorry SA, KEE, but YOU put the rug down...now live with it.

46zilzal
04-19-2010, 09:49 AM
Does it need revision? No. Everyone knows what the rules are and which races pay big and which ones don't, so on that basis, it is completely fair.

.
yup

OTM Al
04-19-2010, 09:52 AM
Your minimum values are too low. They run overnights for 100k and Mdn for 80k. Grade 1 should be at least 500k Grade 2 350k Grade 3 200K. The more traditional races need to put their money where there mouth is or lose their status. Eventually the horses will follow the money. JMO

Point is, those numbers are as completely ad hoc as anything else. Only reason I picked the ones I did is because at least there is a basis for them. Following Gr1s is more about following the money than big purses. The breeding shed is worth a lot more than purses for grade 1 winners.

Robert Goren
04-19-2010, 10:06 AM
In the long run tradition always loses out to money. Most of the time in the short run too. Owners will quickly adapted and start running their best horses in big money races if they want to run in the Derby. It may take a few years because owners as generally are not the brightest lights in the parking garage or they would not own a race horse in the first place. JMO

kenwoodallpromos
04-19-2010, 12:45 PM
You can have all the different types of qualifications you want, but if you have either 1 horse who has the nerve to, or 18 jockeys too stupid to, run along the rail, someone will be complaining!

Foolish Pleasure
04-19-2010, 03:42 PM
Need more win and you're in races in the UK.
Need more basis in arbitrary rankings like graded status.
Need more horses should goto 96 like the NCAA tourney.



LAst thing on planet earth the sport needs is a mostly objective system that neither the corrupt or incompetent can damage.

Linny
04-19-2010, 04:05 PM
Personally I don't have a problem with counting graded stakes run at different distances or different surfaces. What I don't agree with is honoring bloated purse money. Go back to the original BC points system or something to that effect. All G-I's get points on a 15-10-7 basis, G-II's 10-7-5 and G-III's 5-3-1. I have no problem with the winner of the Hopeful getting 15 points while the winner of the Sunland Derby gets 5 points rather than the descrepency in the purse values. As races like the Blue Grass and Lexington get downgraded due to the week fields on poly, things will even out.

No matter how bad the Blue Grass is I can't see it being downgraded, ever. You could make the case that the Blue Grass and the Sunland Derby were about on par in terms of true Derby potential and their purses were quite similar. If that is true, then why call the Sunland Derby a race with a bloated purse while standing in reverence of the Blue Grass.
Like or not those "fake races" will being to draw better fields and the established races, especially those on synthetic, will attract fewer true contenders, yet keep their graded status do to tradition and the GSC not wanting to ruffle the feathers of Keeneland or Santa Anita.
The fact is that everyone has to play by the same rules. Graded stakes money gets you in. If, as a trainer you couldn't become one of the top 20 3yo's in graded earnings by entry time either you failed or your horse is just not good enough. Win a graded race or two at age 2 and you can ease off a bit in the winter/spring but if you can't get your colt to the races until late Feb. and he has no graded earnings going into the last round of preps, no matter how much promise he shows, does he really belong there?
These guys want to pussyfoot around and treat perfectly sound 2yo's like Ming vases and not run until late Nov then gear up for a classics bid. Meanwhile other horses are winning stakes and accumulating earnings that they have foregone, on purpose. I can't feel bad for them when they cry that their horse is the greatest 3yo since Citation but they can't get him in the gate for the Derby.

PhantomOnTour
04-19-2010, 04:19 PM
A points system instead of a money earned system is far too logical and sensible for the American t'bred industry to adopt. A previous poster broke down a scoring system for G1 G2 and G3 preps and it looks good to me. Give routes more points than sprints and you're all set.
In regard to 2yr old graded stakes, I would give them equal value to 3yr old graded stakes. A brilliant 2yr old who wins a graded race at Sar or Bel fall meet and then takes a long break should not be penalized, imo. Hell, I like a 2yr old who races once or twice and then takes the winter off.
I am up in the air about Dubai racing though. Should the UAE Derby (Gr3?) get equal points as a U.S. based prep? I say foreign preps be scored a bit lower than American/Canadian preps.

rastajenk
04-19-2010, 04:29 PM
But, again, I ask, what difference does it make? In the last decade, what horses were in their fields in place of more worthy others, and who were those more worthy others? How would this year's field be altered under different standards? Who is, right now, on the outside with a more deserving resume than those in the top twenty? And how does this mild form of tinkering make anything "better?"

