"Trainers focused more on their reputations than their horses"

[Riley]

I thought this article was very interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042601855.html?nav=rss

From 1985 to 2004 the Kentucky Derby didn't have a single 20 horse field, and in the last six years it's been full leading up to the race.

Andrew Beyer basically says as horse racing in general has fallen in popularity the triple crown races have become the only ones who appeal to the broad segment of the population. Where trainers and owners may have gotten just as much prestige from winning the Jockey Club Gold Cup or other big races this is no longer the case and trainers are now feeling the pressure from owners to enter horses in the Derby that aren't anywhere near ready when in the past they would never have thought to enter them. And not to put all the blame on owners, trainers also know winning these races will drum up more business and so are running horses that aren't ready (I can't count how many times I've heard a trainer/owner say they'd give up any race they've won to win the Derby. I especially remember Bafftert saying he would have given the Preakness and Belmont for the Derby that Point Given loss, seems a bit dramatic to me). He also says it goes on to kill the career of many promising young colts, although I think a lot of these colts were never all that promising to begin with.

I'll admit that I got interested in horse racing because of the triple crown and started following it in 1998. I think popularity has certainly increased, you see a lot of celebrities at the Derby who have probably never watched a horse race in their life, which in turn garners publicity that would other wise never reach people who aren't interested in racing. I also think the many TC near losses starting with Silver Charm have probably piqued interest in the general public.

Maybe this is already a general consensus in the horse racing community but I thought it was interesting in the way he laid it out with all the facts.

This also leads me to ask do you think they should alter the way horses qualify for the Derby or even limit the field to say 15 horses, which I know would never happen, but still ...

[kenwoodallpromos]

I think the track should allow as many colts and geldings as they like; and that enough are excluded due to injury.

[sandpit]

Beyer should do some research before he puts his words in public. The Derby had its share of :20: horse fields from 1985-2004:

1996: 19 runners, City by Night scratched
1999: 19 runners, Aljabr scratched
2000: 19 runners, Globalize scratched
2004: 18 runners, Wimbledon, St Averil scratched

What's also convenient is his cutoff start date:

1984: 20 runners
1983: 20 runners
1982: 19 runners, Rock Steady scratched
1981: 21 runners!

[Hanover1]

I thought this article was very interesting.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/26/AR2010042601855.html?nav=rss

From 1985 to 2004 the Kentucky Derby didn't have a single 20 horse field, and in the last six years it's been full leading up to the race.

Andrew Beyer basically says as horse racing in general has fallen in popularity the triple crown races have become the only ones who appeal to the broad segment of the population. Where trainers and owners may have gotten just as much prestige from winning the Jockey Club Gold Cup or other big races this is no longer the case and trainers are now feeling the pressure from owners to enter horses in the Derby that aren't anywhere near ready when in the past they would never have thought to enter them. And not to put all the blame on owners, trainers also know winning these races will drum up more business and so are running horses that aren't ready (I can't count how many times I've heard a trainer/owner say they'd give up any race they've won to win the Derby. I especially remember Bafftert saying he would have given the Preakness and Belmont for the Derby that Point Given loss, seems a bit dramatic to me). He also says it goes on to kill the career of many promising young colts, although I think a lot of these colts were never all that promising to begin with.

I'll admit that I got interested in horse racing because of the triple crown and started following it in 1998. I think popularity has certainly increased, you see a lot of celebrities at the Derby who have probably never watched a horse race in their life, which in turn garners publicity that would other wise never reach people who aren't interested in racing. I also think the many TC near losses starting with Silver Charm have probably piqued interest in the general public.

Maybe this is already a general consensus in the horse racing community but I thought it was interesting in the way he laid it out with all the facts.

