Eight Belles & Proud Spell

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by philcski

Agree on both points.

I have no problem with either of them trying the Derby, especially in this comical year, but I'd love to have seen a "test run" against the boys a la Winning Colors to have earned the graded money to run.

I talked about this on another forum but when you look back at WC's SA Derby, was that really a test against the boys? I mean, she was so far out in front and dominated so thoroughly that it's doubtful that the sex of what was running behind her was of any matter. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say that her toughest tests of the winter and spring came in the races in her own division against Goodbye Halo. Those races told us more about her than the SA Derby did. A lot of people have expressed the same thing that you have here and I'm not saying it's wrong but really, how important is it? Althea faced the boys and won the Arkansas Derby (along with a few others as a 2yo) but that didn't mean anything in the Ky Derby. Likewise for Serena's Song winning the Jim Beam. She even came back later to win the Haskell but that didn't mean anything in the Ky Derby. Genuine Risk lost the Wood but won the Derby. I've always felt that a prep is just that. It's not necessarily an indicator of what's going to happen later. I've also always felt that running outside of your division is overrated. I go back to 1989 a lot with this. That year, Sunday Silence and Easy Goer were the two best horses in the country. Well, King Glorious was the best but for the purposes of this argument, we'll go with SS and EG. Back to the point though, they were the two best. So what difference did it make that EG went out and beat older in the Whitney, JCGC, and Woodward if he couldn't beat SS in the 3yo races? In that case beating older horses didn't mean much of anything. Last year, being the best 3yo meant being the best horse in the country again. Females that ran in the female restricted races didn't get a break in 1986 when they had to face Lady's Secret, in 1988 when they had to face Personal Ensign, in 2002 when they had to face Azeri. It was probably the males that got the breaks in those years. Sometimes, your toughest competition can come from your own back yard is my point. Eight Belles probably got more out of facing what she faced in the Fantasy than had she been facing the boys out in Arkansas.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I talked about this on another forum but when you look back at WC's SA Derby, was that really a test against the boys? I mean, she was so far out in front and dominated so thoroughly that it's doubtful that the sex of what was running behind her was of any matter. In fact, I'd take it a step further and say that her toughest tests of the winter and spring came in the races in her own division against Goodbye Halo. Those races told us more about her than the SA Derby did. A lot of people have expressed the same thing that you have here and I'm not saying it's wrong but really, how important is it? Althea faced the boys and won the Arkansas Derby (along with a few others as a 2yo) but that didn't mean anything in the Ky Derby. Likewise for Serena's Song winning the Jim Beam. She even came back later to win the Haskell but that didn't mean anything in the Ky Derby. Genuine Risk lost the Wood but won the Derby. I've always felt that a prep is just that. It's not necessarily an indicator of what's going to happen later. I've also always felt that running outside of your division is overrated. I go back to 1989 a lot with this. That year, Sunday Silence and Easy Goer were the two best horses in the country. Well, King Glorious was the best but for the purposes of this argument, we'll go with SS and EG. Back to the point though, they were the two best. So what difference did it make that EG went out and beat older in the Whitney, JCGC, and Woodward if he couldn't beat SS in the 3yo races? In that case beating older horses didn't mean much of anything. Last year, being the best 3yo meant being the best horse in the country again. Females that ran in the female restricted races didn't get a break in 1986 when they had to face Lady's Secret, in 1988 when they had to face Personal Ensign, in 2002 when they had to face Azeri. It was probably the males that got the breaks in those years. Sometimes, your toughest competition can come from your own back yard is my point. Eight Belles probably got more out of facing what she faced in the Fantasy than had she been facing the boys out in Arkansas.

Yeah Winning Colors Santa Anita Derby got nothing out of the Santa Anita Derby. Winning by 12 in 147 told us nothing about her. These fillies aren't dominating their division. If WC had run in the oaks that year she would have been 2-5. She was clearly the best filly and her SA Derby showed her to be tons better than the CA males and at least on par with the other colts. Not so with these 2.

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Yeah Winning Colors Santa Anita Derby got nothing out of the Santa Anita Derby. Winning by 12 in 147 told us nothing about her. These fillies aren't dominating their division. If WC had run in the oaks that year she would have been 2-5. She was clearly the best filly and her SA Derby showed her to be tons better than the CA males and at least on par with the other colts. Not so with these 2.

I didn't say she got nothing out of the race. I said that I don't think we learned anything about her from the race. I said that I don't think that the sex of the competition in the SA Derby was of any significance. I said that she was challenged more in the filly races against Goodbye Halo than she was in the SA Derby. If her SA Derby showed her to be tons better than the CA males, then perhaps Goodbye Halo was a Derby quality filly too because judging by her relation to WC, she was the second-best 3yo in CA that year. I think perhaps Eight Belles hasn't been dominating her division on appearance is because she's been facing some pretty decent fillies. I think Pure Clan is better than anything she would have faced in the Arkansas Derby.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by King Glorious

I didn't say she got nothing out of the race. I said that I don't think we learned anything about her from the race. I said that I don't think that the sex of the competition in the SA Derby was of any significance. I said that she was challenged more in the filly races against Goodbye Halo than she was in the SA Derby. If her SA Derby showed her to be tons better than the CA males, then perhaps Goodbye Halo was a Derby quality filly too because judging by her relation to WC, she was the second-best 3yo in CA that year. I think perhaps Eight Belles hasn't been dominating her division on appearance is because she's been facing some pretty decent fillies. I think Pure Clan is better than anything she would have faced in the Arkansas Derby.