Show Me the Wire
04-19-2010, 04:31 PM
I'll throwout a PA influenced idea. How about we pick the Derby starters based on speed figures? ;)

Outside of using speed figures, I don't see a need to change the format. As Indulto said MTB proved he belonged with his subsequent finishes in the remainig T.C. races.

46zilzal
04-19-2010, 04:36 PM
Kentucky is the epitome of the "old boys club," and owners/breeders are rewarded for supporting the game by seeing their colors parade while My Old Kentucky Home causes the tears to well up in all the eyes.

It is a built in reward system..Fellow named Perez, for years, had a colt in the Belmont that never stood a ghost of a chance, BUT he was a strong supporter at the sales and his entry was looked on favorably in that light.

Why not throw a bone to your biggest supporters?

PhantomOnTour
04-19-2010, 04:41 PM
The main thing i think it improves is that it may prevent a horse from winning a single prep with a big purse and making the Derby. Sunland is a great example. It has a huge purse, making it more 'important' than some of our traditional Gr1 preps...SunDerby is a Gr3. Endorsement now has more earnings than Jackson Bend, who ran 2nd in the Holy Bull, F'tn Youth, and Wood Mem. He also won 4 Stks races at age 2 with three of them being over 100k, but he is $170,000 short of Endorsement because that guy won a Gr3 up in the high sierra somewhere.
As for MTB last year: the SunDby wasn't graded but still had a big purse. He did win 3 or 4 Stks at age 2 though. I don't recall where he stood last year on earnings or if anyone was left out that really wanted in.

rastajenk
04-19-2010, 05:14 PM
So, are you claiming that the field would be somehow stronger if Endorsement were out and Jackson Bend were in? What about Interactif and Dublin, to name a couple others? At least Endorsement has won something (on the dirt, no less) in 2010. If I give you Jackson Bend, will that make Gary Wills and other change agents happier? May be, but I still don't see how.

PaceAdvantage
04-19-2010, 05:30 PM
I'll throwout a PA influenced idea. How about we pick the Derby starters based on speed figures? ;) Seriously...what would be wrong with that idea? Would it be any more/less flawed than what we have now?

How do we know a potential Derby winner hasn't been shut out since the formation of these current rules?

Show Me the Wire
04-19-2010, 05:39 PM
Seriously...what would be wrong with that idea? Would it be any more/less flawed than what we have now?

How do we know a potential Derby winner hasn't been shut out since the formation of these current rules?

I am waiting to hear the pros and cons from everyone else. So far there seems to be no interest.

46zilzal
04-19-2010, 05:42 PM
Most finals in the other types of racing, standard bred and q-horses, require horses to run in qualifying heats for entry into the final for the big bucks.

That is a more logical maneuver.

Show Me the Wire
04-19-2010, 05:44 PM
Very true, about qualifying heats. But they all are run on the same day, aren't they?

PhantomOnTour
04-19-2010, 07:28 PM
So, are you claiming that the field would be somehow stronger if Endorsement were out and Jackson Bend were in? What about Interactif and Dublin, to name a couple others? At least Endorsement has won something (on the dirt, no less) in 2010. If I give you Jackson Bend, will that make Gary Wills and other change agents happier? May be, but I still don't see how.
Yes, I think Jackson Bend is a more deserving candidate than Endorsement. Even though he hasn't won a race this year, he has taken on a much better group on more than one occasion. Remember Real Quiet, Funny Cide, Giacomo, and MTB won their first race of the year in the Derby.

JohnGalt1
04-19-2010, 07:55 PM
When we read about or develop a new handicapping method we first look at older races to see how it worked in the past before wagering real dollars.

Since the preps have been run for this year's derby, use the ideas that have been thrown out here.

What horses would be in the top 20 if points were based on the 15-10-7 for grade 1's 10-7-5 for grade 2's etc.

And for the idea of limiting the earnings, I think the example was $150k for a 500k race. Who would be the top 20 horses with this?

