4/4 (AQU): Wood (G1); Carter (G1); Bay Shore (G3); Excelsior (G3) - Page 3

Linny · #41 04-03-2009, 09:09 AM

Based on his ability, he deserves to be there, but he hasn't done what he needs to do to make it. It would be as if Jerkens had again forgotten to nominate Quality Road. He belongs but his people haven't done what it takes to get there.

No reason Dunkirk didn't go to one of the graded preps instead of the allowance.

slotdirt · #42 04-03-2009, 09:13 AM

It's like saying Penn State deserved to be in the NCAA tournament this year. Sure, they might be a better team than UT-Chattanooga or Morehead State, but their out of conference schedule sucked and they didn't win the games they need to win to get in the race.

Dunkirk (or Rock Hard Ten circa 2004 if you prefer) hasn't done what is necessary to make the starting gate in the Derby, end of story.

lemoncrush · #43 04-03-2009, 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Not really, but hey, we all have our opinions.

This fall, Dunkirk may develop into one of the top 3 year olds in the country. I just don't understand the hard-on everyone has for this horse with such little seasoning and experience. Rushing to the Derby is probably not the best thing for him anyway. The current system to get into the Derby rewards horses who have experience and success (ie..graded earnings).

If dunkirk doesn't get in, it's not because he's not one of the top 20 3-year olds. It's just because he's light on experience. It's not the end of the world, unless you unloaded on him in the 2nd future pool.

Mike · #44 04-03-2009, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackthroatedwind

Giant Moon has next to no chance.

I get brought up for picking Giant Moon but not Yano?

Thanks, Andy Serling. I'll pass the Excelsior. As much as I'd like to say otherwise, I've yet to have a horse win after you gave him one of your "no chance" comments(of course, this time you said "next to no chance).

Antitrust32 · #45 04-03-2009, 09:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Not really, but hey, we all have our opinions.

would you please explain... besides the graded earning thing... why he doesnt deserve a shot in it? He'd have as good of a shot to win as anyone.. And is easily a top 5 best 3 year old.

slotdirt · #46 04-03-2009, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

would you please explain... besides the graded earning thing... why he doesnt deserve a shot in it? He'd have as good of a shot to win as anyone.. And is easily a top 5 best 3 year old.

What else is there besides the graded earning thing? That and the Kempton race are the only things that matter when it comes to the Derby starting gate. Pletcher and co. knew the rules and unless something happens, he'll be left out of the race, and deservedly so.

Antitrust32 · #47 04-03-2009, 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

It's like saying Penn State deserved to be in the NCAA tournament this year. Sure, they might be a better team than UT-Chattanooga or Morehead State, but their out of conference schedule sucked and they didn't win the games they need to win to get in the race.

Dunkirk (or Rock Hard Ten circa 2004 if you prefer) hasn't done what is necessary to make the starting gate in the Derby, end of story.

Not the best example IMO, Penn State didnt have a shot to make it the the Final Four if they got in the tourney.. but Dunkirk has a great shot to win the Kentucky Derby... in my opinion running a terrific second in the Florida Derby.. a historically top prep race.. to the most likely Derby favorite.. is doing what is necessary to be in the gate May 2nd.

Its really a shame that GS lowered the purse of that race from 1 mil to 750K or else we wouldnt even have to worry about it.

Antitrust32 · #48 04-03-2009, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

What else is there besides the graded earning thing? That and the Kempton race are the only things that matter when it comes to the Derby starting gate. Pletcher and co. knew the rules and unless something happens, he'll be left out of the race, and deservedly so.

that Kempton race makes me sick to my stomach. Churchill should be so embarrassed if that rat keeps Dunkirk outta the derby.

I hope Dunkirk wins the Preakness and Belmont so Churchill can shove it!

slotdirt · #49 04-03-2009, 10:01 AM

I disagree, historically, Dunkirk would have virtually no chance at winning the Derby, and if he makes the Derby somehow or other, I won't be spending a penny on the horse. Sorry, I'm not a believer.

Travis Stone · #50 04-03-2009, 10:05 AM

I would think running second to the favorite in the race would make your deserving enough, but you're talking about a different deserving, which makes this a semantics argument.

Sure everyone knew and knows the rules, no one is arguing that. But to say he doesn't deserve to be in the race because he didn't reach the plateau of necessary graded earnings in a system that treats a five furlong race in July 2008 the same as the nine furlong Florida Derby 2009 is weak.

Travis Stone · #51 04-03-2009, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I disagree, historically, Dunkirk would have virtually no chance at winning the Derby, and if he makes the Derby somehow or other, I won't be spending a penny on the horse. Sorry, I'm not a believer.

