Midnight Lucky--shades of Rachel A???

[Dana666]

If you didn\'t see the Sunland Oaks, check out this filly. Although Rachel developed her huge numbers after running for a while, this filly\'s brillance can\'t help but force the comparisons. So what do they do? Oaks or Derby??? I\'ll tell you, based on the males 3 year olds and what they\'ve shown thusfar, or what they haven\'t shown, ML\'s connections have to at least think about the Derby, but they probably will go Oaks in the final analysis, maybe because of the distance--I think it would be pretty hard to get a mile and a quarter in only your 3rd start when the farthest you\'ve run so far is 1 mile & 1/16. Maybe if she airs in the Oaks they\'ll try the Preakness. Any thoughts?

[JoseOcon]

I Was at the race track.  The filly was very impressive, she looked effortless at the wire

[covelj70]

Can\'t run in Derby as a filly anymore unless you run against the boys and qualify in one of the prep races

it\'s one of the reasons they made the changes they made away from straight graded earnings

a filly can run, she just has to earn her way in like everyone else.

no reason a filly should have been able to take the easy road into the Derby when the colts have to knock themselves out against one another to get in

[jimbo66]

I guess the Derby is out, as Jim points out.  That said, the question for me is how to play this girl in the Oaks.  She could be a \"stand\" in all multi-race bets on Oaks day, as well as a bridge into the Derby via the Oaks-Derby double.

That said, the contrarian in me says that we will have a filly with only 2 starts, clearly hasn\'t been tested, and will likely be a very short in a relatively large field.  And if the TG figure is in line with the 94 beyer, she will enter off a little bit of a regression.  Maybe, there will be a ton of value in going against her.  Of course I used that same strategy in Rachel\'s 3 year old year, when I bet against her in all but 2 of her races and in the same year bet against Zenyatta in all but one of hers.  I got \"value\" every single time.......  I just didn\'t cash.

[Wrongly]

Yes, two nice wins but let\'s not get carried away in comparing her to Rachel.  There stake records were broken on that card.

[richiebee]

covelj70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> a filly can run, she just has to earn her way in
> like everyone else.
>
> no reason a filly should have been able to take
> the easy road into the Derby when the colts have
> to knock themselves out against one another to get
> in

James:

\"Earn\"? You mean the way Black Onyx \"earned it\", securing a Derby berth by beating
a field which I believe featured one graded stakes winner, over a synthetic
surface?

Colts with three or four starts before the Derby are \"knocking each other out\" to
get in?

This current points system, besides being politicized (no points for Illinois
Derby?), seems to favor colts who peak in the Spring of their 3YO year. By
marginalizing a runner\'s 2YO success, it seems likely that, under this points
system, we are assured of having lightly raced Derby winners who have very little
chance of winning a Triple Crown.

[I guess that is my way of saying that Shanghai Bobby\'s 2YO resume was strong
enough that he should have already secured a stall in the Derby starting gate].

[covelj70]

Richie,

you know I love you like a brother but I strongly disagree about the current system in general and SB in particular.

1) The winner of big purse races like the Sunland Derby and Spriral always get in so that\'s no different from history

2) The points system is specifically meant to exclude horses like Sabercat who won a single race against no one as a two year old then had one mediocore prep as a three year old yet still had a spot in the starting gate.

3) it\'s also meant to exclude horses that have no business being in the race because they have no shot at getting the distance.  Trinniberg had no business being there last year and woukdn\'t be in this year.  If SB can\'t get a 1 1/8 in his final prep and finishes 5th, why should he be in the Derby based on what he did going 1 1/16 in his three year old year?  My horse could win up in the same situation if he can\'t get the mile and an eight on April 13th but if he can\'t finish in the top 4 going the mile and an eighth, then he shouldn\'t be in there anyway

4) it\'s also meant to exclude fillies from back dooring their way in.  Why should Eight Belles (may she rest in peace) have been allowed in the Derby without going through the same rigors of the Derby trail as the colts that ran that year.  That system was garbage.  Many of the colts would run better in the Derby if they weren\'t forced to be all in to get into the Derby so this levels the playing field that way.

The new system needs to and will be tweaked next year by including the Illinois Derby but overall the system is a great improvement over the graded earnings system.

I would think you of all people would appreicate that as you are about to see a bunch of absolutely loaded final preps with horses who are desperate because of a system that rewards recent form at longer distances heading into the Derby.  You have Normandy Invasion life or death against two really fast colts next weekend in the Wood because he barely has any points.  Same deal with Revolutionary and Code West and Palice Malice this weekend in the Big Easy.