As for as speed figures determining the top 20, whose speed figures? Beyers, Bris, CJ's, the ones I make? This idea has the least chance of happening.

thespaah
04-19-2010, 10:01 PM
No matter how bad the Blue Grass is I can't see it being downgraded, ever. You could make the case that the Blue Grass and the Sunland Derby were about on par in terms of true Derby potential and their purses were quite similar. If that is true, then why call the Sunland Derby a race with a bloated purse while standing in reverence of the Blue Grass.
Like or not those "fake races" will being to draw better fields and the established races, especially those on synthetic, will attract fewer true contenders, yet keep their graded status do to tradition and the GSC not wanting to ruffle the feathers of Keeneland or Santa Anita.
The fact is that everyone has to play by the same rules. Graded stakes money gets you in. If, as a trainer you couldn't become one of the top 20 3yo's in graded earnings by entry time either you failed or your horse is just not good enough. Win a graded race or two at age 2 and you can ease off a bit in the winter/spring but if you can't get your colt to the races until late Feb. and he has no graded earnings going into the last round of preps, no matter how much promise he shows, does he really belong there?
These guys want to pussyfoot around and treat perfectly sound 2yo's like Ming vases and not run until late Nov then gear up for a classics bid. Meanwhile other horses are winning stakes and accumulating earnings that they have foregone, on purpose. I can't feel bad for them when they cry that their horse is the greatest 3yo since Citation but they can't get him in the gate for the Derby.Hmm. Based on your comments re: two year olds...why is it that 2yo's in training late in the season heading in to the BC, statistically not very successful in the TC races, particularly in the Derby?
I submit that 2yo's, especially those who were foaled later in the year are not ready for a grinding campaign. Yes there is a purpose for 2yo stakes and such. But I think those who desire to see their horse get into the Derby and have a legitiamte chance of winning, should send their horse home by the end of September. Let them fill out, gain bone and tendon strength and of course muscle up.
I am not suggesting going soft on a 2yo. What I am suggesting is a different set of priorities. A horses connections should choose one or the other. If they want startdom right away as a baby horse, so be it. If they want the TC, then go for that.
In any event, I do not think 2yo performance should apply to the criteria for the Derby. Perhaps that is a bit draconian. And would might raise and eyebrow or two over at BC LTD.
The way I see it is the connections are getting a THREE YEAR OLD ready for the TC. So what does performance as 2yo have to do with anything?
JMHO....

Linny
04-19-2010, 10:21 PM
There was a time when the classic bound 2yo was ready to run big in stakes at Saratoga, having won a maiden and maybe a stake at Belmont first. I started following racing in 1973, as many people my age did. Secretariat was not on my 9yo radar screen but by the time he won the Belmont he was. In retrospct I learned that he had won a stake at BEL before playing merry Hell with the Saratoga stakes program. Affirmed did the same.
I think the BC has changed the landscape of the 2yo divisions more than any other and as divided horses into "2yo's" and "Classic colts" and ne'er the twain shall meet.
Why not get him out at Saratoga or Del Mar (I'm in NY and Spa-centric, I admit) and maybe try the Hopeful or Futurity, then stop. If you show the speed and ability to winthe Futurity off a mid-August maiden at SAR, why should that mean less than than any other graded race. In theory the graded races bring together the best possbile at the time and place. I will grant that this path was vaguely tried by Eskendereya, whose graded was was the Pilgrim on grass and it was not his fault that the race lost it's grade when it came off. (In fact Eskenderya was one of 2 maidens in the field of 4 if I recall right.) I thnk they got overly ambitious and opted for the BC, but Zayat seems prone to that kind of move.

nijinski
04-19-2010, 10:42 PM
Hmm. Based on your comments re: two year olds...why is it that 2yo's in training late in the season heading in to the BC, statistically not very successful in the TC races, particularly in the Derby?
I submit that 2yo's, especially those who were foaled later in the year are not ready for a grinding campaign. Yes there is a purpose for 2yo stakes and such. But I think those who desire to see their horse get into the Derby and have a legitiamte chance of winning, should send their horse home by the end of September. Let them fill out, gain bone and tendon strength and of course muscle up.
I am not suggesting going soft on a 2yo. What I am suggesting is a different set of priorities. A horses connections should choose one or the other. If they want startdom right away as a baby horse, so be it. If they want the TC, then go for that.
In any event, I do not think 2yo performance should apply to the criteria for the Derby. Perhaps that is a bit draconian. And would might raise and eyebrow or two over at BC LTD.
The way I see it is the connections are getting a THREE YEAR OLD ready for the TC. So what does performance as 2yo have to do with anything?
JMHO....

