Midnight Lucky--shades of Rachel A???

[richiebee]

James:

I will not address your points individually, but:

a) Just because the winner of the \"high purse races\" like the Spiral and the
Sunland always gets in doesn\'t mean they deserve to get in. The Sunland Derby,
based on the brief glance I took at the field, looked like a graded race; to me
the Spiral did not. But grading races seems to be a matter of hype, politics and
history/tradition. And we will not get into a discussion about whether points
should be awarded for any race run on a surface other than dirt (a very small
percentage of the available points should be awarded for synth/turf races,
including the annual Keeneland Spring synthetic \"bombathons\", the Blue Grass and
the Lexington).

b) Agree about Trinniberg, and not because he beat me every time he won last year.
(Trinni and Little Mike just wore me out last year). If there are points given for
any race contested at distances less than one mile, stop it now! See James, we can
agree on something...

c) ...but not on Shanghai Bobby, who, I agree, has to really show something in
Hallandale to be considered a Derby Factor. HOWEVER, back in the days of not so
yore, when the Triple Crown races were jointly administered by Visa, with large
cash bonuses being offered, when 3 racetracks actually worked together, the idea
was to try to coerce the Racing Gods into allowing the long suffering Racing World
to enjoy the spectacle of a runner winning the Triple Crown (We are currently
experiencing the longest Triple Crown drought (35 years) ever). A lot of folks
think that a Triple Crown winner will bring thoroughbred racing, with apologies to
Los Lobos, \"out of the darkness, into the light.\"

I am not so certain that a Triple Crown winner is the balm which will heal all of
Racing\'s open wounds. I do feel strongly that the current prototypical lightly
raced \"classic\" 3YO, he of very little 2YO foundation, he of the \"too fast too
soon\" big knock out figure, is not capable of winning the Triple Crown. The
unofficial TG board vet (Sighthound, not Allday) is in complete agreement here.

My feeling is that points should be awarded for important two year old stakes. Two
year old foundation and brilliance is part of the big picture in Racing. You will
have a sounder 3YO crop and a possible Triple Crown winner if 2YO accomplishments
are at least recognized/factored. I do not know if an on the board finish for SB @
Hallandale is enough to get him in the Derby gate, but based on wins in the BC and
the Champagne, it should be.

Do not know if the points system has created that much extra drama. To me, same
church, different pew. The drama comes from having more than 20 horses sound and
willing (and hopefully qualified) to run and only 20 stalls in the gate. Maybe the
brain surgeons at CD will come up with a harness like elimination system, where
the two top finishers from 10 major preps are all assured Derby spots (talk about
pressure...)

[Dana666]

I didn\'t know that. Thanks for the info. Fillies would have to run against colts in prep races? That\'s not very likely to happen. What about other triple crown races? Can a filly run in the Preakness, for example? That would make more sense anyway.

[Rich Curtis]

The only good thing that a Triple Crown winner will do for racing is that he will finally kill off the ridiculous notion that a Triple Crown winner will do something good for racing.

[Wrongly]

Since 1980

Serena\'s Song won the Spiral Stakes before taking on the boys in the Derby.  Winning Colors won the SA Derby before winning the Derby.  Life\'s Magic also ran in SA Derby. Althea ran in Ark Derby.  Cupecoy\'s Joy ran in the Spiral Stake and Genuine Risk ran in the Wood.

Those that didn\'t run against the boys - Eight Belles, Excellent Meeting, Three Ring.

Looks like if they are good enough; they go against the boys prior to the Derby, tends to back up Jim\'s theory.  Why should a Filly be treated any differently than any colt trying to get entry to the Derby.

[Eight Belles]

Wrongly Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since 1980
>
> Serena\'s Song won the Spiral Stakes before taking
> on the boys in the Derby.  Winning Colors won the
> SA Derby before winning the Derby.  Life\'s Magic
> also ran in SA Derby. Althea ran in Ark Derby.
> Cupecoy\'s Joy ran in the Spiral Stake and Genuine
> Risk ran in the Wood.
>
> Those that didn\'t run against the boys - Eight
> Belles, Excellent Meeting, Three Ring.
>
> Looks like if they are good enough; they go
> against the boys prior to the Derby, tends to back
> up Jim\'s theory.  Why should a Filly be treated
> any differently than any colt trying to get entry
> to the Derby.

How are they treated differently?  They are running in their division, just as the boys are running in their division.

I\'d disagree with your assertion that Eight Belles didn\'t belong given that she proved differently.  You\'re going pretty far back to find fillies who ran in preps, and a number of them were trained by DWL.

[TGJB]

No matter how you slice it, races restricted to fillies are restricted races. Colts don\'t have the chance to earn points in those races.

The new system is clearly better than the old one, where a guy could put up 2M of his own money, on a freak surface on the other side of the world, run second, and punch his ticket. But it seems to me the easiest way is a point system, with first, seconds and thirds weighted differently for GIs,IIs and IIIs at a mile and over. I think Steve Crist proposed something like that.

[miff]

Think new system much better than old one. Some slug cant get lucky in a two yr old race(say,Delta Jackpot),race empty in 3 yr old preps,and still get in.If 2 yr old champ,Shanghai Bobby,does not run 1,2,(3?) on Sat,he does not belong in Derby.

Filly question simple, win a designated prep,against the boys,and get in.

[Rich Curtis]

You\'re making a fairness argument? In THIS sport? That\'s like making a dryness argument in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. At this point, fairness is a lost cause. But interest isn\'t. And fillies are interesting and often heroic. Restricted races? Points? It reminds me of those people who wanted to keep Henry Aaron out of the All Star game in 1974. He didn\'t have enough points that year. Replace him with some guy nobody cares about. Fairness. Yawn. Splendid.

