How would YOU fix it?

[Linny]

I just ranted for 4 paragraphs on the thread about the fillies entering and scratching from the Derby.

What rules would you write? How would you assure that the best possible field is assembled for the Dery each year?

[Gander]

I like allowing also eligibles, like I think Cannon Shell wrote in another thread.
Why is this such a hard concept? Because it screws up a stupid Derby Draw show? That was resolved too, by saying whoever is on the also eligible list automatically draws the farthest outside posts accordingly if they draw in.
They can still have there fun little show and focus on the main 20 horses that are entered and worry about who gets in based on who scratches.

[SniperSB23]

My thoughts are here:

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6688

[MisterB]

If you are lucky enough to be able to cross enter, then bravo to the trainer or trainers that can. They went out and won the cash, and are playing by the rules. Is it fair to some other trainer on the bubble? I am more concerned about the horse who comes in and has little or no chance to win this race. What good does that do? 20 horses in a race is not a good race, fun to watch, but totally a stampede.

Reading the many comments, I guess the AE's is the best way to counter a bad rule.

[Danzig]

limit field to 14 starters.
graded stakes earnings as a three year old only would be the deciding factor-no consideration for earnings at two.
also eligibles.
no refund if you scratch due to post position-which would probably not happen anyway if field was limited to 14.

[lemoncrush]

I would rank the horses by earnings in graded stakes races one mile or longer.
The also eligible list is obvious, but I think any filly who enters must not only be in the top 20 in overall graded earnings, but have at least a small percentage (10-15% or more?) accumulated in non-restricted races.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by lemoncrush

I would rank the horses by earnings in graded stakes races one mile or longer.
The also eligible list is obvious, but I think any filly who enters must not only be in the top 20 in overall graded earnings, but have at least a small percentage (10-15% or more?) accumulated in non-restricted races.

the colts are presently allowed to use all graded earnings, which include restricted racing as two year olds-if that's allowed, i don't see how the fillies should get penalized on the same type of thing... altho i personally would have tried a filly vs colts prior to the derby.

[philcski]

Why is everyone clamoring for a smaller field???

Across the pond(s), they regularly have fields of 18-20 in ALL levels of competition. Yet for America's greatest race, nobody wants more than 14. WHY! I'd love to see 20 horse fields EVERY DAY!

[tector]

Originally Posted by philcski

Why is everyone clamoring for a smaller field???

Across the pond(s), they regularly have fields of 18-20 in ALL levels of competition. Yet for America's greatest race, nobody wants more than 14. WHY! I'd love to see 20 horse fields EVERY DAY!

Have you ever seen a European race course? Have you seen how the races are run?

If you routinely had 20 horse fields at most American tracks, on dirt, carnage would result. GP's turf course could handle it easily, and maybe some others--but not most places.

[tector]

Discount 2YO races (either sex) and 3YO filly races by 50% in purse amount for the calculation of graded earnings--they just aren't as relevant nowadays.

Discount races outside the US or Canada completely--if they want to run in the Derby, they can run in a prep or two here, too. It would probably be better for them to do so anyway, although some folks (e.g. Prince Megabucks of Dubai) are apparently too stubborn to realize it.

Add an also eligible list.

Done. If somebody wants to suggest that two or three spots are awarded outside of graded earnings, by committee, we can discuss it, but I don't think that is an essential reform. It would also allow a backdoor for talented foreign horses who don't prep here, so the Kentucky slaves would surely love this for their Arab masters.

[hockey2315]

Not A Smaller Field

[lemoncrush]

Originally Posted by Danzig

the colts are presently allowed to use all graded earnings, which include restricted racing as two year olds-if that's allowed, i don't see how the fillies should get penalized on the same type of thing... altho i personally would have tried a filly vs colts prior to the derby.

Yes, by restricted I meant female restricted races. Obviously all of the 2 year old races are restricted to the same age group.

[whodey17]

I think only one thing should be changed. I like the idea of only counting the graded earnings of those races that are not restricted.

A/E list to me doesn't make a whole bunch of sense. For one, you have advanced day wagering and 2nd it costs alot of money to ship a horse to the Derby just to be an A/E. And how many A/E's would actually run in the Derby if they knew they were getting post 19 or 20.

The connections of these horse have had plenty of time to get the earnings needed to make the field for the Derby.

And I also do not like to have so many horses in the field. I think 16 is fine. So a few scratches doesn't bother me at all.

[TheSpyder]

To me the only issue is cross entering although I like the ideas of how you come up with starters. Nice job Sniper

The main issue should be solved by not allowing cross entering and have them declare a week before whether they want to race in the Derby or Oaks. Problem solved.


Next

Spyder

[Danzig]

but isn't cross entering generally allowed? i understand that the derby is THE DERBY, but why change a bunch of rules? ae's are allowed elsewhere as well, dime supers too for that matter.

[sdjcom]

Have you seen the courses they run on ? wide plenty of room no sharp turns.

[Charismatic1]

Sniper's list has it near perfect. A point system based on Derby/Triple Crown relevance is far better than earnings, which we know can be inflated (e.g. - Delta Jackpot). If earnings continue to be used, then only the top 12 should be guaranteed according to earnings while the other 8 are decided by a panel. This will ensure that some stragglers (horses who mainly gained earnings in sprints or 2yo races) don't get in. Now, using Sniper's list for the sake of argument, it is possible that a late developing horse who wins one of the big races could miss the Derby (Big Brown?). In most cases, things will probably work out, but perhaps having a panel select the last three or four could ensure that funky things don't happen.

Lastly, we should stop trying to make the Derby like every other race. I'm not bothered by a 20 horse field for our most special race. It's just one of the many things that makes the Derby different and special. As long as the horse that crosses the wire first is still called the winner, I'm fine with most things that are different about the Derby.

[ArlJim78]

i'd take the current set-up before I'd have a panel deciding anything.