I tend to agree with you , many of the the two year olds who won or ran big
in the BC Juvey are done by derby time.
Street Sense broke the drought ,a rare one.

We all know as well that She Be Wild ,is out of the Oaks
The statistics are quite strong against these winners and a Derby victory.

thespaah
04-19-2010, 11:11 PM
There was a time when the classic bound 2yo was ready to run big in stakes at Saratoga, having won a maiden and maybe a stake at Belmont first. I started following racing in 1973, as many people my age did. Secretariat was not on my 9yo radar screen but by the time he won the Belmont he was. In retrospct I learned that he had won a stake at BEL before playing merry Hell with the Saratoga stakes program. Affirmed did the same.
I think the BC has changed the landscape of the 2yo divisions more than any other and as divided horses into "2yo's" and "Classic colts" and ne'er the twain shall meet.
Why not get him out at Saratoga or Del Mar (I'm in NY and Spa-centric, I admit) and maybe try the Hopeful or Futurity, then stop. If you show the speed and ability to winthe Futurity off a mid-August maiden at SAR, why should that mean less than than any other graded race. In theory the graded races bring together the best possbile at the time and place. I will grant that this path was vaguely tried by Eskendereya, whose graded was was the Pilgrim on grass and it was not his fault that the race lost it's grade when it came off. (In fact Eskenderya was one of 2 maidens in the field of 4 if I recall right.) I thnk they got overly ambitious and opted for the BC, but Zayat seems prone to that kind of move.
There was a time. Yes And I remember well the exploits of Affirmed. In fact I was at the 1977 Hopeful. I have the program right here.
That was a different time.
Yes the theory of graded races is to bring together the best horses. However there are so many graded stakes scheduled close together or even on the same day such that tracks across the country are competing for the same horses. This allows trainers to cross enter their horses and then check to see which ones pass the entry box then that trainer can shall we say "pick his battles". What we end up seeing is a plethora of graded races with short fields. That's a little off topic. The point is yes you are corect 2yo races can count for something..In a perfect world. But the world isn't perfect and we have a screwball system. One other thing. To bring 20 horses to post for the Derby is ridiculous. 14 is enough. The Preakness, Belmont and Breeders Cup have seen fit to limit their respective fields to 14.

rastajenk
04-20-2010, 08:41 AM
Yes, I think Jackson Bend is a more deserving candidate than Endorsement. Ahh, yes, thank you for proving my point. You think so. And just because you think so, you're for changing the system. Shouldn't there be some better evidence than that? Haven't heard any yet.

:)

Thomas Roulston
04-20-2010, 09:30 AM
Basing Derby eligibility on purse earnings is inherently unfair. Why should a horse be excluded from the Derby for racing at tracks whose purses are not artificially inflated by casino revenue?

Yet this need not be rocket science. Simply establish a preference system:

1. Grade I winners at one mile or over
2. Grade I winners at any distance
3. Grade II winners at one mile or over
4. Grade II winners at any distance
5. Grade III winners at one mile or over
6. Grade III winners at any distance
7. Grade I-placed (2nd, 3rd or 4th) at one mile or over
8. Grade I-placed at any distance
9. Grade II-placed at one mile or over
10. Grade II-placed at any distance
11. Grade III-placed at one mile or over
12. Grade III-placed at any distance
13. Allowance winners, other than above, by condition eligibility (number of races won other than maiden, claiming or starter)

Each preference step is applied, in the above order, to determine the 20 horses that get in. If, after the application of any preference step, the number of horses exceeds 20, the tie is broken by highest BSF as a 3-year-old; if that too is tied (or in the truly bizarre event that neither horse had started as a 3-year-old), highest lifetime BSF decides.

Furthermore, an also-eligible list of up to four horses should be maintained, carrying the following saddle-cloth colors:

21. Gold (intermediate between #4 yellow and #7 orange; formerly used for #10 in the old system)
22. Lavender (same as formerly used for #12 in the old system)
23. Olive (intermediate between #5 green and #15 khaki)
24. Teal (intermediate between #9 turquoise and #11 gray)

If anyone has a better idea, I for one would like to hear it.