[P-Dub]

Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You\'re making a fairness argument? In THIS sport?
> That\'s like making a dryness argument in the
> middle of the Pacific Ocean. At this point,
> fairness is a lost cause. But interest isn\'t. And
> fillies are interesting and often heroic.
> Restricted races? Points? It reminds me of those
> people who wanted to keep Henry Aaron out of the
> All Star game in 1974. He didn\'t have enough
> points that year. Replace him with some guy nobody
> cares about. Fairness. Yawn. Splendid.


Your analogies are all over the place, and aren\'t very relevant. All Star games are exhibitions, it doesn\'t matter who participates.  Fans vote for the rosters. If you want to stage an exhibition race, and vote for the jockeys and horses, then go ahead and vote for a filly.

Fillies aren\'t interesting if they run up the track.

This is the marquee event of the entire racing calendar. The Kentucky Derby. If you want a seat at that table, you need to earn it. If a filly wants the opportunity to be \"heroic\", they need to show that ability against those same colts before the race.  The Kentucky Derby shouldn\'t be the race to find that out.

So basically you\'re saying fillies should get a pass because they are fillies, interesting, and at times can be heroic.

I\'ve seen a lot of interesting and heroic colts run in this race. You need to find another reason to include fillies other than that.

[Rich Curtis]

\"Your analogies are all over the place\"

  Kind of like a Mike Smith ride.

\"All Star games are exhibitions, it doesn\'t matter who participates.\"

 Right. TV ratings don\'t matter. The fact that non-fans watch this game doesn\'t matter.

\"Fillies aren\'t interesting if they run up the track.\"

Nonsense. Much of the interest is pre-race.

[Eight Belles]

P-Dub Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Rich Curtis Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You\'re making a fairness argument? In THIS
> sport?
> > That\'s like making a dryness argument in the
> > middle of the Pacific Ocean. At this point,
> > fairness is a lost cause. But interest isn\'t.
> And
> > fillies are interesting and often heroic.
> > Restricted races? Points? It reminds me of
> those
> > people who wanted to keep Henry Aaron out of
> the
> > All Star game in 1974. He didn\'t have enough
> > points that year. Replace him with some guy
> nobody
> > cares about. Fairness. Yawn. Splendid.
>
>
> Your analogies are all over the place, and aren\'t
> very relevant. All Star games are exhibitions, it
> doesn\'t matter who participates.  Fans vote for
> the rosters. If you want to stage an exhibition
> race, and vote for the jockeys and horses, then go
> ahead and vote for a filly.
>
> Fillies aren\'t interesting if they run up the
> track.
>
> This is the marquee event of the entire racing
> calendar. The Kentucky Derby. If you want a seat
> at that table, you need to earn it. If a filly
> wants the opportunity to be \"heroic\", they need to
> show that ability against those same colts before
> the race.  The Kentucky Derby shouldn\'t be the
> race to find that out.
>
> So basically you\'re saying fillies should get a
> pass because they are fillies, interesting, and at
> times can be heroic.
>
> I\'ve seen a lot of interesting and heroic colts
> run in this race. You need to find another reason
> to include fillies other than that.

Why should the UAE Derby winner get 100 points?  It\'s nothing more than a nod for the Sheikh to be able to run his horses at his home track, over synthetics, against no one, and get a spot in the Derby.  That\'s somehow \"earning\" a spot in the field whereas a filly who runs so impressively in her Oaks prep that it is logical to consider running her in the Derby has NOT earned her way in?

There will be at least half the Derby field who will NOT be better horses than the top 3yo female (or maybe more).  

Regardless, I\'m more miffed over the other matter than about the fact that no fillies will ever run in the race again, and that\'s CD misusing their power to force other tracks to be beholden to them.

[TreadHead]

The old system was INCREDIBLY broke and provided way too much weight to 2 yr old races.  The KY Derby is for the nation\'s best 3 yr old route horses, not 2 yr old burnouts or 3yr old sprinters.

As many of us have seen in years past, the best 2 yr olds are not always the best 3 yr olds.  In fact, frequently are not.  Asking a successful 2yr old to show us something at 3 is nowhere near an unreasonable request.

As others have already mentioned, the new system is not perfect and needs some tinkering, but suggesting that the old method was not broken is simply laughable.  One need look no further than the historical performance of BC Juv top finishers in the Derby for a perfect argument as to why the results of 2yr old should not be weighted anywhere near 3yr old performance, let alone as ridiculously overweighted as the old earnings method provided.

[TGJB]

Go back to bed and get up on the other side of it.

[P-Dub]

Rich Curtis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> \"Your analogies are all over the place\"
>
> Kind of like a Mike Smith ride.

Wow, another Mike Smith reference. You really know how to get under my skin. Ouch.

 
>\"All Star games are exhibitions, it doesn\'t matter who participates.\"

>Right. TV ratings don\'t matter. The fact that non-fans watch this game doesn\'t >matter.

Non fans aren\'t drawn to the race because a filly runs.

>\"Fillies aren\'t interesting if they run up the track.\"

>Nonsense. Much of the interest is pre-race.

They are one of many pre race stories. They don\'t bring in casual fans.  You\'re telling me ratings spiked because Three Rings ran in the Derby??

[Rich Curtis]

\"Wow, another Mike Smith reference. You really know how to get under my skin. Ouch.\"

 It\'s way, way too late in the game for you to try this approach, PDub. What you need to do is start ignoring the Mike Smith references, and then outlive people.

\"They are one of many pre race stories. They don\'t bring in casual fans. You\'re telling me ratings spiked because Three Rings ran in the Derby??\"

Three what? Really, PDub, who do you think is likely to attract more interest in the Derby, a filly or the type of colt the filly would be keeping out?