I learned that she was a superior horse. Beating Goodbye Halo didnt prove that. Crushing males in a major Derby prep does. You cant compare WC with these fillies because they have very little in common other than being female.

[justindew]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I learned that she was a superior horse. Beating Goodbye Halo didnt prove that. Crushing males in a major Derby prep does. You cant compare WC with these fillies because they have very little in common other than being female.

They're all sisters.

[King Glorious]

Well, my only point was that going out of your division doesn't mean that you will automatically be tested harder. Sometimes, the toughest tests can come within your own division. IMO, that was the case with Winning Colors in 1988 and that's the case with Eight Belles in 2008.

[Thunder Gulch]

Winning Colors ran against Forty Niner and Risen Star. Too early to know, but I suspect we don't have those two in the race this year.

I understand what you guys are saying about earnings in races restricted to fillies. Consider, however, that the purses for those are less, so they have to run better more consistently to match total graded earnings. A couple of thirds in smaller fields for the colts does the same as winning the Ashland? Which is better?

[King Glorious]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I think you're missing Phil's point King. Not to speak for him, but I think he meant more in terms of earnings against males. A case could be made that the fillies earnings shouldn't count, unless the earnings were against males, since the filly races are restricted to sex.

If that's his point, I agree with it. Same for European horses.

[lemoncrush]

I hope they both enter and get drilled.
I'm not sure if I would bet either of these fillies to win the oaks, much less give them a shot in the derby.

Rags to Riches was a non-brainer to enter the Belmont last year, based on destroying the field in the Oaks and her pedigree.

Proud Spell's last race wasn't exactly impressive, and Eight Belles had to run extremely hard to beat a small field in the Fantasy at Oaklawn.
Good fillies no doubt, but for both to try to derby is silly.

[zippyneedsawin]

Originally Posted by lemoncrush

I hope they both enter and get drilled.
I'm not sure if I would bet either of these fillies to win the oaks, much less give them a shot in the derby.

Rags to Riches was a non-brainer to enter the Belmont last year, based on destroying the field in the Oaks and her pedigree.

Proud Spell's last race wasn't exactly impressive, and Eight Belles had to run extremely hard to beat a small field in the Fantasy at Oaklawn.
Good fillies no doubt, but for both to try to derby is silly.

It's your call, but I'm not going to hold a poly track effort against her.

[philcski]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I think you're missing Phil's point King. Not to speak for him, but I think he meant more in terms of earnings against males. A case could be made that the fillies earnings shouldn't count, unless the earnings were against males, since the filly races are restricted to sex.

Correct, neither of them have to have run against boys yet to tell me they can compete this year, but I find it mildly unfair that they could rack up their earnings requirement in restricted races.

[sumitas]

Originally Posted by DaHoss9698

I think you're missing Phil's point King. Not to speak for him, but I think he meant more in terms of earnings against males. A case could be made that the fillies earnings shouldn't count, unless the earnings were against males, since the filly races are restricted to sex.

I agree. Winning money in restricted races for fillies is not in the same league as graded earnings in races open to any entrant. It is outrageous that these 2 could bump some horses that battled in open stakes.

[cmorioles]

2yo races should count. Filly races should not. All horses from the Derby crop are eligible to compete in the 2yo races. All horses from the same crop are not eligible to compete in filly races.

I think sprints should be excluded as well, but that is a tougher sell. If you exclude by distance, you could argue turf and sythetic races shouldn't count either. (Side note: Will they actually call it the BC Dirt Mile this year?)

[Danzig]

i think you'd see the AE list occur long before filly graded races are taken out of the rules.

[sumitas]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think you'd see the AE list occur long before filly graded races are taken out of the rules.

Filly graded earnings discriminate against colts because they are not allowed to enter the races. A law suit should settle this nonsense and I'd like to see one from the owners of the excluded colts in this years derby if the fillies bump them.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by sumitas

Filly graded earnings discriminate against colts because they are not allowed to enter the races. A law suit should settle this nonsense and I'd like to see one from the owners of the excluded colts in this years derby if the fillies bump them.

What grounds would you sue them for? Bad judgement?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by cmorioles

2yo races should count. Filly races should not. All horses from the Derby crop are eligible to compete in the 2yo races. All horses from the same crop are not eligible to compete in filly races.

I think sprints should be excluded as well, but that is a tougher sell. If you exclude by distance, you could argue turf and sythetic races shouldn't count either. (Side note: Will they actually call it the BC Dirt Mile this year?)

Maybe they can change the name of the Oaks to the Female Derby?

[Linny]

Young Ladies Derby.

[cmorioles]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Maybe they can change the name of the Oaks to the Female Derby?

I take it you don't agree?

[sumitas]

I'mnot much for the old Clintonesque affirmative action which is emobodied in this stupid Churchill Downs policy for graded stakes. It just lessons the derby, which is ok, because it's over rated anyway.