PhantomOnTour
04-20-2010, 09:35 AM
Ahh, yes, thank you for proving my point. You think so. And just because you think so, you're for changing the system. Shouldn't there be some better evidence than that? Haven't heard any yet.

:)
Ahhh, yes, splitting hairs are we Rastaman...maybe I should have said 'imo' Jackson deserves a bid over Endorsement instead of 'i think' he should be in. :rolleyes:

Linny
04-20-2010, 12:04 PM
There was a time. Yes And I remember well the exploits of Affirmed. In fact I was at the 1977 Hopeful. I have the program right here.
That was a different time.
Yes the theory of graded races is to bring together the best horses. However there are so many graded stakes scheduled close together or even on the same day such that tracks across the country are competing for the same horses. This allows trainers to cross enter their horses and then check to see which ones pass the entry box then that trainer can shall we say "pick his battles". What we end up seeing is a plethora of graded races with short fields. That's a little off topic. The point is yes you are corect 2yo races can count for something..In a perfect world. But the world isn't perfect and we have a screwball system. One other thing. To bring 20 horses to post for the Derby is ridiculous. 14 is enough. The Preakness, Belmont and Breeders Cup have seen fit to limit their respective fields to 14.


Pletcher was smart and sent Rule to Delta last fall and got a big pile of graded money for his efforts. Any of the other trainers out there could have done the same, if they chose to run in "traditional" preps with relatively tiny purses, they may pay the price. Think Jackson Bend. Eskendereya beats him by a pole and instead of heading to FG or Sunland or Oaklawn they try the same thing, with the same result. I like Nick Zito and Bob LaPenta. They are traditionalists, which I respect. Yet next Saturday they may be sitting outside the gate because they thought "inside the box."

I wouldn't object to some form of weighting of the races, not by grade but maybe grass races and races under a mile should only count for a certain percentage. Weighting by grade might omit the winner of a couple of less lucrative G2's while allowing in a horse that ran suck up 4th's in the BC, the Florida Derby and the Wood.

ETA: It does look like this is the first year that several major colts will be caught out. The runner up in the Wood and Fla Derby as well as the SA Derby probably wont get in. In other years, all other things being equal, they might have. You need to consider the human element. Unless the owner of Stately Victor were a KY politician with deep roots in the state, that horse probably wouldn't have even RUN in the Blue Grass and wouldn't be in. Ken Ramsey is going to bring Pleasant Prince back for yet another try, even though Ward said he likes his races well spaced. If he could run in both the Derby Trial and Withers (on the same day) I swear he would. Ramsey's Dean's Kitten probably doesn't belong, but he'll be there unless a leg falls off. Homeboykris???!!!! Off a 9 week layoff from a loss in an allowance race!!??? Heck, after the near loss to Dublin, Baffert backed off on Conveyance as a Derby runner. He seemed re-inspired after he LOST to a recent maiden winner at Sunland. It's a very strange year indeed.

Phantombridgejumpe
04-20-2010, 03:17 PM
the 60% grade 2 multiplied by a factor for age and distance would lose 99% of the public.

IF you want to change my suggestion is top 18 spots based on earnings and 2 wild card entries selected by a 'panel of impartial experts'

Who that panel would be is up for grabs at this point, but it is simple at least.

WinterTriangle
04-20-2010, 06:44 PM
Taking these quotes from another topic about CLASS:

There is no number that will quantitate class. However winning will always point you toward class.

I combine this with Skate's comment about the money.

judge class by the money


Which essentially provides the conundrum about how we determine who gets into the KY Derby. The only way to fix this is to make every prep race purse pay the same?

rastajenk
04-20-2010, 08:58 PM
Aye...yi...yi... there's no conundrum...there's no problem...there's no fix needed. :jump:

Indulto
04-20-2010, 09:28 PM
"It would emphasize performance over earnings and promote greater national interest in every such prep."

How so?IMO by guaranteeing that the winner of each prep -- barring a change in physical well-being -- can be expected to appear in the Derby, there will be more of an audience both on-track and in-home through more justifiable coverage on national TV, because more is on the line in each case. It should also result in larger fields for each prep which will generate more handle and raise the price on contenders. Finally, it should get people interested in the Derby earlier and generate more rooting interests in the horses that just miss

Perhaps I should have been clearer that it is concentrating on WINNING rather than purses that would stimulate interest. I completely disagree with the idea espoused by others that speed figures should in any way determine eligibility.... Prove that changes like these do anything other than stroke your egos and I'll listen. It gets brought up every year, and no one has ever come up why it would be an improvement.Please explain what you mean here. How do the changes I've outlined stroke my ego and how would yoi prove it one way or another?

