Do you blame Mike Smith for Bode's loss?

[Lon Chaney]

Originally Posted by Marshall Bennett

I don't think anything should ever change with the TC races. Besides, reducing the field to 14 starters would eliminate a lot of potential talent with graded stakes earnings deserving of a shot. You start tinkering with these races and making adjustments, tradition is removed and question marks will always follow future winners as to how they would have run before the changes.

Huh?

What tradition? The 20 horse field didn't come about until the early 90s.

[Dahoss9698]

I pretty much despise jockeys, but I'm sorry....Smith did absolutely nothing wrong in the Derby. Bodemeaister ran well, very well and way too good to lose. But Smith had him free running and comfortable which is all he could do.

Bode got run down in a good performance, but I think he showed he's top of the class at this point based on his performance.

[turninforhome10]

Did anybody here accuse Martinez of going to slow. Shame on him for not going :44 and trying to wire the field. It is really Willie's fault

[wisconsin]

Originally Posted by Lon Chaney

Huh?

What tradition? The 20 horse field didn't come about until the early 90s.

Huh?

Many fields as far back as the 50's had 16-17 runners, in 1974 there were 23 starters. There have been shorter fields, but they were not the norm.

[riskman]

The only one to blame for Bodemeisters loss is I'll Have Another.
Smith is blameless here. IHA, 4 for 4 in 2012 is now at PMLICO getting ready to see if this streak moves forward.
BTW, congrats to turninforhome10 who posted the winner on his blog.

[JPinMaryland]

It's hard to say 20 horse fields are traditional. I count one field of 20 and at least 3 of 17 in the 50s...

Even in the 30s there were three races (32, 35 and '37) that had 20 one other had 15 and a few had 13. I am not sure what the policy was but it looks like their policy seems to have varied quite a bit over the years. Most of the 1940s and quite a few in the 60s were fairly small fields.

I think 20 is too many. Perhaps 16 might be a good compromise. But I guess alll the long shots make the betting a bit more unusual.

[Greyfox]

I like the 20 horses idea.
If....and that is an if...you hit exotics, they pay exponentially more than what they do most days.
Cheers for 20!

[wisconsin]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

I like the 20 horses idea.
If....and that is an if...you hit exotics, they pay exponentially more than what they do most days.
Cheers for 20!

Ditto

[turninforhome10]

Originally Posted by JPinMaryland

It's hard to say 20 horse fields are traditional. I count one field of 20 and at least 3 of 17 in the 50s...

Even in the 30s there were three races (32, 35 and '37) that had 20 one other had 15 and a few had 13. I am not sure what the policy was but it looks like their policy seems to have varied quite a bit over the years. Most of the 1940s and quite a few in the 60s were fairly small fields.

I think 20 is too many. Perhaps 16 might be a good compromise. But I guess alll the long shots make the betting a bit more unusual.

This is not about the bettors, this about 3yo horses getting their one chance to run for the roses. I agree that Trinniberg did not belong but how you gonna tell someone with their horse they can't run. That would mean that 4 owners that poured their hard earned money and all the time they have spent to get to Derby would not get their shot. I would rather loose my bet than to see someone denied their dream.

[JPinMaryland]

yeah I know and there's nothing wrong with thinking that way. On the other hand, sometimes a huge field creates so much traffic problems that a horse that truly deserved to win or hit the board was compromised.

How do you weigh that? The danger in letting some longshot possibly winning the Roses vs. a horse that truly has a chance. It seems like there are some of those every year. This year Union Rags got messed up on the break. Last year you could make a case that Dialed in might have had a chance....

Maybe a better idea is to let them draw the post positions based on graded earnings. Or even a system based on graded races but with emphasis on recent wins. I would think we could get more agreement on something like that. Let the longshots go off from the auxiliary gate and if there's a Gato del Sole out there, that's great. But let the better hoses go from 3 or 4 post or whatever...

[Dark Horse]

Originally Posted by JPinMaryland

yeah I know and there's nothing wrong with thinking that way. On the other hand, sometimes a huge field creates so much traffic problems that a horse that truly deserved to win or hit the board was compromised.

How do you weigh that? The danger in letting some longshot possibly winning the Roses vs. a horse that truly has a chance. It seems like there are some of those every year. This year Union Rags got messed up on the break. Last year you could make a case that Dialed in might have had a chance....

Maybe a better idea is to let them draw the post positions based on graded earnings. Or even a system based on graded races but with emphasis on recent wins. I would think we could get more agreement on something like that. Let the longshots go off from the auxiliary gate and if there's a Gato del Sole out there, that's great. But let the better hoses go from 3 or 4 post or whatever...

It's not so much the post position that gets horses in trouble in the Derby, but the proximity of speed horses/fast starters angling for the rail. The fast start of #6 Bodemeister, angling for the rail, forced #5 Dullahan just behind him to angle as well. That cut off #4 Union Rags right out of the gate. With Leparoux in the saddle he lost the race there. Possibly interesting detail. The more conservative Leparoux sat between two Cajun riders, and three time Derby winners, Desormeaux and Borel. Big difference in riding styles and guts. (not entirely impossible that they decided to 'challenge' the race favorite early).

And there have been plenty of closers winning this race, with jockeys threading the needle through tight traffic. That's one of the things that makes the race special and often spectacular. Compare the rides of a Johnny Velazquez (Went the Day Well) and a Leparoux (Union Rags). After the start they were both in the back of the field. Excellent jockeys win this race almost every year. Good jockeys not so much. What Gutierrez pulled off in his first Derby is cream of the crop stuff.

Anyway, the Derby is a fantastic race. And the big field, with longshots winning often, creates equally fantastic betting opportunities. No need to change a thing. Would you complain if you held the $1 superfecta ticket that paid out $864K some years ago? Way too much moaning about this race here. This is not your every day race. If you can't cap it, skip it.

[wisconsin]

There is no need to reduce the number of starters to appease a minority opinion.

Imagine if they decided to limit the number of starters in the Melbourne Cup or the Arc, or for that matter, the Grand National.

Races like this are best left alone when it comes to limiting starters. I can recall many an Arlington-Washington Futurity where they had two gates to accomodate the large field.

[turninforhome10]

Is this not a bit like saying that Richmond or Weber State never belonged in the NCAA tourneys as they got in the way of the number one and number two seeds to move forward.

[canleakid]

"oh no Mike Smith part 2" left the damn door wide open!!!!

[iceknight]

Originally Posted by JPinMaryland

yeah I know and there's nothing wrong with thinking that way. On the other hand, sometimes a huge field creates so much traffic problems that a horse that truly deserved to win or hit the board was compromised.
..

Well, just like they do with human races in separate lanes, they can build distance adjusted lanes for each horse to run (with fences) and each horse can stay within the fence for the entire distance. Then it will just be a question of speed. HELLO>> they dont do that even in quarter horse racing.. you are asking for too much.

Maybe they can do qualifying runs like they do for formula 1 car racing, to decide post positions. [not]