This also leads me to ask do you think they should alter the way horses qualify for the Derby or even limit the field to say 15 horses, which I know would never happen, but still ...
Seems you have some angles right in regards to popularity and the public, but things get hazy from there on. How can a trainer run a horse who is not ready if he had to earn enough graded stake money to even qualify? Was outrunning some stock somewhere to pull this off... Unless you are alluding to either soundness or distance limitations? Giving up any race to have a Derby win is self evident by its nature. A grandstanding, wishful thought we all have.
Not the first decade by a longshot that owners want to be in the gate the 1st Saturday in May either. Its what we/they all hope for. As far as the TC itself, I am on the fence about the rash of near misses we have seen the last 20 years. Does it peak interest, or get complacent watching a 2 for 3 performance as many times as we have seen one. It does show us how hard it actually is to pull off however. Imo Baffert is correct in his summation of the toll it takes on a colt to even participate in all 3 races, much less win them. I attribute this to the breed itself, and the soundness issues as highlighted during the public inquest of the Eight Belles tragedy. Breeding speed to speed, and the genes of a particular few dominating the pools, has done alot to make another TC winner a specter we may seldom see ever again.
Imo if they spread the 3 races out a bit further during the year, we might see a few more starters in all 3 vs breakdowns of favorites, scratches, ect.....

[Riley]

Thanks for pointing that out, still looking at fields from 1960s it's clear the field sizes have increased so his over all argument holds.

1960s:
0 fields of 19/20
3 fields of 15
2 fields of 14
5 fields of 13 and under

1970s:
2 fields of 18+
1 field of 17
1 field of 16
2 fields of 15
4 fields of 13 and under

1980s:
4 fields of 18 +
2 fields of 17
2 fields of 15/16
2 fields of 13

1990s:
5 fields of 18+
3 fields of 15/16
2 fields of 13/14

2000s:
8 fields of 18+
1 fields of 17
1 field of 16

[sandpit]

Thanks for pointing that out, still looking at fields from 1960s it's clear the field sizes have increased so his over all argument holds.

1960s:
0 fields of 19/20
3 fields of 15
2 fields of 14
5 fields of 13 and under

1970s:
2 fields of 18+
1 field of 17
1 field of 16
2 fields of 15
4 fields of 13 and under

1980s:
4 fields of 18 +
2 fields of 17
2 fields of 15/16
2 fields of 13

1990s:
5 fields of 18+
3 fields of 15/16
2 fields of 13/14

2000s:
8 fields of 18+
1 fields of 17
1 field of 16

I agree with you, yet he should have dug deeper like we did to support his stance. The 70s had plenty of shorter fields because of the presence of some great and near great horses that tend to scare away the also-rans. 1976 was a good example. Bold Forbes and Honest Pleasure were head and shoulders above the competition. Nobody else in the nine horse field was less than 10-1 and three of them were above 50-1. In 1978, there were four of the 11 horses went off at more than 120-1 because of Affirmed and Alydar! If Mine that Bird had been in that race, he might have been 500-1 instead of the 50-1 undervalue he was.

[Robert Goren]

The fact that favorites have very seldom won this race recently plays a part. Let the favorite win the KD ten years in a row and you will see fewer owners willing to spend the money. JMO

[JPinMaryland]

Beyer tends to cherry picks his stats sometimes and this turns me off him. There were a number of large fields in the 1950s, at least 4 were 17 or better going from notes here and at least a couple others were 14+.

The 1930s also had a number of large fields with 3 races of 20; and a number of smaller fields as well.

To me it seems the 1960s and 1970s were the times of smaller fields, even though the famous 23 horse field was in there. This was a long enuf time ago that it doesnt make intellectual sense to argue that large fields are recent phenomenon.

[DeanT]

Beyer's premise is sound, imo. He is not using "20 horse fields" as his barometer when you look at what he is saying. To me, he is saying the past couple of years there would have been 25 horse fields if they were allowed, whereas in the large majority of the previous years they could not even get to 20.

[Riley]

That's interesting. I didn't look back past the 1960s so I realize it distorts the information some. While I agree that large fields are not a new phenomenon in the Derby it is clear in the last 20 years that there has been a gradual increase towards consistently larger fields, culminating with the last decade where there has been a full field almost every year. So what I'm gathering is the Kentucky Derby has been popular for a very long time (obviously) but it's really only within the last 10 years that owners and trainers have consistently entered the max amount of horses which inevitably leads to some horses that have no business being in the race being entered almost every year.

I'm sure there have been instances throughout the decades where a trainer entered a horse who didn't have a snowballs chance in hell at winning, but it seems like it was probably more the exception than the rule. Looking at fields within the last decade or two though the pendulum seems to be swinging in the other direction and I think a decrease in the popularity of racing and the glamorization of the Kentucky Derby which appeals to the general population is a probable explanation for this.

I do agree though that the article is flawed, and I'm glad I posted this so I didn't go around quoting the data he claimed for his argument! Pretty bad.