Linny
04-20-2010, 10:25 PM
Since the runners-up in the FOY, SA Derby and Wood are not in the top 20, it appears that this year a horse that didn't win a graded race at 2 HAD to win a prep at 3.

toussaud
04-21-2010, 03:20 AM
the point theory won't work. there is one major flaw everyone has overlooked and in that, if you did that, all the grade 1's now would hored all the good horses, therefore not ever leaving a chance for say like the louisiana derby to move from a grade 2 to a grade 1.

by upping the purse or moving the date, the track can attract better horses, but if you install the point system it is out of the fair grounds hands. they will be stuck with a grade 2 race forever.


just dont' allow 2YO preps int he derby earnings.

this does two thigns

1. you would take out these horses of this year's derby based off 2YO earnings

Noble's Promise
Dublin
Homeboykris (g)
Jackson Bend

You enter these horses

A Little Warm
Setsuko
Pleasant Prince
Caracortado (g)

that is a MUCH better race



2. Because you are not letting 3YO's rest on their previous accomplishments, horses would be forced (gasp) RUN !

you will see REAL preps. truth be told, lookin at lucky would not be in the derby tif you just added 3YO races.. he'd be right on the bubble.

he would have been made to run a more demanding campaign which is good for racing. get your stars out there and running, not sitting in the stalls.
I think he would have had no problem getting in tho he's too good.

you would get better races, and not just one b ig grand build up what we have now.

think how much better the Robert B lewis would hve been with noble's promise and lookin at lucky in it.

toussaud
04-21-2010, 03:22 AM
Since the runners-up in the FOY, SA Derby and Wood are not in the top 20, it appears that this year a horse that didn't win a graded race at 2 HAD to win a prep at 3.
Interactif is 17th on the list and he hasn't run a race since he was 2 and id ont' think the bourbon stakes is a graded stakes.

Java Gold@TFT
04-21-2010, 08:45 AM
Why not take a page out of the BC rules for entry?

In the case of an oversubscribed fourteen horse field, the first horse(s) selected will be the winner(s) of Breeders' Cup Challenge Races in the corresponding Breeders' Cup division, the next horses will be ranked at pre-entry based on the total number of Graded Stakes points they have collected during the year until a total of seven horses have been ranked based on Breeders' Cup Challenge Races and Graded Stakes Points. With the exception of the four Juvenile races, all horses will need to accumulate a minimum of six (6) points in American Graded Stakes Races to receive an automatic selection on points.

The horses remaining after the first seven in oversubscribed fourteen horse fields at the time of pre-entry will be ranked in order of preference by the Panel. The Panel will be free to establish its own criteria or ranking, so that high-quality horses of demonstrated ability will have the opportunity to participate in Championship Races regardless of earlier participation in graded events

Include the "Win and Your In" option or just can that and go to graded stakes points. Either way just make the WAYI races the main G-I Derby preps which will be horses with the graded earnings anyway. Next, say 10, horses are determined on a 3-2-1 point system regardless of race grade. The panel could determine which 2yo races or maybe even grass races to include in the races included for the mid-tier entries. Then the panel, made up of select racing secretaries, get to get together and throw in 5 wild cards that didn't make it through the WAYI or points accumulation. They would determine if a Sundland Derby winner gets a chance over a horse like Dublin with a 2yo G-I and 3 ITM's in graded stakes at three.

In short, a lot of people don't pay attention to the BC selection process because most horses have whittled a place in the fields through the year. Obviously the WAYI option would be a lot less convoluted because every horse would be running within the 3yo Colt division. Just publish a list of the graded stakes to be included prior to the start of 2yo racing and let a trainer map out his own course for each horse. They could also handle fillies or horses who've been racing on turf as part of thier wild card entries.

I can't remember the last time I saw quality runners getting excluded from a BC race using this system. Yes, there have been pre-entries that didn't make a full field but part of that is the ability to cross enter in the BC which wouldn't happen in the Derby.