That kind of situation was a real rairty before this year.  I love this stuff.

[Eight Belles]

covelj70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Can\'t run in Derby as a filly anymore unless you
> run against the boys and qualify in one of the
> prep races
>
> it\'s one of the reasons they made the changes they
> made away from straight graded earnings
>
> a filly can run, she just has to earn her way in
> like everyone else.
>
> no reason a filly should have been able to take
> the easy road into the Derby when the colts have
> to knock themselves out against one another to get
> in

Eesh.  As someone\'s already pointed out, I\'m not seeing too many males \"knock themselves out\" in the Tampa Bay Derby, Rushaway and Spiral, Sunland, and many others including turf and foreign races.  

Besides, the point isn\'t to knock themselves out beforehand but instead to put together the best field.  Sometimes that can include a filly, and no, it shouldn\'t be necessary that they race against males prior to X race to belong in X race.  Zenyatta belonged just fine in the BC Classic, Rachel fit just fine in the Preakness, and Havre de Grace belonged in the Woodward.

This points system is a case of fixing what ain\'t broken, and in doing so, I think they may well have broken it.  I think it was just an excuse to get back at Hawthorne.  They should know better than to tinker with the Derby.  It\'s the one cash cow in the sport and 100% responsible for their profits.

[Eight Belles]

Agree with others.  Hasn\'t shown nearly enough to put her up there in Rachel stratosphere.

[covelj70]

as I said to Richie, I respectfully couldn\'t disagree more.

First of all, I\'m not exactly sure what your concern was about the Tampa Bay Derby but the horse that earned his way in in that race did so by running a huge number on the sheets and the second place finisher in that race also ran an equally impressive number.  Those TG numbers would have won most prep races in most years so your comment that Verazzano and Java\'s War weren\'t impressive is puzzling.

Under the old system, it\'s almost certain that both Verazzano and Java\'s War would have earned their way into the Derby.

As it stands now, Java\'s War will have to hit the board in the Blue Grass to get into the Derby.  Isn\'t it a good thing that we are asking horses to race more frequently, at a higher level and at longer distances to get into the Derby?

I am practicing what I preach here as Falling Sky may not qualify under the new system whereas he might have qualified under the old system but even if that happens, I think the new system is a huge step in the right direction for the game

Fillies and sprinters should absolutely not be allowed in the Derby if they haven\'t run competitively in 2 turn races against colts.

There\'s just absolutely no logical argument that Midnight Lucky should be in the Derby off of what she did in the Sunland Oaks.  You make the argument that you weren\'t impressed by the Tampa Bay Derby where multiple horses ran low single digit TG\'s and that you weren\'t impressed with the horses than \"earned\" their way in in the Sprial or Sunland Derby and yet you think Midnight Lucky should be allowed in the Ky. Derby by beating a bunch of slow, overmatched fillies?  Can you please explain how that is consistent in any way?

[jimbo66]

I am not sure I like my new position of agreeing with Mr. Covello all the time, as I don\'t want to seem to be his lackey.  (I would prefer to be TGAB\'s lackey....)

That said, I think that other than missing the Illinois Derby, the new system is much better than the old system.  All you have to do is look at the top 2 year olds on the money list last year.  Would we want He\'s Had Enough as an entrant?  George Vancouver, Power Broker, Capo Bastone, Fortify?  Maybe not all of those would have qualified, but a bunch would have.

The old system \"was broke\".

The new system isn\'t perfect.  I think they should give SOME weighting to the top performing 2 year olds.  Hard to define \"some\" and where to draw the line.  It does seem that Shanghai Bobby should get some credit for being undefeated and being the top 2 year old.  Perhaps the 2 year old Eclipse Winner qualifies for a spot?  That would still keep out the non-deserving horses I mentioned above.

[Eight Belles]

covelj70 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> as I said to Richie, I respectfully couldn\'t
> disagree more.
>
> First of all, I\'m not exactly sure what your
> concern was about the Tampa Bay Derby but the
> horse that earned his way in in that race did so
> by running a huge number on the sheets and the
> second place finisher in that race also ran an
> equally impressive number.  Those TG numbers would
> have won most prep races in most years so your
> comment that Verazzano and Java\'s War weren\'t
> impressive is puzzling.

