[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by parsixfarms

Based on recent comments from Churchill officials (especially after Eight Belles), it is highly unlikely that Churchill is going to reduce the field size, as they love the image of a "stampede" of horses coming through the stretch the first quarter mile. Even if they were inclined to consider such a change, I just don't know that reducing field size is necessarily going to "clean up" the running of the race. If my memory serves me, the 1994 Derby had a pretty rough run into the clubhouse turn, and it had "only" 14 horses. On an every day basis, we see rough race-riding in five and six horse fields.

If you take six slots from the starting gate, it would only make the "qualification" system mean more. As it currently stands, in most years, the horses that have been excluded on earnings are real longshots; by reducing the field size, you are only increasing the likelihood of controversy attendant to who gets in. That being said, as a strong believer in the law of unintended consequences, reducing the field size might have the unintended result of forcing trainers to actually campaign their horses up to the Derby. Whether that is a good or bad thing given the current state of the American thoroughbred is uncertain.

If we want to make changes, perhaps the best route would be to set specific conditions...must have 5 starts with at least two during three year old season, must have at least one of 9 furlongs (or greater), must have more than maiden win (for example). But that will never fly! The Derby is every owner's "dream race" and it's hard to deny anyone who invests in the sport his/her dream, even if their horse has no real chance.