Linny
04-21-2010, 09:31 AM
Toussaud, I understand your theory and forcing 3yo's to campaign for the Derby, but other than swapping out Homeboykris, I cannot see how taking out Noble's Promise (who has been within a length of the division leader LAL several times) and Dublin who has run well in major (meaning later) preps and replacing them with A Little Warm (a stretchout sprinter) and Carcortado (who was found wanting after the Lewis) improves the race. I do see Setsuko as a nice improving type who would add to the race, especially with all the speed in there.
Also, on the one hand you propose a method that would eliminate Noble's Promise and put LAL on the bubble, implying that replacing NP could improve the Derby quality yet in your final sentence you mention how much better the Lewis would have been if NP and LAL had been there. (Trust me, if they had, Caracortado wouldn't be on anyone's radar by today.)

Thomas Roulston
04-21-2010, 12:12 PM
Why not take a page out of the BC rules for entry?



Include the "Win and Your In" option or just can that and go to graded stakes points. Either way just make the WAYI races the main G-I Derby preps which will be horses with the graded earnings anyway. Next, say 10, horses are determined on a 3-2-1 point system regardless of race grade. The panel could determine which 2yo races or maybe even grass races to include in the races included for the mid-tier entries. Then the panel, made up of select racing secretaries, get to get together and throw in 5 wild cards that didn't make it through the WAYI or points accumulation. They would determine if a Sundland Derby winner gets a chance over a horse like Dublin with a 2yo G-I and 3 ITM's in graded stakes at three.

In short, a lot of people don't pay attention to the BC selection process because most horses have whittled a place in the fields through the year. Obviously the WAYI option would be a lot less convoluted because every horse would be running within the 3yo Colt division. Just publish a list of the graded stakes to be included prior to the start of 2yo racing and let a trainer map out his own course for each horse. They could also handle fillies or horses who've been racing on turf as part of thier wild card entries.

I can't remember the last time I saw quality runners getting excluded from a BC race using this system. Yes, there have been pre-entries that didn't make a full field but part of that is the ability to cross enter in the BC which wouldn't happen in the Derby.


But in my plan above any Grade I at a mile or over would be a "win and you're in" race in everything but name (are there even 20 Grade Is at a mile or over for 2-year-olds, plus for 3-year-olds prior to the Derby? And even that assumes that the same horse doesn't win more than one of them, or one or more such winners can't possibly make the Derby due to injury, etc.).

plainolebill
04-21-2010, 07:04 PM
I'm really pleased to see a fresh new topic on the board.

Indulto
04-22-2010, 03:53 PM
http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/John-Pricci/04222010-tweaking-kentucky-derby-eligibility-part-i/ (http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/John-Pricci/04222010-tweaking-kentucky-derby-eligibility-part-i/)
Tweaking Kentucky Derby Eligibility, Part I
by John Pricci April 22, 2010… In addition to his Florida Derby-winning Ice Box, LaPenta owns Jackson Bend, a colt talented enough to run second in his three-year-old debut, the Grade 3 Holy Bull, then second again in both the G2 Fountain of Youth and G1 Wood Memorial.

Underscoring his talent and hardy constitution as the winner of five of six starts at 2, Jackson Bend has earned his way into Derby 136 the old fashioned way; with class, consistency and courage. The only horse that trumps his record over two seasons is juvenile champion Lookin at Lucky.

But Jackson Bend is on the Derby bubble, ranked 21st on the graded earnings list. His best chance of becoming the 20th horse in the starting gate a week from Saturday is if Noble’s Promise defects.

… But JB also could be leap-frogged by the horses ranked 27th and 29th. Pleasant Prince and Eightyfiveinafifty are scheduled to start in Saturday’s The Cliff’s Edge Derby Trail, the purse, ironically, underwritten by ‘Cliffs’ owner, Robert LaPenta.

... "The [eligibility] rule probably could be tweaked,” said LaPenta on the teleconference. “Too many things can work against a horse getting into the Derby.
“If there were one [facet] I would change, it would be the graded earnings in two-year-old stakes.

“Horses change and some are late developers. This race is supposed about getting together the best three-year-olds in the country. With his record, proven heart and determination, [Jackson Bend] deserves a shot.”

LaPenta was not alone. Elliott Walden is the racing manager of Winstar Farm, the outfit scheduled to run four horses in the Derby, missing a fifth with the talented but under-funded Drosselmeyer.

