Kentucky Derby Field Size to be Studied

[ALostTexan]

Link to Story

A Jockey Club panel will be studying whether the number of horses allowed into the Kentucky Derby poses a safety risk.

Looks like this is being attributed to Eight Belles, as is everything else that goes wrong in the sport. You can bet that CDI will fight limiting the field size, as it will hurt the handle...

[eajinabi]

How did the field size have anything to do with eight belles breaking down.

[ALostTexan]

It had ABSOLUTELY nothing, but the panel was created, and now needs more to do. Everything negative in the sport that is mentioned in mainstream media for probably the next 3-4 years will have to bring up Eight Belles, and you can guarantee that people that know nothing about the sport will assume and blame the field size for her injury.

[zippyneedsawin]

Maybe they should let each horse run one at a time.. and just compare the final times to determine the winner.

[joeydb]

A study? OK, here's the findings: 134 races, with large fields in recent years limited to 20, and 1 fatality.

What's the percentages on that?

Nobody says that Churchill Downs has to keep large fields -- it's up to them, and yes, they are concerned with the handle. But it's the large fields that actually let something happen like 2005 where the superfecta can literally change your life. That part is good for the sport.

[Mag]

They already studied this back when the field was limited to 20, it doesn't need to be limited any further. This is why you have jockeys....to navigate.

[Cannon Shell]

what exactly is there to study?

[smartyalex]

Just imagine a synthetic Derby with thirteen horses. Kudos Jockey Club. The press will eat this up.....and from the recent indicatons they have more influence on the sport than anyone else does.

[hi_im_god]

i think a variable maximum number of runners each year based on talent should be established.

in baseball, there's the mendoza line. the derby needs a cowtown cat line.

[Pedigree Ann]

1974 was the first year that the Derby field went over 20 runners, as I recall. Everybody and his cousin wanted to run a horse in the 100th Kentucky Derby and some pretty decent horses didn't get a clear run; the winner would have paid boxcars if he hadn't been coupled with the Blue Grass winner (he had no 3yo stakes wins, only a 2nd in the Florida Derby).

Beyond the Derby fever factor that the press does its best to drum up, I believe that the limited campaigns of horses these days does a lot to make for an oversized field; the 3yos haven't run enough for us and their owners to know whether they really belong.

Consider the 1969 Derby field. Coming into the Derby were 4 horses who had won/placed in multiple major preps - Majestic Prince (Santa Anita Derby, San Jacinto, San Vicente), Arts and Letters (Blue Grass, Everglades), Top Knight (Flamingo, Florida Derby, 2yo champ), and Dike (Wood Memorial, Gotham). Only 4 others ran and they finished 4th, 6th, 7th and 8th. Horses who got beaten up in multiple preps, even if they had won one here or there, didn't bother to show up for a further drubbing.

[ELA]

The story, while being accurate, is also taking much out of context. First, this one isolated item was part of numerous recommendations that the panel has made. It was not stressed, discussed or made to be a key point. Second, the so called "study" of field size was referenced in a summary and did not mention Eight Belles at all. Was her breakdown the catalyst? Here goes the debate.

This was a several hour symposium that touched upon many very crucial issues that impact our sport and industry. Focusing on just this very one serves a very limited purpose.

In my opinion, from watching the entire symposium, this one item was positioned as perhaps the least important recommendation made in that the others were elaborated on and discussed in more detail and more detail was provided in other parts of the discussion.

Eric