So is this about not liking Dunkirk as a handicapper, or about his deserving a place in the race? Historically, Big Brown would have no chance either. But times they are a changin'. (Disclaimer: I am not picking Dunkirk to win with this statement).

slotdirt · #52 04-03-2009, 10:07 AM

I guess I differ from you guys in that I think Dunkirk isn't much different than Rock Hard Ten, and even if he did end up in the Derby, wouldn't be much of a factor. Just one person's opinion on the horse.

Antitrust32 · #53 04-03-2009, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I disagree, historically, Dunkirk would have virtually no chance at winning the Derby, and if he makes the Derby somehow or other, I won't be spending a penny on the horse. Sorry, I'm not a believer.

its all good. In my opinion, the move he made in the Florida Derby was an Kentucky Derby winning move. Reminded me of Monarchos (except of course Dunkirk didnt win... but Quality Road is a bit better than Invisible Ink IMO

)

Antitrust32 · #54 04-03-2009, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

I guess I differ from you guys in that I think Dunkirk isn't much different than Rock Hard Ten, and even if he did end up in the Derby, wouldn't be much of a factor. Just one person's opinion on the horse.

but Rock Hard Ten was one of the best horses in his foal crop...

robfla · #55 04-03-2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slotdirt

Honestly, Pletcher knew the game, he gambled on Hallandale, and lost. If you don't have enough graded earnings to make the Derby, chances are, you probably don't deserve to be in the Derby, and Dunkirk is no exception.

you gotta be kidding!!

some horses accumulate graded earnings from 2 y.o. races and some of those races are just plain bad.

Antitrust32 · #56 04-03-2009, 10:35 AM

If dumb Churchill can let a slow winner from a race in England into the race..

then they should make a provision to have the top two finishers in the Bluegrass, Ark Derby, Wood, and FL derby in the race.

It is a shame that a horse can win a good purse in a 2yo stake and not race again til the Derby, but still get in over a horse who just ran second in a major prep race.

slotdirt · #57 04-03-2009, 10:44 AM

I think that would be fine, if they changed it to a "win and you're in concept." As it is though, I don't get the griping when everybody is playing under the same rules.

And Dunkirk might end up being one of the best of his generation, but I think the hype might be a bit premature.

ateamstupid · #58 04-03-2009, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

that Kempton race makes me sick to my stomach. Churchill should be so embarrassed if that rat keeps Dunkirk outta the derby.

I hope Dunkirk wins the Preakness and Belmont so Churchill can shove it!

Yeah that'll happen.

I'm pretty sick of the whining about the graded earnings requirement. Yeah it's flawed, but its objective (or at least its effect) is getting horses to run more often. In a sport with endless kvetching about how top horses never run, I would think it's a good thing that you don't get into the Derby unless you run your way in.

And I've yet to see a better alternative. Guaranteeing spots to the first two finishers of the final preps? Isn't that basically already what happens? It's rare that a horse has no previous graded earnings when they run second in one of those races.

Like someone said earlier, Pletcher didn't have to run in that allowance. Instead he could've found an easy graded spot if he thought his horse was so great. He made that decision and I don't want to hear now how poor Dunkirk has been robbed by the system.

Travis Stone · #59 04-03-2009, 11:57 AM

Win/In stuff on the Derby trail is a moot discussion as a winner of a prep never gets excluded. The flaw, in my opinion, is that races in July 2008, at 5 furlongs or whatever, are treated the same as the Florida Derby... that just doesn't make sense.

There are some viable alternatives:

* Discount 2YO graded earnings
* Points system based upon grades, eliminating the $ factor
* DerbyTrail.com vote

Antitrust32 · #60 04-03-2009, 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ateamstupid

Yeah that'll happen.

I'm pretty sick of the whining about the graded earnings requirement. Yeah it's flawed, but its objective (or at least its effect) is getting horses to run more often. In a sport with endless kvetching about how top horses never run, I would think it's a good thing that you don't get into the Derby unless you run your way in.

And I've yet to see a better alternative. Guaranteeing spots to the first two finishers of the final preps? Isn't that basically already what happens? It's rare that a horse has no previous graded earnings when they run second in one of those races.

Like someone said earlier, Pletcher didn't have to run in that allowance. Instead he could've found an easy graded spot if he thought his horse was so great. He made that decision and I don't want to hear now how poor Dunkirk has been robbed by the system.

Good for you about being sick of the whining. i'm happy for you.

its more like the fans will be robbed of seeing one of the best horses compete in the best race. I could care less about Pletcher or any trainers unless Chuck or Gary gets a real good 3yo one day.

I dont think it would bother me so much if it wasnt for the stupid Kempton Park race rule. Hopefully the horse finished last in the Blue Grass and the owners opt not to run in the Derby. Or maybe he wins and belongs in the race but I SERIOUSLY doubt that.

And I think there are flaws in allowing summer 2yo stakes money to be equivalent to major prep money. Maybe they should count half of the 2yo money? That would be more fair IMO.

Also, IMO Dunkirk has a serious shot at winning the Preakness or Belmont..