“I think the rule can be tweaked,” Walden said. “I’m sure there’s a version that would make it better. Look at the NFL Draft. It was successful and they tweaked that.

“If I could, I think I would put more emphasis on three-year-old races, in routes,” Walden concluded.

… The problem is that Churchill Downs Inc. has little incentive to change the rules. This piece, and I’m sure many others, will address this issue. And there’s no such thing as bad publicity, right?

… By qualifying as many horses as possible, owners and trainers increase their chances of winning. No problem there. The problem is winning a cheap race with a big pot and rigging the game by keeping the better competition on the sidelines.

LaPenta then said something else with respect to Jackson Bend possibly being excluded. “Why shouldn’t [the Derby] feature the very best three-year-olds in the country?”

Indulto
04-23-2010, 04:10 AM
http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/John-Pricci/comments/pro-rated-graded-stakes-points-equitable-compromise-on-derby-eligibility/#comments (http://www.horseraceinsider.com/blog.php/John-Pricci/comments/pro-rated-graded-stakes-points-equitable-compromise-on-derby-eligibility/#comments)
Pro-Rated Graded Stakes Points Equitable Compromise on Derby Eligibility
By John Pricci April 23, 2010 …the Derby can be better and even horsemen are starting to see that now. At issue is the matter of graded stakes earnings as a Derby qualifier. The subject was broached during a recent NTRA national media teleconference.

… The problem is not that the best three-year-olds don’t earn their way into “America’s Race.” The problem is that the best horses "do earn” their way into the gate. Should anyone be surprised that in this country money trumps class?

… Colonel Matt Winn, made the Kentucky Derby the country’s most famous race not just by banging a drum but by paying to trains-port America’s best three-year-olds to Louisville.

Winn made Kentucky’s Derby better by getting the best horses to run it. He concentrated on the big racing centers and brought the best horses from those regions into Kentucky.

Today, by focusing on the more traditional preps and changing from an earnings format to a points system based on grade, the same result could be accomplished.

… There would be no push-back from participating tracks already benefiting from hosting their region's most important preps. And the branding a kind of "Kentucky Derby prep circuit” would enhance business for the participating tracks, create greater buzz, and lend a playoff dynamic better understood by the casual sports fan.

Every major professional sport has a tiered playoff system, a best of five, best of seven, whatever. Derby admission based on earnings is fraught with inequities to the existing process. And it’s bound to get worse because any track could artificially inflate the importance of its race by throwing money at it.

… All reasonable people acknowledge the Derby is “America’s Race.” As such it should feature the best three-year-olds based on one criterion: Performance at the highest levels.

Why shouldn’t the best 20 thoroughbreds be loaded into the Churchill Downs gate, gaining entry the way most horses earn their championships: Accomplishment in the sport’s time-honored events?

A newly created format would generate news and commentary, heighten public interest and anticipation, boost bottom lines at participating tracks, help horsemen plan the best campaign possible because they would know exactly what might be gained from successful participation in highly visible events.

… three-year-old form and ability around two turns at meaningful distances is a truer measure of Derby worthiness. Assigning points give horsemen clearer options. Horses would then gain conditioning, experience, and toughness by testing themselves against the best colts and geldings in their region.

A graduating scale based on graded rankings seems a reasonable approach. The top three finishers in a Grade 3 race would earn, say, 3, 2 and 1 point, respectively. Values would increase in the higher classes. The top three finishers in a Grade 2 would earn 6, 4 and 2 points, respectively. Top Grade 1 finishes would be worth 9, 6 and 3 points, in that order. Tiered values seem a fair grade-to-grade ratio. …

rastajenk
04-23-2010, 02:50 PM
I have a hard time wrapping my mind around something like this: "The problem is not that the best three-year-olds don’t earn their way into “America’s Race.” The problem is that the best horses "do earn” their way into the gate."

So what's the problem?

nijinski
04-23-2010, 03:37 PM
I understand and agree with Walden an Lapenta .

Maybe we need Derby Tweaking Committee .

rastajenk
04-26-2010, 02:09 PM
While I don't necessarily agree that Jackson Bend is some kind of marker for a quality field, the fact is that he's going to get in under the current system. So again, what's the problem? These things always have a way of working out all right.