They sent Verazzano there because it was slim pickins, and he hardly got beat up winning that race.
 
> Under the old system, it\'s almost certain that
> both Verazzano and Java\'s War would have earned
> their way into the Derby.

There\'s a problem with that?
 
> As it stands now, Java\'s War will have to hit the
> board in the Blue Grass to get into the Derby.
> Isn\'t it a good thing that we are asking horses to
> race more frequently, at a higher level and at
> longer distances to get into the Derby?

More frequently?  I see the same picking and choosing - maybe more so - as I\'ve seen in past years.  
 
> I am practicing what I preach here as Falling Sky
> may not qualify under the new system whereas he
> might have qualified under the old system but even
> if that happens, I think the new system is a huge
> step in the right direction for the game
>
> Fillies and sprinters should absolutely not be
> allowed in the Derby if they haven\'t run
> competitively in 2 turn races against colts.

Why not?  If they are one of the best 20 3yos in the country, why shouldn\'t they be there?  If they\'re one of the best 2-3 3yos in the country, why shouldn\'t they be there?

I\'m also not that concerned with supposed sprinters.  Wasn\'t that what Hard Spun and others supposedly were?  I\'m fine with letting the owners decide if their horses should try the distance.
 
> There\'s just absolutely no logical argument that
> Midnight Lucky should be in the Derby off of what
> she did in the Sunland Oaks.  You make the
> argument that you weren\'t impressed by the Tampa
> Bay Derby where multiple horses ran low single
> digit TG\'s and that you weren\'t impressed with the
> horses than \"earned\" their way in in the Sprial or
> Sunland Derby and yet you think Midnight Lucky
> should be allowed in the Ky. Derby by beating a
> bunch of slow, overmatched fillies?  Can you
> please explain how that is consistent in any way?

I didn\'t say this filly should be in the Derby.  I don\'t think she has the seasoning to be in the Derby for starters.  But if there is an Eight Belles or Rachel Alexandra or Rags to Riches out there that is one of the best 3yos - regardless of sex - then I want them in the race.

[Eight Belles]

jimbo66 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am not sure I like my new position of agreeing
> with Mr. Covello all the time, as I don\'t want to
> seem to his lackey.  (I would prefer to be TGAB\'s
> lackey....)
>
> That said, I think that other than missing the
> Illinois Derby, the new system is much better than
> the old system.  All you have to do is look at the
> top 2 year olds on the money list last year.
> Would we want He\'s Had Enough as an entrant?
> George Vancouver, Power Broker, Capo Bastone,
> Fortify?  Maybe not all of those would have
> qualified, but a bunch would have.
>
> The old system \"was broke\".
>
> The new system isn\'t perfect.  I think they should
> give SOME weighting to the top performing 2 year
> olds.  Hard to define \"some\" and where to draw the
> line.  It does seem that Shanghai Bobby should get
> some credit for being undefeated and being the top
> 2 year old.  Perhaps the 2 year old Eclipse Winner
> qualifies for a spot?  That would still keep out
> the non-deserving horses I mentioned above.

You\'re looking at them with the benefit of hindsight.  This year will be no different when you look back at them a year from now.

[PonyBologna]

Are we really complaining that the winner of the Spiral or Sunland didn\'t beat anyone to \"earn\" their spot in the Derby while also complaining that the Illinois Derby winner doesn\'t get in? The Illinois Derby hasn\'t produced a Derby winner since War Emblem yet the Spiral gave us Animal Kingdom. Now I\'m sure once the IL Derby is included into the points system we\'ll see some decent horses return to that race but in recent history it\'s been full of horses that have no business lining up in the CD gate in May.

I\'m perfectly happy with the current system. I think many connections are kicking themselves for not pointing to last weekend\'s races but to me that\'s just part of the growing pains of this system. Next year we should see a more spread out wealth of horses as the connections figure out what path is the best way to get points for their horses.

[richiebee]

Yes, Animal Kingdom. And how many other Spiral runners were Triple Crown factors
after the leaky roof once known as \"Latonia\" switched to a synthetic surface?
Well there was Hard Spun(2007), who I think was second in the Derby, third in the
Preakness and fourth in the Belmont. Flower Alley (year?) turned into a nice 3YO,
but mostly after the Triple Crown races were run.

Prediction about the Sunland Derby: East coast trainers will be slow to embrace this
race and the long ship involved. Baffert wins seven of the next 10 runnings, setting
new track records in five of them.